KIND = GENUS

[Kylie]

1 Chronicles 26:18 At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.

@AV1611VET, is Relicanthus daphneae of the same Kind as Boloceroides mcmurrichi?

I need a YES or a NO please.

 

[Kylie]

@AV1611VET, an answer please?

 

[Colter]

@AV1611VET, is Relicanthus daphneae of the same Kind as Boloceroides mcmurrichi?

I need a YES or a NO please.

Oh dear! You have AV over the Barrelithicus! His standard reply when faced with the facts of science is Rediculithicus Satanscienceithicus!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

@AV1611VET, is Relicanthus daphneae of the same Kind as Boloceroides mcmurrichi?

I need a YES or a NO please.

No

Because you incorrectly assigned it in the first place......

Boloceroides daphneae - Wikipedia

"While the species is currently recognized as a sea anemone, 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 the species instead belongs in a new order. A new genus, Relicanthus,"

But that is where morphology or similarities gets you into trouble.

Or Yes, if you prefer your mitochondrial DNA results are flawed. Which you will argue when it comes to whales and hippos.....

So are we going by morphology or mitochondrial DNA results which have falsified half of the morphological classifications and has pointed to individual unrelated bushes instead of trees??????

So which side are you going to stick with, or just vacillate back and forth as convenience dictates?

 

[Kylie]

No

Because you incorrectly assigned it in the first place......

Boloceroides daphneae - Wikipedia

"While the species is currently recognized as a sea anemone, 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 the species instead belongs in a new order. A new genus, Relicanthus,"

But that is where morphology or similarities gets you into trouble.

Or Yes, if you prefer your mitochondrial DNA results are flawed. Which you will argue when it comes to whales and hippos.....

So are we going by morphology or mitochondrial DNA results which have falsified half of the morphological classifications and has pointed to individual unrelated bushes instead of trees??????

So which side are you going to stick with, or just vacillate back and forth as convenience dictates?

So was it the same kind back in 2010?

 

[Jjmcubbin]

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.

It says "kind or class". But class is a separate taxonomic category.

What a bogus definition.

 

[inquiring mind]

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.....

Are you sure 'kind' isn't being used as a 'sub-kind' here? After all, there wasn't fancy classification systems like academia has used today to usurp the meaning of species, genus, and kind. If for example I said, "the Apache and any kind of Indian; and every kind of white man; the black man, the yellow man, and any kind of hispanic" wouldn't they all still fall under 'mankind.'

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Are you sure 'kind' isn't being used as a 'sub-kind' here? After all, there wasn't fancy classification systems like academia has used today to usurp the meaning of species, genus, and kind. If for example I said, "the Apache and any kind of Indian; and every kind of white man; the black man, the yellow man, and any kind of hispanic" wouldn't they all still fall under 'mankind.'

But yet you understand all those you mention can interbreed, so your use of repeating Kind within the sentence would be a grammatical error only.

Are you claiming that ostrich and night hawk can interbreed and are therefore the same Kind, since that is the grammatical use that is used to distinguish the different Kinds?

the qualifiers "any" Kind of Raven and "every" Kind of hawk makes it clear that Raven are one Kind and hawk another....

But that is the difference, since the Bible makes it clear that all men are from one man and woman, while it declares each animal was made according to its own Kind....

So all cows are conceivably one Kind. All dogs are one Kind. But the difference is hummingbird and ostrich go far beyond the differences between cattle and dogs, or humans.....

besides, both Raven and Dove are specifically mentioned as being brought upon the ark, so would not be of the same Kind......

But I agree, finding the separation between Kinds is not an easy task and is complicated by today's classification system....

 

[inquiring mind]

But yet you understand all those you mention can interbreed, so your use of repeating Kind within the sentence would be a grammatical error only.

Are you claiming that ostrich and night hawk can interbreed and are therefore the same Kind, since that is the grammatical use that is used to distinguish the different Kinds?

the qualifiers "any" Kind of Raven and "every" Kind of hawk makes it clear that Raven are one Kind and hawk another....

