[.. They are the same species and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. “Kind” is a religious term with no application in science. ..]
LoL.. Thats why I used it(”Kind”).. but the term is meaningful..
Pretty insightful of “bronze aged” knuckle draggers that wrote the bible eh!..
They didn’t have the term “species”’..
Job talked of the earth hanging in space on nothing is precient..
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Schneider.html
There are other examples too, noted in the url.. “Kind” works just fine even today..
28 centuries ago talking of the earth hanging “as a sphere” in space was a hidden “meme”.. Who could grasp the reality of it?.. THEN...
Even today one wonders what “God” could share with us today IF “we” were able to concieve or process it?.. Like the ending chapters of the Book of Revelation.. Little wonder Jesus spoke mainly in metaphor.. not only but mostly.. Speaking about what “life” is.. spiritually.. If there “are” spirits, what are they?.. Does a carrot have a spirit?.. Are there levels/kinds of spirit(life).. That would make species and genera(on earth) metaphors of what life really is.. i.e. species of spirit.. Interesting thought, to me..
If true then scientists are in for an “OH MY GOD, if I would have only known” moment at some future time..
"Kind" is a religious term, based on scripture, that has failed to account for the evidence found by modern science. It misses little things like common descent, as shown by genetic studies. (Duh!)
Why else has the study of "kinds" been transformed into "baraminology" (the study of created kinds) in an attempt to make it seem more scientific?
But that effort has failed. The reason: in its rules of classification, baraminology gives the greatest weight to scripture!
It's nothing more than religion in a new package, seeking to fool the unwary and the uneducated. Much like ID!