KIND = GENUS

[The IbanezerScrooge]

For your edification: KIND = GENUS.

From the online etymology dictionary:

genus (n.)
(Latin plural genera), 1550s as a term of logic, "kind or class of things" (biological sense dates from c. 1600), from Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin," from suffixed form of PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.

So, you're saying there were 13 original kinds of dogs and 12 kinds of cats on the ark and that the greater hedgehog and the lesser hedgehog are unique and completely unrelated created kinds?

I suspect that KIND = GENUS only for AV's special super-secret definition of GENUS.

 

[Heissonear]

No, I don't.

God brought genera into existence fully-formed.I'm not dealing with definitions here.

If you want me to define it, here it is:

A kind ... (sinonym: genus) ... is a class of animals:

1. Which can trace its ancestry back to a common designer.
2. Which can reproduce fertile offspring.

Some on CF are not open to change or learn of their error.

They like, as you know, to attack the poster. The topic is set aside or trashed by words. Unfortunately.

But we are in the Creators Presence. He listens to everything we say. This applies to those who trash our posts. But faith so far bars them from a walk before Him, and communion with Him.

God bless, Dear Brother.

 

[AV1611VET]

God bless, Dear Brother.

Thank you, brother! God bless you too!

I put in for thread closure. This thread is going nowhere fast.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I put in for thread closure. This thread is going nowhere fast.

It was certainly a non-starter

 

[Justatruthseeker]

For your edification: KIND = GENUS.

From the online etymology dictionary:

genus (n.)
(Latin plural genera), 1550s as a term of logic, "kind or class of things" (biological sense dates from c. 1600), from Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin," from suffixed form of PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.

Sorry, I can't accept that definition in today's definitions....

Leviticus 11:14 the kite, and any kind of falcon; 15 every kind of raven; 16 the ostrich, the night hawk, the gull, and any kind of hawk

Each of those are their own Kind.....

Leviticus 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.

species | Origin and meaning of species by Online Etymology Dictionary

"late 14c. as a classification in logic, from Latin species "a particular sort, kind, or type" (opposed to genus);"

The problem isn't the definition of species, it is their refusal to follow the definition......

 

[pgp_protector]

Thank you, brother! God bless you too!

I put in for thread closure. This thread is going nowhere fast.

The usual ending when you get trumped.

 

[pgp_protector]

FYI there's about 2217 genus of birds @ 7 birds per kind that's 15,519 birds alone on the Ark.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

FYI there's about 2217 genus of birds @ 7 birds per kind that's 15,519 birds alone on the Ark.

No, there are 39 higher orders that included the 223 families of birds that were on the ark (but even that is assuming from what we see today). From them they diverged into the 2217 genus and over 10,000 species that we see today. They just incorrectly classify the majority of them, like Darwin's finches breeding right in front of their eyes.....

Just as over 100+ breeds of dogs have descended from wolves.....

remember, the closer to creation you get, the more perfect was the genome and the more diversity contained within it.

Just as we got 100+ breeds from wolves, but we can not get 100+ breeds from the Poodle..... nor breed a Poodle back into a wolf, because information is lost, not gained.....

 

[pgp_protector]

No, there are 39 higher orders that included the 223 families of birds that were on the ark (but even that is assuming from what we see today). From them they diverged into the 2217 genus and over 10,000 species that we see today. They just incorrectly classify the majority of them, like Darwin's finches breeding right in front of their eyes.....

Just as over 100+ breeds of dogs have descended from wolves.....

remember, the closer to creation you get, the more perfect was the genome and the more diversity contained within it.

Just as we got 100+ breeds from wolves, but we can not get 100+ breeds from the Poodle..... nor breed a Poodle back into a wolf, because information is lost, not gained.....

Hmmm what you quoted
". From them they diverged into the 2217 genus "
OP Genus = Kind.
So what's wrong with my calculation?

 

[AV1611VET]

FYI there's about 2217 genus of birds @ 7 birds per kind that's 15,519 birds alone on the Ark.

What's your point?

We know a Zenaida and a Corvus were on board.

That leaves only 2215 left.

Is there a problem?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hmmm what you quoted
". From them they diverged into the 2217 genus "
OP Genus = Kind.
So what's wrong with my calculation?

