Multiple species form a 'kind'. Dogs, coyotes and wolves are separate species but the same 'kind'. They can all interbreed. This is not counter to prevailing creationist.
Since you can't test your hypothesis that snakes w/ legs and snakes without cannot interbreed, you have no *scientific* basis for your position that they are a separate 'kind'.
And you are *assuming* that legs 'evolved' first and then were lost. It is much more consistent w/ observation that they were *created* first and then lost. Species losing function is easily observed. Species 'evolving' legs is not observed.
When you say that 'you have to look at the whole genetic heirarchial history', then you are imposing your *beliefs* on a set of evidence.
I know that's what you must do. I'm just trying to get you to understand that's what you're doing.
That is why science develops multiple, independent lines of evidence.
Two points. First, where is the evidence legs were created. Simple answer - there isn't any.
Second point. The presence of vesigal legs in snakes is not a degradation of information. A true degradation would be the lack of any leg like structures or associated anatomy. Snakes still have these components, but they are simply not developed into full legs. There was no real loss of information as demonstrated by the mere presence of vesigal structures. Genetically, the structures simply are regulated to stop growing at an earlier point. It is an illusion information is degraded or lost.
When you say that 'you have to look at the whole genetic heirarchial history', then you are imposing your *beliefs* on a set of evidence.
And about genetic sciences. That's rock solid stuff. There is no speculation. Only wishful thinking on the part of creationist types that cannot refute the clearly demonstrated genetic relationships between living things. Yopu are sticking your head in the sand and essentially saying that evidence, that is quantifiable facts, require belief. At this point, you are basically saying that you don't care what reality says, you chose NOT to beileve it. At that point, your credibility has diminished faster than a defense witness in the Dover ID case.Multiple species form a 'kind'. Dogs, coyotes and wolves are separate species but the same 'kind'. They can all interbreed. This is not counter to prevailing creationist.
So speciation is not enough to demonstrate evolution? Sounds like a moving bar to me. Once it has been shown that speciation has occurred in the lab, that does not become good enough. So evolution at the genus level is the next creationist bar? Cats and dogs are both mammals so a new genus between the two would still be a 'kind.'
The whole idea of 'kind' is so loosely based as to be laughable. You can't specifically define it but you use the term as it suits you. Even in biology, the terms species and genus are human labels based on human definitions. Nature doesn't care what we call things.
Chihuahuas and great Danes? Mating, not being fertilized in a Petri dish? I'm climing that the sizes are too different. Show me some proof if they're not.