KIND
"To understand the true history of life on Earth, it is important that creation biologists identify the organisms that were created in the beginning. It is generally assumed that the "created kind" is analogous to the taxonomic Family, although numerous exceptions certainly exist. A canonical list of kinds has not been constructed and identifications are extremely provisional (with the exception of humans, on which there is a strong creationist consensus). Baraminologists draw upon several sources of information to identify the created kinds, which include scriptural accounts, hybridization data, and the fossil record.
It is very important not to confuse the "created kind" with the modern use of the word species. Although animals like the fox and coyote might be considered different taxonomic species, they are still parts of the same "kind" of animal. The created kind is thought to be more often synonymous with the "Family" level of classification in the taxonomic hierarchy; at least in mammals; and occasionally it can extend as high as the order level. Here are some examples:
Felidae — Scientists from Creation Ministries International and the Institute for Creation Research have proposed that the original feline kind was comparable to the Liger and the Tigon.
Canidae — Including Wolves, Foxes, Jackals, Coyotes, and Domestic dogs.
Camelidae — Including both the Camel and the Llama, which are reproductively compatible, their hybrid offspring being known as "Camas."
Bovidae — Including Cattle, Buffalo, Bison, and Yaks.
Equidae — Including Horses, Zebras, and *****.
Caprinae — Including Sheep, Goats, and Ibex.
Crocodilia — Including all the varieties of Alligators, Crocodiles, and Gharials.
Elephantidae — Including African and Asian elephants, Mammoths, Mastodons, and Gomphotheres.
Thus the created kind corresponds roughly to the family level of taxonomic classification, and possibly even the order, with the notable exception of humanity wherein the genus is representative.[10]
Humanity — Dr. Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer of the University of Munich concluded that H. erectus/H. ergaster, Neanderthals and H. sapiens were members of the same basic type (which corresponds to a monobaramin) genus Homo."
http://www.creationwiki.org/Created_kind
NEW
adjective \ˈnü, chiefly British ˈnyü, in place names usually (ˌ)nu̇ or nə or (ˌ)ni\
Simple Definition of new
Popularity: Top 40% of words
: not old : recently born, built, or created
Would you like me to define "is" too
Thanks for pawning yourself.
So basically no one can agree on what a kindTM is and it seems that even the "creation biologists", whose word I'd take with the entire dead sea's contents of salt, can't provide neither a simple definition, nor a complete list.
That would mean, that no matter what example I give you, we here cannot distinguish what kindTM it is, so you can always claim it's nothing new.
Furthermore, you seem to even misunderstand the second part, because you still haven't told me how new is new enough for YOU.
Guess you're just like all of them YECs.
