Do you agree with these statements?

[pitabread]

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 difference is that creationists claim that "kind" has real biological meaning in nature. IOW, that "kinds" are not merely arbitrary classifications just for the purpose of talking about groups of organisms.

Thus the odd contradiction when creationists then try to co-opt modern biological classifications as "kinds".

 

[Kylie]

The genus never changes. Species have occasionally been misattributed to the wrong genus, but evolution doesn't change the genus.

It would have to given enough time.

 

[fwGod]

OK; JFYI, this is known as a 'drive-by' in forum-speak and is considered to be a form of trolling.

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.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Exactly what we've been saying all along... with genus equaling kind of course.

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.

Whether you like it or not, it's the only written history we have... everything else is speculation.

It's historical fiction.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It would have to given enough time.

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.

 

[Kylie]

It's just another way of saying that species don't move outside their ancestral branch.

In that we are agreed.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

Your description was, "...my post was intended to be a one answer occasion, I'm not interested in a discussion or debate."

I was letting you know what such posts, where the intent is to make a single comment that is not open to discussion or debate, are popularly called and how they may be received. Another term for this is 'hit-and-run'.

I don't know your motivations, and have no comment to make about them. I'm sorry if you felt it was a personal attack - it wasn't.

 

[AV1611VET]

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?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Meaning you would [promote] those zebras in the OP up to family, then give their progeny a new name?

Eventually that would happen. As time goes on the difference between zebras and other equines would grow. And the number of different zebras would increase, if they were a successful population in general. Just as the earliest "ape" was just another monkey, the group now includes you and me, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons. It is merely a judgment call.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

I don't know what the adjustment procedure would be in such a situation - the ranks are just a way to label groups of creatures with shared characteristics and indicate the level at which those characteristics are shared. Perhaps some of the ranks above would be rejigged so current subgenus Hippotigris might become a genus in its own right, or perhaps whole new ranks would be introduced ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Names and ranks are just convenient identifiers.

 

[inquiring mind]

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.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

And the fact is that there are fuzzy lines in classifications. That is predicted by the TOE. Creationism on the other hand predicts the opposite and we do not see that. It is only one of the many failures of creationism. The creation side needs the hard boundaries that cannot be found.

 

[AV1611VET]

The "ranks" are just descriptors.

Just don't call them "kinds," right?

Since that is a Biblical word.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just don't call them "kinds," right?

Since that is a Biblical word.

"Kinds" cannot be defined properly by creationists. That makes it rather useless as a term.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Kinds" cannot be defined properly by creationists.

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.

 

[Speedwell]

Just don't call them "kinds," right?

Since that is a Biblical word.

It wouldn't do anyway. "Kinds" is clearly used in the Bible as a relative qualifier, not a taxon.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

And you failed. I explained that more than once.

 

[pitabread]

Just don't call them "kinds," right?

Since that is a Biblical word.

"Kind" is an English word. The Bible wasn't written in English.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Kind" is an English word. The Bible wasn't written in English.

Well except for the parts written in Jacobean English