For further information about "kinds" here's a very good and detailed source.
Biblical Kind
Here you can see that a "kind" can cover anything from the pictures above to near species level.
Thank you for the link....that was very interesting.
The conclusion is also interesting.....
"Conclusion
The Hebrew word for "kind" in the Bible can be very specific. Although "miyn" (Strong's Concordance H4327) may sometimes refer to a broad class of animals, it certainly also refers to animals at nearly the species level of classification. There is no Biblical support for the assertion that genetic information cannot be gained, nor for any "change barrier" that restricts how far a "kind" may evolve."
Reading the last sentence says a lot about the writer and his ideas. This, I gather, is to lead the reader to his conclusion...that 'evolution' is part of the creative process. I guess it is if your definition of "evolution" in this statement is really only "adaptation". Of course genetic information can change....but it is restricted to within a "kind". There is a "change barrier" that restricts how far that change can go, which applies to all creatures. The gaps in the "chain" of evolution are proof of this. The truth is...there never were any gaps to fill in the first place.
This part too was enlightening.....
"The Biblical usage of "kind" is close to the scientific usage of "species". The Biblical phrase "after their kind" is commonly interpreted to imply fixity of species in Genesis 1, but this interpretation is not consistent with the usage in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Species is defined scientifically as reproductive isolation; organisms are of the same species if they can interbreed successfully, and are of different species if they cannot. In the case of fossils, where the reproductive test cannot be conducted, different species are distinguished by morphology (physical characteristics). If two fossils look different enough, they are classified as different species. A panel of scientists may judge the differences in morphology. This practice also matches the Biblical usage, where different organisms are identified by how they look. If two populations can be reliably distinguished, then they are different Biblical "kinds".
Fossils form a large part of science's conclusions regarding how species evolved. But "Morphology" is their idea and taken to extremes that can never be verified. Their "test" for relationship is not really all that scientific though, is it? They basically use the "Biblical" method to identify which creature is of the same, or a similar "kind". They look for physical similarities. They find fossil bones millions of years apart and if they exhibit "similarity" it is assumed that they are related and have evolved their differences. Interpretation is what leads to their conclusion....not really exact science though, is it?
The other part that caught my attention is this...the use of the word "bara"....
"Bara: to create, form, make, produce; to cut, to cut down; to engrave, to carve. This word occurs in the very first verse of the Bible (Gen 1:1). Bara emphasizes the initiation of the object, not manipulating it alter [sic] original creation. The word as used in the Qal [the simple active or stative form of the conjugation] refers only to an activity which can be performed by God. Entirely new productions are associated with bara (Ex. 34:10; Num. 16:30; Ps 51:10; Is 4:5; 41:20; 48:7; 65:17, 18; Jer. 31:22). The word also possesses the meaning of "bringing into existence" in Is. 43:1; Ezek 21:30; 28:13, 15. Therefore, it is not surprising that it is used in Gen 1:1, 21, 27; 2:3. There is every reason to believe that bara was creation ex nihilo (out of nothing).
Unfortunately for Spiros Zodhiates, the Bible contradicts his last sentence about creation ex nihilo. Humans and animals were not created out of nothing; according to Genesis 2, we were created out of dirt. Genesis 2 also contradicts Zodhiates' assertion that bara does not refer to manipulating something after the original creation; God manipulated the soil in Genesis 2 to form humans and the animals."
This is a misconstrued notion. The word "bara" is entirely appropriate since there was one Creator who brought matter into existence and one 'fabricator' who put matter together to form all that exists in the universe.
Bible writers identify the agency "through" whom the Creator brought life to this lifeless planet. Genesis 1:26..
."Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness".....The Creator becomes an "us" and an "our". There was a team of two, using the power that emanates from the Creator....his spirit or active force. (Genesis 1:2)
John 1:2-3 identifies the "Logos" (the pre-human Jesus)...
."This one was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence."
So we have an assistant with the Creator....his "firstborn son". The Creator has no beginning but as the progenitor of all life, he gave capacity to others to pass life on to others. Not in just one way.
The apostle Paul identified Jesus as this one....
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all things were made to exist" (Colossians 1:15-17)
The agent is himself a creation. (Revelation 3:14)
So clearly, the Bible teaches that there is one Creator and one who was used by him to bring all things into existence. It speaks of the 'things visible and invisible' so it covers all that exists, whether seen or unseen.
It is one thing to skim the contents of links and assume a conclusion....but another to actually comprehend what they say.
