Evolution's Brick Wall: Part II

[AV1611VET]

.. only because you say so .. (and for no other reason, it would appear).

Why wouldn't I say so?

After all, I believe kind = genus, so why would I say otherwise?

Are they the same genus, or aren't they?

 

[SelfSim]

After all, I believe kind = genus,
..
Are they the same genus, or aren't they?

Why don't you go and look it up?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why don't you go and look it up?

I did.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why don't you go and look it up?

How about I just take Kylie's word for it?

The genus names are Boloceroides daphneae and Boloceroides mcmurrichi.

 

[AV1611VET]

I did.

And?

You found out they're the same "kind," didn't you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And?

You found out they're the same "kind," didn't you?

Why don't you look it up.

By the way, if they change the classification of Chimpanzees so that they are the same genus as people I guess that would make us the "same kind" by your standards.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why don't you look it up.

Why? did she buffalo me?

By the way, if they change the classification of Chimpanzees so that they are the same genus as people I guess that would make us the "same kind" by your standards.

That is correct.

Only on paper though.

Linnaeus can take a hike.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why? did she buffalo me?That is correct.

Only on paper though.

Linnaeus can take a hike.

You seem to want to have things both ways again.

Why does the fact that you are an ape bother you so much?

 

[AV1611VET]

You seem to want to have things both ways again.

Genus = Kind

If that means I'm having something "both ways," then maybe academia is cross-eyed?

Why does the fact that you are an ape bother you so much?

1. It makes God out to be an animal, since we are made in His image and likeness.

2. It requires a belief in deep time.

3. It makes Jesus out to be a mutant, copy-error.

Just to name a few.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Genus = Kind

If that means I'm having something "both ways," then maybe academia is cross-eyed?1. It makes God out to be an animal, since we are made in His image and likeness.

No, it does not. No more than man being made in God's image makes him a human being. You are not using consistent logic.

2. It requires a belief in deep time.

No "belief" necessary. It is a demonstrable fact just as gravity is. Do you "believe in gravity"?

3. It makes Jesus out to be a mutant, copy-error.

Just to name a few.

Again, no. I don't see where you get that from. You do put a strange spin on interpretations at time.

 

[Kylie]

Yes, they are of the same kind.

Ah, my bad. After the years between posts, I got some details mixed up.

The two cute little critters are not the creatures named. The creatures named are two sea creatures, sea anenomes. You claimed they are of the same kind, since they are of the same genus. However, a phylogenetic study was completed in 2014, in which three genes of mitochondrial DNA and two genes from the nucleus of over a hundred different sea anemones were compared, suggesting that Boloceroides daphneae instead belongs in a new order. A new genus, Relicanthus, was named to accommodate this alternate classification. SOURCE

So I'll ask again, are Boloceroides daphneae and Boloceroides mcmurrichi of the same kind? If Boloceroides daphneae is moved to the Relicanthus genus, will it suddenly stop being the same kind as Boloceroides mcmurrichi?

Of the two cute critters, one of the images no longer seems to be available on the net save for a Russian site, so I can't remember what point I was illustrating with that.

(You've also neglected that math question too.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, my bad. After the years between posts, I got some details mixed up.

Not a problem. I'm only going on the information you are supplying me, and your error only helps to reinforce my point.

The two cute little critters are not the creatures named.

Fair enough.

The creatures named are two sea creatures, sea anenomes.

Fair enough.

You claimed they are of the same kind, since they are of the same genus.

Fair en... er ... yes, I did.

However, a phylogenetic study was completed in 2014, in which three genes of mitochondrial DNA and two genes from the nucleus of over a hundred different sea anemones were compared, suggesting that Boloceroides daphneae instead belongs in a new order. A new genus, Relicanthus, was named to accommodate this alternate classification. SOURCE

TMI, but fair enough.

So I'll ask again, are Boloceroides daphneae and Boloceroides mcmurrichi of the same kind?

Yes.

If Boloceroides daphneae is moved to the Relicanthus genus, will it suddenly stop being the same kind as Boloceroides mcmurrichi?

Yes.

