More obfuscation.
Kind is a biblical term, not a scientific one. Macroevolution is clearly defined as species-level change. Check it out! (Avoid the creationist sites though; they lie.)
Ring species deal with species, not kinds, or NEW KINDS (whatever they are). And as an additional benefit, ring species preserve all of those "transitionals" or "intermediates" that creationists claim could never exist. No wonder you don't like ring species!
And the link you provided to Answers in Genesis is worthless. They are an avowed anti-science, pro-creationist website. To write for them you must agree to their Statement of Faith. (For the lurkers, please take a look at this and ask yourselves if agreeing to this kind of a statement seems consistent with doing science. Most all of the large creationist organizations have such a statement required for membership. One even requires that that statement be renewed each year!)
Not surprisingly, given the Statement of Faith required for AiG membership, their article "refuting" ring species, which you linked to, deals with religion, not science. For example:
Many have been misled into thinking this is evidence for evolution and against biblical creation. However, some thought reveals otherwise. The key to understanding this is to consider the vast amounts of complex information in all living things, coding for functionally useful structures and processes.Get back to us when you have something that actually argues against ring species or any of the other well-established principles in science.Creation as described in the book of Genesis implies that virtually all the genetic information in todays world was present in the beginning, contained in separate populations (the original created kinds).
This information would not be expected to increase, but could decrease with timein other words, any genetic changes would be expected to be informationally downhill. Source
[[Macroevolution is clearly defined as species-level change. Check it out! ]]
Nope sorry- it isn’t- you of course need it to be- but simple genetic change falls far short of the criteria for true MACROEvolution. Change from a species KIND to antoehr KIND is absolutely absent in the fossil record- much to the chagrin of those hwo claim any change is MACROEvolution. KINDS remain KINDS as testified by the fossil records
[[To write for them you must agree to their Statement of Faith.]]
Faithful design denialist to hte end- please tell us Coyoteman how your statement refutes ANY of the information provided on the site? It doesn’t- it’s nothign but a petty regurgitation of a NON issue. Regurgitatiing NON issues does nothign to advance your cause Coyoteman- it only shows an unwillingness (perhaps innability) to address the FACTS stated on the site
Get back to me when you can provide some actual scientific evidence linking dissimiliar species instead of just irrelevent personal opinions about a site (I don’t expect I’ll be hearing back from you any time soon then)