That everything produces after its kind is a twofold argument of the Genesis 1 literalist against any form of evolution.
An example of is the position put by Bro GE Mansfield
“”After their kind” – This is a very important statement, and disposes at once with all variation of evolutionary theories. There was no provision of transition from one specie to another, but all brought forth “after their kind.” This statement provides no room for divergence as mutants from a common ancestor, but shows that each form of life was independently created. However there is scope for development within a species, so that it is possible, by breeding, to improve the quality of a particular species of animal, but a horse remains a horse, a sheep remains a sheep, a dog remains a dog, even in spite of cross-breeding”
A similar position was put in The Lampstand in 2013 which argued Gen 1:11-12 means “species would produce their integrity and likeness”. The same unsupported assertion is made by Phil Perry who claims the expression means “There are permanent discontinuities between the many different “kinds” of life.”
Firstly it is claimed this “law” speaks hard against mutation and natural selection producing new species of a different kind. If such a law existed of after its kind existed then the essential mechanisms of evolution is directly contradicting God’s description of His creation (in the same way that cardiologists continually deny clear biblical statements, although this is apparently ok).
Secondly producing after its kind becomes wrapped up in the discussion with Adam & Eve. They became mortal with our nature and so their offspring were the same as everything produces after its kind goes the argument. This then marries into a narrow/incorrect reading of Rom5:12 where again this law is employed.
However, the offending phrase does not occur in the context claimed or carry this meaning. There is no such law or principle set out in the Scripture.
Gen 1 uses the phrase after its kind five times as the daily creative works unfold. The expression is not about ongoing reproduction but rather about God producing a class or type of animals. The same expression is used in the law eg “every kite after his kind” Lev11:14 – a chapter where it occurs five times and is clearly being used to mean a generic animal group or type.
From an observational point, the position put by Bro Mansfield and The Lampstand that Genesis 1 precludes the creation of new species is incorrect – even in the limited time that man has been looking we have observed speciation in plants and animals. (Sadly some in the community publicly pronounce this has never happened eg Phil Perry’s document which speaks volumes about the lack of research being done )
The “producing after his kind” law is based on an incorrect reading of Genesis 1 (even from a literalist position) and is no objection to EC. Bro Hayward (a firm opponent of evolution) concluded similarly “Evolutionists often argue that the expression in this context is simply a Hebrew way of saying ‘all kinds of’, and I know of no way to prove them wrong”
Why are poor interpretations of the text still being recycled when opponents of EC long ago came to such conclusions?
 Mansfield, G. Genesis – Expositor. Logos (1992)
 Editorial “Creation, Emphatic Teaching of Scripture” Lampstand Magazine May-June 2013 edition page 133
 Perry, Phil 2016 “Theistic Evolution Refute” version 1.9
 Perry, Phil (2016) “Theistic Evolution Refuted” version 1.9 page 27 “there has been no record or evidence of directional change of one species in transition to another”
 Hayward, A. Creation & Evolution: The facts and fallacies p. 194. (1985)