I will simply repeat what I wrote in previous threads. It is a certainty that Linnaeus used the terms found in the Vulgate, but they were corrupted from the original meaning. Linnaeus simply used them to identify two of the lowest classification levels, as I explained in earlier posts:
***
[Begin Kalamata in #172]
Linnaeus was a creationist who wrote of the created kind:
"Like other animals who enjoy life, sensation, and perception; who seek for food, amusements, and rest, and who prepare habitations convenient for their kind, [man] is curious and inquisitive; but, above all other animals, he is noble in his nature, in as much as, by the powers of his mind, he is able to reason justly upon whatever discovers itself to his senses; and to look, with reverence and wonder, upon the works of Him who created all things.” [Carolus Linnaeus, “A General System of Nature Vol I: Animal Kingdom: Mammalia, Birds, Amphibia, Fishes.” Lackington, Allen and Co., 1806, Introduction, p.1]
He also believed in the immutability of the species, but with an inherent potential for variation:"
"The 5 classes of plants. The number of species is the number of different forms produced by the Infinite Being from the beginning; and these forms have produced more forms, according to the laws laid down, but always ones that are similar to themselves. Therefore the number of species is the number of different forms or structures that occur today.” [Stephen Freer, “Linnaeus’ Philosophia Botanica.” Oxford University Press, 2005, p.113]
The Latin Vulgate erroneously translated the created kind as either species or genus. When Linnaeus adopted his classification scheme, he included both words, with the genus rank just above the species:"
"SYSTEM is conveniently divided into five branches, each subordinate to the other: class, order, genus, species, and variety, with their names and characters.” [Carolus Linnaeus, “A General System of Nature Vol I - Animal Kingdom - Mammalia, Birds, Amphibia, Fishes.” Lackington, Allen and Co., 1806, Introduction, p.3]
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3769318/posts?page=172#172
***
[Begin Kalamata in #196]
The Hebrew word "miyn" is used ONLY to classify plants and animals (Gen 1:11-12, 1:21, 1:24, 6:20, 7:14; Lev 11:14, 11:19, 11:22, 11:29; Deu 14:13, 14:18; Eze 47:10), and for nothing else. The word was translated to "kind" in the English versions. Linnaeus used the Latin Vulgate translation of genus and species, the meaning of which has been corrupted.
[Wow! That wasn't very clear! LOL! But this is:]
In this statement, Linnaeus seems to be saying there can be multiple genera within a single kind, distinguishable by their "essential character".
"The succulent plants are worthy of distinction;so are the largest genera, e.g. Euphorbia. The chief of this kind are: Haller's Allium Our Musa, etc. . . . By its unique pattern, the ESSENTIAL character distinguishes a genus from those of the same kind included in the same natural order." [Freer, Stephen, Translator, "Linnaeus' Philosophia Botanica." Oxford University Press, 2005, p.19, 142]
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3769318/posts?page=196#196
**********************
>>Joey Denier: "There is no single "species barrier", there is only increasing difficulty interbreeding between species as they become more & more distantly related. There are certainly, your word, "barriers" at both species and genus level, barriers strong enough to restrict interbreeding in some species but not among other genera.
For examples: African & Indian Elephant genera cannot naturally interbreed, but different Zebra genera can. Today humans and Neanderthals are classified as separate species in the genus homo, and Neanderthal traits resulting from interbreeding have increased human pathologies like diabetes, Crohn's, Lupus, biliary cirrhosis, addiction & depression. Point is: even between closely related species, interbreeding is not totally harmless. Further, Linnaeus, by your own claim, maybe twice, mistranslated the Bible's word "kind" as "genus" and "species". He implied those words meant "kind" and yet you say there's no "barrier" in genus or species? The fact is difficulties interbreeding do increase as species become more distantly related."
The bottom line is, there is a genetic barrier at the family, e.g., "kind" level, which has been known for some time. That is exactly what the Bible predicts. No species can stray outside its own family.
**********************
>>Joey Denier: "There are certainly, your word, "barriers" at both species and genus level, barriers strong enough to restrict interbreeding in some species but not among other genera. For examples: African & Indian Elephant genera cannot naturally interbreed, but different Zebra genera can. Today humans and Neanderthals are classified as separate species in the genus homo, and Neanderthal traits resulting from interbreeding have increased human pathologies like diabetes, Crohn's, Lupus, biliary cirrhosis, addiction & depression.
Point is: even between closely related species, interbreeding is not totally harmless."