2217 is what we see now (in science definition), after the 100 or so diverged to begin with. But remember, those that classify 2217 genus of birds, also classify finches mating right in front of their noses as separate species......

SPECIES | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

"a set of animals or plants, members of which have similar characteristics to each other and which can breed with each other"

Such is my problem with using any evolutionary definition to describe Kind.....

So there would not have been 7 per Kind, nor 2217 Kinds on the Ark.

Again, just as 100+ breeds have descended from the wolf.

Notice that in Canis - it includes all the different dog-like creatures - each is simply separated into species. Yet the Bible makes clear that all bird-like creatures are not one Kind, just as the Locust and bald locust is not the same Kind. And no Genus exist for them, just Families and orders....

Man's classifications can not be trusted as to reality....

 

[Kylie]

For your edification: KIND = GENUS.

From the online etymology dictionary:

genus (n.)
(Latin plural genera), 1550s as a term of logic, "kind or class of things" (biological sense dates from c. 1600), from Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin," from suffixed form of PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.

So you are claiming that if two animals are in the same genus, then they MUST also be the same Biblical Kind?

 

[Subduction Zone]

2217 is what we see now (in science definition), after the 100 or so diverged to begin with. But remember, those that classify 2217 genus of birds, also classify finches mating right in front of their noses as separate species......

SPECIES | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

"a set of animals or plants, members of which have similar characteristics to each other and which can breed with each other"

Such is my problem with using any evolutionary definition to describe Kind.....

So there would not have been 7 per Kind, nor 2217 Kinds on the Ark.

Again, just as 100+ breeds have descended from the wolf.

Notice that in Canis - it includes all the different dog-like creatures - each is simply separated into species. Yet the Bible makes clear that all bird-like creatures are not one Kind, just as the Locust and bald locust is not the same Kind. And no Genus exist for them, just Families and orders....

Man's classifications can not be trusted as to reality....

Why do you keep repeating this claim that you have not been able to support for what seems like years.
One more time, some is not all.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you are claiming that if two animals are in the same genus, then they MUST also be the same Biblical Kind?

That's affirmative.

Their respective DNA starts in 4004 BC with a Common Designer.

And what do you mean by "are in the same genus"?

Sounds like it's only on paper, doesn't it?

Don't you mean, "are the same genus"?

 

[Heissonear]

Why do you keep repeating this claim that you have not been able to support for what seems like years.
One more time, some is not all.

It is a perspective and interpretation difference.

It should be understood that you choose to have only a naturalistic (based only on evolutionary natural processes) and godless (without God's input over time) perspective and interpretation.

Try to understand God in this world and Designed life progression through Kinds based natural progression.

I do think many only receive and accept evolutionary and godless prospectives and science, which is void of a Creators initial design and ongoing work in this world.

 

[xianghua]

FYI there's about 2217 genus of birds @ 7 birds per kind that's 15,519 birds alone on the Ark.

i think that the most close definition of creation kind is at the family level (since many species in the same family can interbreed). and since there are only about 1000 femilies in nature we only need a place to about 2000 creatures. most of them are small.

 

[mark kennedy]

For your edification: KIND = GENUS.

From the online etymology dictionary:

genus (n.)
(Latin plural genera), 1550s as a term of logic, "kind or class of things" (biological sense dates from c. 1600), from Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin," from suffixed form of PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.

I've always thought originally created kinds are represented right around that level.

 

[Subduction Zone]

i think that the most close definition of creation kind is at the family level (since many species in the same family can interbreed). and since there are only about 1000 femilies in nature we only need a place to about 2000 creatures. most of them are small.

You do realize that man is in the Hominidae family don't you?

Hominidae - Wikipedia

 

[Kylie]

That's affirmative.

Their respective DNA starts in 4004 BC with a Common Designer.

And what do you mean by "are in the same genus"?

Sounds like it's only on paper, doesn't it?

Don't you mean, "are the same genus"?

First of all, you know what I mean, so don't quibble over minutiae.

Secondly, I have a question for you...

Is Boloceroides daphneae of the same Kind as Boloceroides mcmurrichi?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is Boloceroides daphneae of the same Kind as Boloceroides mcmurrichi?

Yes.