[[Then you will, no doubt tell us what the precise definition of Kind is,]]
Or else what JS- You know full well the concept of kinds is perfectly ligit, and that it more closely follows species classifications than does phyologeny- but since it doesn’t have an exact definition- you apaprently htink it isn’t ligit? Go play that game elsewhere- Yuo can find far more precise scientific classifications in baraminology than you can phylogeny
[[and what it tells us to expect in yet to be found fossils.]]
You know full well what it predicts- discontinuity- and that’s exactly what we find- You and yours can play htis little symantics game all day long if you like- but the bottom line is biology, the fossil records and experimentations show there are parameters and that species DISCONTINUE, that there are NO continuities without massive assumptions and far reaching assertions that aren’t backed up by hte fossil records, and that the bariminological classifications are exactly what we see in nature.
Baraminology has several classifications which are precise enough to disclose htis FACT- whether you feel it does or not has no relevence to hte actual observable, testable and predictable evidneces.
I guess when you got nothign better to throw, you resort to excusing your own hyptohesis’ shortcomings and htne turning around and placing an arbitrary demand that you KNOW fukll well is problematic for both sides as though that moot problem somehow invalidates the scientific practice when it does not- and intimating that it does is intellectually dishonest and you know it
You have written a lot of text, but you haven’t defined Kind or explained what the barrier is to speciation.