Of the two cute critters, one of the images no longer seems to be available on the net save for a Russian site, so I can't remember what point I was illustrating with that.

No problem.

(You've also neglected that math question too.)

I know.

 

[Kylie]

Yes.

So, is there any change at all that you would notice if you were examining Boloceroides daphneae when it was moved to Relicanthus? If so, what would that change be?

I know.

Why aren't you answering it?

 

[AV1611VET]

So, is there any change at all that you would notice if you were examining Boloceroides daphneae when it was moved to Relicanthus?

I'll say NO on principle.

Albeit I don't know why in the world I'd be examining a Boloceroides daphneae.

I can't even pronounce it!

If so, what would that change be?

You don't get it, do you, Kylie?

If tomorrow they would rewrite a giraffe from a Giraffa to a Struthio, I would claim that the giraffe is now a different "kind" of animal.

That's because its genus was changed -- therefore its kind was changed.

But God, in His omniscience, knows what the proper classification should be; and He would never make the mistake of classifying a Relicanthus as a Boloceroides in the first place.

To err is human, but to really foul things up takes a trigger-happy scientist, prone to naming things prematurely, then renaming them, and renaming them, and renaming them.

And then pat each other on the head and call it "progress."

So yes, I'll follow them around with their naming conventions.

If they want to call something Boloceroides, who am I to disagree?

Later if they change it to Relicanthus, who am I do disagree?

But if they say there's no set definition for "kind," I'm going to disagree.

 

[Kylie]

I'll say NO on principle.

Albeit I don't know why in the world I'd be examining a Boloceroides daphneae.

I can't even pronounce it!

So nothing changes except the arbitrary set of sounds that we use to refer to it, yet you think this changes it from one kind to another - despite the fact that nothing about the creature itself changes?

You don't get it, do you, Kylie?

If tomorrow they would rewrite a giraffe from a Giraffa to a Struthio, I would claim that the giraffe is now a different "kind" of animal.

That's because its genus was changed -- therefore its kind was changed.

But God, in His omniscience, knows what the proper classification should be; and He would never make the mistake of classifying a Relicanthus as a Boloceroides in the first place.

And yet the genus designation given by people was not correct then. So it seems that Kind and Genus are not the synonyms you claimed they were.

To err is human, but to really foul things up takes a trigger-happy scientist, prone to naming things prematurely, then renaming them, and renaming them, and renaming them.

And then pat each other on the head and call it "progress."

So yes, I'll follow them around with their naming conventions.

And yet you're perfectly happy to follow when religion changes something.

If they want to call something Boloceroides, who am I to disagree?

Later if they change it to Relicanthus, who am I do disagree?

But if they say there's no set definition for "kind," I'm going to disagree.

If Genus meant the same thing as Kind, and Kind is the way God made it, then the only way for something to change genuses is for it to changes kinds, and I don't think God does that. Do you?

So either God changes organisms from one kind to another, or you have to admit that genus and kind don't actually mean the same thing after all.

And what's the value for Y?

 

[AV1611VET]

So nothing changes except the arbitrary set of sounds that we use to refer to it, yet you think this changes it from one kind to another - despite the fact that nothing about the creature itself changes?

I'm not the one that changed it from one kind to another.

Someone else did.

Genus is only a label for a subset of the animal kingdom, therefore kind is only a label as well.

 

[Kylie]

I'm not the one that changed it from one kind to another.

Someone else did.

Genus is only a label for a subset of the animal kingdom, therefore kind is only a label as well.

So? Unless the kind changed, then the genus didn't change. And Kind refers to how God made it. So unless God decides to rewrite history to account for the changes, then the kind can not change, and so neither can the genus.

Either that or your kind=genus idea is just wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Either that or your kind=genus idea is just wrong.

Let's let it end here, shall we?

You try so hard not to understand, you end up ruining the conversation.

 

[Kylie]

Let's let it end here, shall we?

You try so hard not to understand, you end up ruining the conversation.

If you want to end it here, that's fine. But you still haven't explained how your kind=genus idea can actually work, nor have you addressed my points.