But that is the difference, since the Bible makes it clear that all men are from one man and woman, while it declares each animal was made according to its own Kind....

So all cows are conceivably one Kind. All dogs are one Kind. But the difference is hummingbird and ostrich go far beyond the differences between cattle and dogs, or humans.....

besides, both Raven and Dove are specifically mentioned as being brought upon the ark, so would not be of the same Kind......

You are right... I hadn't even thought of it in that way.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You are right... I hadn't even thought of it in that way.

Now I disagree with the modern classification that Finches are separate species. They are a Kind with sub-Kinds within them, or Species and subspecies.

I certainly can't tell you where all the Kind divisions start and stop. After all, it took almost 120 years before researchers ever discovered those finches mating.

But since God sent two of each kind on the Ark and Raven and Dove are mentioned, I myself must say that Raven and Dove are separate Kinds.

All Raven type birds may be of the same Kind as all Dove type birds. But change of appearance is how they separate species today, yet it is clear wolf and poodle are the same species. But are Fox and wolf? I have no idea.... because fox and wolf could be just like raven and dove....

 

[Kylie]

@AV1611VET, I'm curious. You've shown in the past that you are willing to change your views about things when presented with a good reason. Now that I have you over a barrel with this "Kinds=genus" idea, I wonder why you refuse to change your position now.

 

[Kylie]

@AV1611VET, is Relicanthus daphneae of the same Kind as Boloceroides mcmurrichi?

 

[Heissonear]

@AV1611VET, I'm curious. You've shown in the past that you are willing to change your views about things when presented with a good reason. Now that I have you over a barrel with this "Kinds=genus" idea, I wonder why you refuse to change your position now.

You are so introverted to your ability to corner and win in word processing games.

"Over the barrel" is based on continued twisting words and applications until as a debator "you win" as an objective.

How bias and gaming of a poster can get.

 

[Heissonear]

@AV1611VET, is Relicanthus daphneae of the same Kind as Boloceroides mcmurrichi?

Another word salad to try and corner word use.

Do you realize the difference between being a debator and one open to find the Most High on a Christian forum?

 

[Aman777]

For your edification: KIND = GENUS.

Amen, if we are speaking of things of this Earth. God has but 2 kinds.

His kinds are the temporary kinds made by Jesus which are subject to death.
Their kinds are the eternal kinds created by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Noah's grandsons (His kind) married and produced children with prehistoric people (Their kinds). Today's Humans are the offspring. That is WHY we have the superior intelligence of God Genesis 3:22 AND the DNA of prehistoric people, in our bodies.

 

[Kylie]

You are so introverted to your ability to corner and win in word processing games.

"Over the barrel" is based on continued twisting words and applications until as a debator "you win" as an objective.

How bias and gaming of a poster can get.

And once again we see people complaining about the form because they cannot hope to win if they try to address the substance...

 

[Kylie]

Another word salad to try and corner word use.

Do you realize the difference between being a debator and one open to find the Most High on a Christian forum?

I'm just asking a question, one which AV should not have any difficulty answering. He has made it clear that he considers genus to be an exact synonym for Kind (in the Biblical sense). I am giving him two different species, and the genus name is different. I am asking if he thinks they are the same Kind or different Kind.

This isn't a difficult question, and yet he refuses to answer it and you are trying to discredit me by claiming I am using a confusing word salad.

 

[Gene2memE]

Random question:

If the organization of a genus is split (or combined), is the biblical kind split or combined as well?

For example. If the genus Anolis (~425 species) is completely split and its members divided between other genra, does this mean the Anolis 'kind' doesn't exist? Or were they always members of the Polychrus or Dactyloidae 'kinds' to begin with? What happens if Anolis is partially split, and a core group remain?

 

[Kylie]

@AV1611VET, is Relicanthus daphneae of the same Kind as Boloceroides mcmurrichi?

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

It's about time. Thanks for the research!