KIND = GENUS

[Kylie]

By opening the eyes and ears of my heart to THE TRUTH

And where did you find this truth?

 

[Kylie]

Many spirits.

But only ONE SPIRIT, ONE TRUTH...

Slogans are not a convincing argument.

 

[HitchSlap]

By opening the eyes and ears of my heart to THE TRUTH

What does god say to you?

 

[AV1611VET]

BUMPED FOR REHASH​

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.

 

[Brightmoon]

Kind is a meaningless term in a biological context . Depending on which organism you’re talking about it could mean a single species, a genus, a family or an entire order

 

[AV1611VET]

Kind is a meaningless term in a biological context.

Then ditto for "genus".

Depending on which organism you’re talking about it could mean a single species, a genus, a family or an entire order.

I disagree.

Kind = Genus

Kind ≠ Species, Family, Order

 

[Brightmoon]

Genus is used for closely related species . If humans are a kind then it is used to denote a single species-Homo sapiens. creationists refer to the cat “ kind” which is an entire Family consisting of several genera, Panthera, Felis, Neofelis, etc . Kind is meaningless within a biological context

 

[AV1611VET]

Genus is used for closely related species.

Then "kind" should be too.

If humans are a kind then it is used to denote a single species-Homo sapiens.

"Humans" is where I draw the line on this.

"Humans" ... or mankind ... is not meant to be a part of Linnaeus' taxonomy, since we are made in the image and likeness of God.

Ditto for the angels, who do not fall within the aegis of Linnaeus' taxonomy.

... creationists refer to the cat “ kind” which is an entire Family ...

Kind ≠ Family

Kind is meaningless within a biological context.

Then "genus" should be as well.

 

[Brightmoon]

Prove that angels have bilaterian bodies. Genus has a scientific definition. Kind does not. ( shrug)

 

[AV1611VET]

Prove that angels have bilaterian bodies.

Okay ... I googled that word and got this definition:

"The bilateria or bilaterians are animals with bilateral symmetry as an embryo, i.e. having a left and a right side that are mirror images of each other. "

First of all, angels are not animals.

Second of all, angels ... as far as I know ... were never embryos.

So there's nothing to prove, and I'll repeat what I said earlier:

Ditto for the angels, who do not fall within the aegis of Linnaeus' taxonomy.

Genus has a scientific definition.

It also has a synonym: "kind".

And in fact, "kind" came first, before science came along and changed the term.

So we can see where the source of the confusion lies, can't we?

Kind does not. (shrug)

Kind = Genus

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

BUMPED FOR REHASH

AV you have become paleontologist in your old age and dig up fossils now ?

 

[AV1611VET]

AV you have become paleontologist in your old age and dig up fossils now ?

No, sir.

But close.

I'm a paleothreadologist.

 

[HitchSlap]

"Humans" ... or mankind ... is not meant to be a part of Linnaeus' taxonomy, since we are made in the image and likeness of God.

It looks to me like mankind made god in their image.

 

[SelfSim]

It looks to me like mankind made god in their image.

.. a point that goes beyond a mere personal opinion too, I might add. - There is objective evidence that is the case!

 

[Yttrium]

For your edification: KIND = GENUS.​

"Kind" should have a tighter definition. A kind would be a complete set of related organisms. All organisms in a kind would share common ancestors. There would be a genetic boundary beyond which adaptation could not cross. We should be able to ascertain this genetic boundary for any given kind.

 

[Shemjaza]

BUMPED FOR REHASH​

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.

You forgot the important:

* EXCEPT WHEN AV SAYS IT ISN'T

Homo sapiens and Homo habbilis are rarely considered the same "kind".

Also the number of living and extinct genuses (sp?) Is still too many for a literal Noah's Ark.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Kind" should have a tighter definition. A kind would be a complete set of related organisms. All organisms in a kind would share common ancestors. There would be a genetic boundary beyond which adaptation could not cross. We should be able to ascertain this genetic boundary for any given kind.

Before we define it, let's get it synonymous, eh?

Whatever the definition of "genus" is, I submit it is the same definition of "kind."

So long, of course, as it doesn't contradict the word of God.

 

[AV1611VET]

You forgot the important:

* EXCEPT WHEN AV SAYS IT ISN'T

Homo sapiens and Homo habbilis are rarely considered the same "kind".

Also the number of living and extinct genuses (sp?) Is still too many for a literal Noah's Ark.

Now, now -- let's have a civil discussion please.

 

[Speedwell]

Before we define it, let's get it synonymous, eh?

Whatever the definition of "genus" is, I submit it is the same definition of "kind."

So long, of course, as it doesn't contradict the word of God.

The repeated speciation of evolution gives rise to new genera. Does it also give rise to new kinds?

 

[AV1611VET]

The repeated speciation of evolution gives rise to new genera.

In Genesis 1, where we see that word more than any other chapter, there was no "repeated speciation" going on.

The sun went down, and when it came up the next day, there were kinds all over the place.