This is purely for posterity, I had written it in a convo with a creationist idiot in talk.origins way back in November of 2016. This post is worth more than its weight in gold, if you allow me to be so self-aggrandizing, which is why I decided to put it into HTML for posterity. I found it while combing the Google archives of talk.origins with my nom de guerre in the title as I usually do when I found this, so, here you go:
Not exactly, but you're missing the point, there's no limit to kind, if you want an upper limit (no matter how futile it is) with the case of dogs and cats you should move it up to at least an order, but even that isn't foolproof, perhaps you should move it up to domain, as even organisms as far apart as plants and humans share a nucleus, mitochondria, and several other cellular features that are characteristic of the domain Eukaryota.
What I`m trying to say is that trying to place a limit on "kind" is arbitrary and pointless, since ultimately the evidence does not fit with the notion of "kind", your futile efforts at defining kinds is cute, but unsatisfactory. Humans are primates, since we share several features with other members of the order Primata, such as nails instead of claws, opposable thumbs, stereoscopic vision, and a large brain relative to body size.
Features that show we are in a cohort with monkeys include a dry nose, instead of being wet, the absence of whiskers (or "vissibrae"), above average intelligence, and several other features. So by creationist logic humans belong to the "monkey" kind, except there is no such thing, old world monkeys are more closely related to us than new world monkeys are, so would we be part of the "Primate" kind, or better yet, the "ape" kind? Of course, despite all the evidence to the contrary, creationists love to grab at straws and claim we are not primates, and we are above nature, even creationist Carolus Linnaeus recognized that we were primates, something that other people detested, but you have to look at the facts, to do otherwise is dishonesty and willful ignorance.
You have shown that you are willing to be willfully ignorant in face of the evidence, I was merely testing how far you'd go before you crack and have to make a flippant remark to avoid owning up to your mistake, that there is no such thing as a "kind", and even if there was it would have no biological viability. You only do slightly better than Ray, who refuses to even concede that "microevolution" exists, that is, evolution within a species, even though from a scientific viewpoint such a thing doesn't exist, because it's just evolution, we've even seen speciation in action.
Humans aren't necessarily unique when it comes to sentience, elephants and dolphins are just as intelligent as humans, yet are restricted by their anatomies and environments, one can't get much done with only a trunk, and being in water isn't a good conductor for developing civilization, especially since dolphins don't even have the nimble, flexible trunk an elephant has. Dolphins have more ridges and folds in their grey matter than humans do, and thus by that category are more intelligent, they are even the only other species to use unique calls for each other, equivalent to "naming".
Humans are only unique in our development of civilization and agriculture, we were only capable of doing so because we aren't limited by our anatomy and environment, another good creature that could've developed civilization is the raccoon, yet is nowhere near as intelligent as the animals I just mentioned, who are all equally intelligent as humans yet constrained by their anatomies and environments, elephants even use medicines from trees and can paint self-portraits, they even mourn their dead and display a curiosity towards the dead, if they had opposable thumbs and weren't quadrupeds, they may have bested us in our own game, the same goes for dolphins, who are even more advanced than elephants, yet you claim that man has dominion over nature and is unique in all regards, when in reality we are nothing more than mere apes with our crude language and tools.
Yet despite the march of science, there are still people who'd rather stay in the dark ages than face enlightenment, those same people would also like to keep the rest of us in the dark ages; the mere existence of apologetics is an argument against the existence of a deity.