"Variation within it's kind does not mean evolution."
Define *kind*.
It most certainly does. Why don't you toodle off and learn some biology before you attempt to lecture us again?
But while you're at it, feel free to define "kind" in a way that can be objectively determined. Is the vertebrate taxon a "kind"? Why or why not, and how have you determined this? How about "mammals"? "Eukaryotes"? "Eutherians"?
"Carnivores"? "Ungulates"? Share your wisdom with the people who do this kind of thing for a living, they're just dying to acquire the hard-won insights of someone who has read a few creationist pamphlets.
A Doberman and Pekingese are still dogs.
But they are no longer the same, genetically or phenotypically, as their ancestors. Nor are they even the same species as their more distant ancestors, the wolves. that's evolution.
A Shetland and a Clydesdale are still horses.
But they are no longer the same, genetically or phenotypically, as the ancestral horse from which they descended. That *is* evolution. It's not *speciation*, but then no one but clueless anti-evolutionists think that evolution consists only of speciation.
A short person and tall person are still humans.
No one said they weren't. Enjoy beating up that straw man.
bttt
And a hummingbird and a condor are both birds - but can they mate with each other and produce offspring?