Atheism is unreasonable

[Esquilax]

Right, and the ancestors of dogs only produced what they were. Dogs are still all of the things "above" them in their classifications (the same way that you and I are). Again, you don't seem to be disagreeing with evolutionary biology in the least.

So wolves gave rise to dogs...but a wolf is not a dog??? They are clearly the same kind of animal!!!

They're related animals, but they aren't the same. There are a lot of species in the world, and their relationships can sometimes be deceptive based solely on looks as the Hyena example given earlier demonstrates. Your "kind" crap has no nuance and demonstrably leads you to bad conclusions, but what's worse is you can't even give a clear definition, or a list of criteria for how it works, or a definitive list of what kinds there are, or even a reason to use it over the current classification system.

So, to sum up: you have a system that is demonstrably worse than the scientific one, that you can't tell us anything about, and don't seem to know how to use yourself.

Keeping all that in mind... who cares about kinds?