Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You’ve claimed taxonomic classifications to be everything from fuzzy to artificial classifications that aren't actually real in nature, so what’s the difference?
The genus never changes. Species have occasionally been misattributed to the wrong genus, but evolution doesn't change the genus.
I have posted twice, this post makes three. Now, I wonder how you think that you are correct.OK; JFYI, this is known as a 'drive-by' in forum-speak and is considered to be a form of trolling.
As I said previously, genus denotes a kind, as does every other taxonomic rank. Analogously, a vehicle is a kind of transport, a car is a kind of vehicle, an SUV is a kind of car, and so-on.Exactly what we've been saying all along... with genus equaling kind of course.
It's historical fiction.Whether you like it or not, it's the only written history we have... everything else is speculation.
I take your point - we might eventually promote the original genus to a higher rank and create new genera below it, but the descendant species will still remain within what was the original genus (now a higher rank). It's just another way of saying that species don't move outside their ancestral branch.It would have to given enough time.
It's just another way of saying that species don't move outside their ancestral branch.
Your description was, "...my post was intended to be a one answer occasion, I'm not interested in a discussion or debate."I have posted twice, this post makes three. Now, I wonder how you think that you are correct.
I gave my reason in my second post as to why I would not be replying to any further posts from the person who began this thread. So I don't see why it's any of your business to misidentify my reasons for preferring to stay out of the thread. Unless you would like to be reported for posting to me in a way that is a form of goading.
Meaning you would [promote] those zebras in the OP up to family, then give their progeny a new name?I take your point - we might eventually promote the original genus to a higher rank and create new genera below it,
Meaning you would [promote] those zebras in the OP up to family, then give their progeny a new name?
The animals would remain a species in a genus, but if they gave rise to a new tree of species, the rankings would need to be adjusted to accommodate a greater depth.Meaning you would [promote] those zebras in the OP up to family, then give their progeny a new name?
The "ranks" are just descriptors. They have no effect on what is actually happening. The rest of your offensive and inaccurate characterization of evolution is noted.TOE is such a leaky vessel. And, just when you get the argument to a point where they’re in a corner, evolutionists have no qualms about changing definitions and processes to fit their need, 'rejigging' ranks, whatever it takes to continue promoting it… whether it be proudly claiming there are fuzzy lines between their classifications, maintaining their representations are not real in nature, or using ‘just another way of saying’ to further confuse things when they become entangled. Of course, when all else fails they just fall back on asserting that ‘in time’ it will happen.
Can you support any of your claims at all?TOE is such a leaky vessel. And, just when you get the argument to a point where they’re in a corner, evolutionists have no qualms about changing definitions and processes to fit their need, 'rejigging' ranks, whatever it takes to continue promoting it… whether it be proudly claiming there are fuzzy lines between their classifications, maintaining their representations are not real in nature, or using ‘just another way of saying’ to further confuse things when they become entangled. Of course, when all else fails they just fall back on asserting that ‘in time’ it will happen.
Just don't call them "kinds," right?The "ranks" are just descriptors.
"Kinds" cannot be defined properly by creationists. That makes it rather useless as a term.Just don't call them "kinds," right?
Since that is a Biblical word.
Here you go:"Kinds" cannot be defined properly by creationists.
It wouldn't do anyway. "Kinds" is clearly used in the Bible as a relative qualifier, not a taxon.Just don't call them "kinds," right?
Since that is a Biblical word.
And you failed. I explained that more than once.Here you go:
A kind is a rank in the biological classification (or taxonomy). It stands above species, and below families. A kind can include more than one species.
Well except for the parts written in Jacobean English"Kind" is an English word. The Bible wasn't written in English.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?