What set of assumptions? And, again, what "kind" is a porpoise?
To which genus do cattalo belong?
Odd. Genetically manipulated hybrids such as cattalo are problematic for the proponents of "kinds", which you appear to be. On the other hand, they pose no explanatory difficulty in a common descent setting, and indeed demonstrate the inherent malleability of classification systems.
The more pertinent question is, what "kind" is a cattalo?
You folks ask for the precise definition of KINDS as though if it can’t be precisely defined, then you’ve got some sort of falsification for KINDS, but yet you can’t even precisely define species or give biological evidence for connections between continuities that you claim are related.
The definition of KINDS has been given many many times here on FR, but yet evidently, you Evo folks ignore it and continue to ask in every evo/creo thread. KINS is a term used to describe discontinuity of species- something for which there is biological evidence- Continuity has no biological evidence between different KINDS- the only way to claim continuance is to propose nothign but assumptions. The linean KINDS is far more biologically viable than the cladistic system that is based on scientifically missing facts and asasumptions. KINDS is based on precise bariminological biological science (When you folks have biological evidence for continuances between dissimilar KINDS, then you can demand a more precise definition- until then, you cladistic classification system is a far more problem riddled system than bariminology, and if you’re suggesting that because there are problems with bariminology, then it must not be true science, then you have just confessed that your own cladistic system should not be taught in schools either because it has far more problems and heck, even biological impossibilities than bariminology does, and thus shlould not be called science. You folks really NEED more scientifically valid arguments against Creation/ID than the ones you present- because quite frankly, the ones you present fall flat on their faces when compared to the more biologically valid and demonstratable creation/id models:
Holobaramin: A Holobaramin is a grouping that contains all organisms related by descent, not excluding any. For example, Humans are a holobaramin, meaning all members of our species (Homo sapiens) are descended from a singular creation event (i.e. the creation of Adam and Eve) and will always be fully and completely human. Culturally, many racial ideas and myths still stubbornly linger on, but recent research regarding genetic diversity in humans, has convinced a great majority of scientists that “race” is no longer a useful concept in understanding our species) An example would be dogs, which form a holobaramin since wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard the Ark, and there are no other creatures that are genetically continuous with them. This term is synonymous with the use of “baramin” above and is the primary term in baraminology.
Monobaramin: A monobaramin is an ad hoc group of organisms who share common descent. Any group of specific members of a holobaramin such as wolves, poodles, and terriers or the humans Tom, Dick, and Harry are monobarmins. Holobaramins contain monobaramins; for instance, wolves are a monobaramin of the Dog holobaramin.
Apobaramin: An apobaramin is a group of holobaramins. Humans and Dogs are an apobaramin since both members are holobaramins. A group containing Caucasians and wolves is not an apobaramin since both members are monobaramins.
Polybaramin: A polybaramin is an ad hoc group of organisms where at least one of the members must not be a holobaramin and must be unrelated to any or all of the others. For example: Humans, wolves and a duck are a polybaraminic group. This term is useful for describing such hodgepodge mixtures of creatures.
Three additional terms introduced by Wise:[2]
Archaebaramin: An archaebaramin is the originally-created individual(s) of a given holobaramin. For instance, Adam and Eve form the archaebaramin of the holobaramin of Humanity.
Neobaramin & Paleobaramin: A neobaramin is the living population of a given holobaramin, whereas a paleobaramin represents older forms of a given holobaramin. Neobaramins have undergone genetic degradation from their perfectly created forms (archaebaramin) and so may differ from their paleobaramins in notable ways. For example, the neobaramin of Humanity has a much shorter lifespan and greater prevalence of genetic diseases than the Human paleobaramin (e.g. Adam lived for 930 years[3] and his children could interbreed without fear of deformity[4]).
In order to determine the baraminicity of a given group of organisms, baraminic demarcation must be evaluated. This process involves four foundational concepts[5]:
Biological Character Space (BCS): A theoretical multidimensional space in which each character (e.g. height or color) of an organism comprises a dimension, and particular states of that character occupy unique positions along the dimension. A single organism is therefore precisely defined by a single point in the multidimensional space.
Potentiality Region: A region of that biological character space within which organismal form is possible. Therefore, any point in the biological character space that is not within a potentiality region describes an organism that cannot exist.
Continuity: describes the relationship between two organisms which are either in the same potentiality region, or linked to each other by a third, such that transmutation between the two is theoretically possible.
Discontinuity: describes the relationship between two organisms which are in disconnected potentiality regions, such that transmutation between the two is impossible.
[[The more pertinent question is, what “kind” is a cattalo?]]
The Bison and the cattle are the same KIND and respresent continuance- when the Cattalo miraculously produces a biologically impossible NEW kind, such as somethign like an amphibian, and you have evidence for that, then let us know, then we’ll have us an interesting discussion- until then, the Cattalo is fully within the continuance parameters of the same KIND
Which is another way of saying they are inherently unmeaningful. As I said earlier - arbitrary and capricious.
A biblical “kind” is not part of a systematic taxonomic nomenclature. It is a concept.
The concept implies a limited range of variation.