My Water Kind Challenge

[BryanJohnMaloney]

We are looking for working definitions. How do you tell if two different populations of different genus or the same genus? Creationist definitions fail in the real world.

There is nothing at all specifically "creationist" about the use of "genus" to refer to a type.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is nothing at all specifically "creationist" about the use of "genus" to refer to a type.

You are correct. Except that the concept is outmoded and due to the fact of evolution poorly defined. Today classification is moving to cladistics.

 

[Goonie]

Its an AV challenge thread! The nostalgia.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A genus is a "type" or "kind", nevertheless. So foo on yoo.

You missed my point; a genus indicates a particular kind, but 'kind' doesn't mean 'genus'. Every other taxonomic rank indicates a kind too.

So foo right back on yoo.

 

[BryanJohnMaloney]

You missed my point; a genus indicates a particular kind, but 'kind' doesn't mean 'genus'. Every other taxonomic rank indicates a kind too.

So foo right back on yoo.

It was a multiple choice question. From among the choices given, "genus" was the fit. How is that hard to figure out?

 

[BryanJohnMaloney]

You are correct. Except that the concept is outmoded and due to the fact of evolution poorly defined. Today classification is moving to cladistics.

Classification is not moving to cladistics. Classification moved to cladistics decades ago. That's why Aves is now under Reptilia (and Dinosauria) and has been for many years. It's also why there is no species for domestic dog. It is now merely a variant within Canis lupus. Look it up.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Water is to dihydrogen monoxide as kind is to:

1. family
2. friends
3. genus
4. oceans

From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of kind
(Entry 1 of 2)

1a: a group united by common traits or interests : CATEGORY
b: a specific or recognized variety: "what kind of car do you drive?"
c: a doubtful or barely admissible member of a category: "a kind of gray"

Yep, looks like the tight, precise definition creationists espouse. Covers everything from "yep, definitely related" to " not sure, but let's pretend anyway". So the answer to the OP is "whatever you want it to be".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Classification is not moving to cladistics. Classification moved to cladistics decades ago. That's why Aves is now under Reptilia (and Dinosauria) and has been for many years. It's also why there is no species for domestic dog. It is now merely a variant within Canis lupus. Look it up.

Decades ago? I don't think so. Yes for some organisms, but not all. Many biologists still do not count birds as part of Reptilia. It is hard to fight tradition. I know, to make Reptilia monophyletic one would have to include birds. But there is an even larger group. Bony fishes are more closely related to us than they are to sharks, yet very few biologists treat "fish" as being monophyletic.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It was a multiple choice question. From among the choices given, "genus" was the fit. How is that hard to figure out?

My point was that 'kind' does not have the same relation to 'genus' as water has to dihydrogen monoxide, i.e. it is not synonymous. You can use either water or dihydrogen monoxide interchangeably because they are synonymous, but you can't use 'kind' and 'genus' interchangeably.

Kind is colloquially synonymous with 'type', 'sort', or 'category', as in, "it's a type/sort/category/kind of X". 'Genus' denotes a particular kind/type/sort/category, as do all taxonomic ranks and other specific groupings - such as family, friends, and oceans.

 

[AV1611VET]

Kind is colloquially synonymous with 'type', 'sort', or 'category',amily, friends, and oceans.

And "genus" is a category, isn't it?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And "genus" is a category, isn't it?

Yes, it's a kind of category

 

[BryanJohnMaloney]

My point was that 'kind' does not have the same relation to 'genus' as water has to dihydrogen monoxide, i.e. it is not synonymous. You can use either water or dihydrogen monoxide interchangeably because they are synonymous, but you can't use 'kind' and 'genus' interchangeably.

Kind is colloquially synonymous with 'type', 'sort', or 'category', as in, "it's a type/sort/category/kind of X". 'Genus' denotes a particular kind/type/sort/category, as do all taxonomic ranks and other specific groupings - such as family, friends, and oceans.

Oh, my, this is remarkably important to you. Must be nice to have such an easy life.

 

[BryanJohnMaloney]

Decades ago? I don't think so. Yes for some organisms, but not all. Many biologists still do not count birds as part of Reptilia. It is hard to fight tradition. I know, to make Reptilia monophyletic one would have to include birds. But there is an even larger group. Bony fishes are more closely related to us than they are to sharks, yet very few biologists treat "fish" as being monophyletic.

Old dudes have a hard time with change. The formal taxonomic references have settle birds into a phylum within reptiles.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Old dudes have a hard time with change. The formal taxonomic references have settle birds into a phylum within reptiles.

I am an old dude and have no problem with that. Well except for the use of the term "phylum" . A better way to state it would have been "clade within Reptilia".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Oh, my, this is remarkably important to you. Must be nice to have such an easy life.

Just answering your question. I think it's important to correct misunderstandings.

 

[BryanJohnMaloney]

Just answering your question. I think it's important to correct misunderstandings.

You didn't answer my question. I didn't ask something like "How is genus not the best of all possible answers in the entire universe of potential words?" I asked how it's hard to figure out, given a limited selection of answers, which would be the best of the selection given.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You didn't answer my question. I didn't ask something like "How is genus not the best of all possible answers in the entire universe of potential words?" I asked how it's hard to figure out, given a limited selection of answers, which would be the best of the selection given.

The proper way to treat these supposed challenges is to ignore the too limited and usually wrong choices of the OP. That is why my answer earned the highest judgments.

 

[AV1611VET]

The proper way to treat these supposed challenges is to ignore the too limited and usually wrong choices of the OP. That is why my answer earned the highest judgments.

Your answer earned the highest judgements because it represents a mockery of creationism.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You didn't answer my question. I didn't ask something like "How is genus not the best of all possible answers in the entire universe of potential words?" I asked how it's hard to figure out, given a limited selection of answers, which would be the best of the selection given.

"Oh, my, this is remarkably important to you". I was pointing out that if the question is flawed that way there is no 'best' answer. If 'sort', 'type', or 'category' had been among the options, there would have been a correct answer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your answer earned the highest judgements because it represents a mockery of creationism.

I am glad that you agree that it was the best answer too. Some ideas deserve to be mocked.