[DittoJed2]

In layman's terms, a kind is that which produces offspring with itself. Regardless of the genetic similarities between a human and a chimp (which is a good example), you aren't going to have a human (this is gross) having sex with a chimp and have a huepansee. That is my definition of "kind". You may end up with a similar ancestor between a zebra and horse, possibly. Another example would be the bird-dinosaur theory. It is debated whether dinos were warm or cold blooded, which is an issue in itself, but lung structure of birds apparently negates the theory anyway. You aren't going to have lizards mating with birds and coming up with a transitional species.

[Physicist]

you aren't going to have a human (this is gross) having sex with a chimp and have a huepansee.

Of course, that is perfectly consistent with evolution.

That is my definition of "kind".

Before you seemed to say that "kind" referred to "family". Now you say it's "species". But this gets back to why I asked you about bears. Different species of bears can reportedly produce viable offspring with each other...but not always. So how many "kinds" of bear are there?

Then, too, there are many different "kinds" of ant, even within the same colony! They can't all produce viable offspring with each other. It's not a definition that is very easily applied.

Worst of all, it leaves you with the problem of how Noah got all those species of beetles onto the Ark.

You aren't going to have lizards mating with birds and coming up with a transitional species.

That's good, because it would fly in the face of evolution if they could. Once again, you aren't debunking evolution, but rather your misconceptions about it.