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.
Why wouldn't I say so?.. only because you say so .. (and for no other reason, it would appear).
Why don't you go and look it up?After all, I believe kind = genus,
..
Are they the same genus, or aren't they?
How about I just take Kylie's word for it?Why don't you go and look it up?
The genus names are Boloceroides daphneae and Boloceroides mcmurrichi.
And?I did.
Why don't you look it up.And?
You found out they're the same "kind," didn't you?
Why? did she buffalo me?Why don't you look it up.
That is correct.Subduction Zone said: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.
You seem to want to have things both ways again.Why? did she buffalo me?That is correct.
Only on paper though.
Linnaeus can take a hike.
Genus = KindYou seem to want to have things both ways again.
1. It makes God out to be an animal, since we are made in His image and likeness.Subduction Zone said:Why does the fact that you are an ape bother you so much?
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.
2. It requires a belief in deep time.
3. It makes Jesus out to be a mutant, copy-error.
Just to name a few.
Yes, they are of the same kind.
Not a problem. I'm only going on the information you are supplying me, and your error only helps to reinforce my point.Ah, my bad. After the years between posts, I got some details mixed up.
Fair enough.Kylie said:The two cute little critters are not the creatures named.
Fair enough.Kylie said:The creatures named are two sea creatures, sea anenomes.
Fair en... er ... yes, I did.Kylie said:You claimed they are of the same kind, since they are of the same genus.
TMI, but fair enough.Kylie said: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
Yes.Kylie said:So I'll ask again, are Boloceroides daphneae and Boloceroides mcmurrichi of the same kind?
Yes.Kylie said:If Boloceroides daphneae is moved to the Relicanthus genus, will it suddenly stop being the same kind as Boloceroides mcmurrichi?
No problem.Kylie said: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.
I know.Kylie said:(You've also neglected that math question too.)
Yes.
I know.
I'll say NO on principle.So, is there any change at all that you would notice if you were examining Boloceroides daphneae when it was moved to Relicanthus?
You don't get it, do you, Kylie?Kylie said:If so, what would that change be?
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!
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.
I'm not the one that changed it from one kind to another.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.
Let's let it end here, shall we?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.
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?