Why do you want to see a rat to a bat? Nobody said a rat would turn into a bat. That is silly. They are not even closely related mammals. What about one closely related species to another. That seems to be all that you folks want in order to show macro. You set up supposed tests that are at odds with what scientists say in order to show that scientists are wrong. That is a circular argument. You set your own "rules" so you will always appear to win but are unwilling to try to understand the game your opponents are playing or use the terms he uses.
Each "kind" to reproduce after its kind seems to say "species" to me. Are you talking about Genus level, Family level, Order level, Class level, or Phylum level? A commonly cited definition of "species" is that two different species do not usually interbreed to produce reproductively successful offspring. That definition has problems but is about as good as any and better than most. Going from one frog species to another frog species would, therefore, be going from one "kind" to another.
Your rat to bat would best be approached by going back to look for the common ancestor of both bats and rats and seeing how the different populations of that ancestor became reproductively isolated and later led to the different lines that eventually produced rats and bats. I know of no scientists that would suggest that a rat would be likely to produce offspring that would be bats. Convergent evolution may produce bat-like rats that would still be rats, perhaps a different species of rat, but still rats. The suggestion that an individual rat becomes a bat later in life, if that is what you are saying, shows a great misunderstanding of science.
