The term "kind" has an interesting connotation in the original language. From
men ~miyn, it means to "portion out", not necessarily species as many assume. At that, Strongs has an interesting commentary on it
Groups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved—not gained. A new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind". In other words, a more direct translation is that the term is that they share a common genetic ancestor. Like the phrase "the earth brought forth", the meaning could be a simple way of describing a far greater process than the limited language of the early writers could describe or understand.
Adaptation is not evolution. When all is said and done, a walrus will not change to a bird. Dogs adapted from a common ancestor, but ALL are still dogs, none are now goats.
Evolution is a non-starter.