The pattern of this thread is odd - @AJRoberts makes one statement, and twenty long posts describe why it is not a statement of anything. It seems rather like the class talking about the unpopular kid when she’s out of the room.
Maybe it’s because I don’t see any scientific significance in “created kinds,” so can’t get enthused to discuss it. I’d be the kid making paper aeroplanes in the corner.
But what strikes me is that the criticisms made of her words are worth reflecting on as applied to evolutionary concepts too. In principle variation, neutral evolution and adaptive selection are “free agents,” so that Argon’s horizontal transfers happily break down the neat (???) nested hierarchies as much as they break down the biblical kinds. And that’s not surprising.
Yet the debate since Linnaeus, about which biological categories of classification are “natural” and which merely “useful,” continues. There are phyla and classes, and the evidence is that they generally emerge in the record top down rather than by gradual divergence, and remain stable thereafter. Interbreeding between genera is rare enough to be the exception that proves the rule. What prevents those nested hierarchies simply jumping out of the nest for hundreds of millions of years? What in evolutionary theory prevents bats from developing feathers by convergence?
So it seems to me if the creationists need to show why there are exceptions to kinds, it’s equally a problem to say how there are natural categories in non-creationist biology at all, when (unlike creationsim) there is no theory of universals in nature.