Speciation occurs only within the family. Whether species within a family can interbreed, or not, is irrelevant. The genetic barrier is at the family level. There have been no transitions from one family to another, nor into a new family.
**********************
>>Joey Denier: "Further, Linnaeus, by your own claim, maybe twice, mistranslated the Bible's word "kind" as "genus" and "species". He implied those words meant "kind" and yet you say there's no "barrier" in genus or species? The fact is difficulties interbreeding do increase as species become more distantly related.
Joey hears what he wants to hear, and denies the rest.
**********************
>>Kalamata: "A serious discussion of the inadequacy of evolutionary theory began no later than 2014, as outlined in this Nature article:"
>>Joey Denier: "Does Evolutionary Theory Need a Rethink? That article, plus this one in no way try to refute or defeat evolution theory, they merely discuss the definitions and importance of such terms as.
The truth is, papers by secular researchers routinely support the creation model. The evolutionism orthodoxy is scared silly that they are losing their power over the minds of the people and their "right" to continually feed at the taxpayer trough. Worse, they must rely on corrupt federal judges to keep opposing viewpoints out of the classrooms. Science can stand on its own, but not evolutionism.
**********************
>>Joey Denier: "Did any of these evolution versions "falsify" Darwin's original ideas?Answer: no, they simply brought vastly more details to explain exactly how "descent with modifications" and "natural selection" work, naturally.
Evolutionism cannot be falsified because it is not science. However, it would become instantly accepted by everyone if there was even a shred of evidence for common descent. Without that evidence, the living and the fossil records better fits the creation model.
**********************
>>Kalamata: "If you were being honest, you would be denouncing the religious orthodoxy of evolutionism. The anti-science religion of evolutionism goes back a long way. It was entrenched as early as Hubble's days. Read what that religious bigot wrote:
>>Joey Denier: "Really, Edwin Hubble the astronomer? You're going to weaponize Hubble against Darwin? Who will you weaponize next, Aunt Jemima?
There is no need to get all hysterical on us, Joey? I was simply exposing Hubble as an anti-God bigot.
**********************
>>Kalamata: "Remarkable, huh? Ironically, a giant space telescope bearing Hubble's name, with its discovery of deep space galactic clusters, showed the world that the density of the distribution does indeed increase with distance, not to mention that Hubble was a bigot! God definitely has a sense of humor."
>>Joey Denier: "Hubble's religious views were likely agnostic and like Galileo Hubble did not let Biblical interpretations influence his theories on outer space.
Did you not bother to even read what Hubble wrote?
**********************
>>Joey Denier: "As for "density of the distribution does indeed increase with distance", it was Hubble himself who discovered the expanding Universe and would well realize that the further out you look, the further back in time you see and so would expect to find clusters closer together in the early Universe."
I see that astrophysics is not one of your strong suits. The last thing the big bang theory would predict would be deep space, fully mature, galactic clusters, like the Hubble scope found. Rather, the model, as Hubble alluded to, predicts the distribution of matter to decrease with distance, like an exploding bomb:
"[W]e would not expect to find a distribution in which the density increases with distance, symmetrically in all directions. Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. . . Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance." [Possible Worlds: The Law of Nebular Distribution when Red-Shifts are not interpreted as Velocity-Shifts, in Hubble, Edwin, "The Observational Approach to Cosmology." Oxford At The Clarendon Press, 1937, Chap. III, p.40]
The space telescope bearing Hubble's name proved him wrong. So what is the alternative? My choice is, God created the stars, and then stretched out the heavens, leaving the universe fine-tuned, as in the Anthropic Principle.
**********************
>>Kalamata: "Species are the bottom of the taxonomic ladder, Joey, where the most diversity occurs. Phyla are at the top, where disparity occurs:"
>>Joey Denier: "Disparity of phyla is physically the same thing as diversity of species. Only the degrees of separation are different. It is similar to alleged distinctions between "micro" and "macro" evolution -- same things different time periods."
I feel like I am debating a child.
*********************
>>Kalamata: "The family (or "kind") level is the barrier. Many genera can arise from the genepool of a kind, and many species can arise from the genepool of a genus; but everything stops (is fixed) at the kind, or family level."
>>Joey Denier: "Total rubbish since about 20,000 taxonomic "families" have arisen from 2,000 "orders" in 36 phyla. There's no "barrier" to stop speciation at the "family" level, so speciation can continue as long and as far as evolution takes it."
That is evolutionism window dressing. There is no evidence that any species has speciated out of one family and into another.
*********************
>>Kalamata: "Behe, like me, is more than happy with the current classification system. My only dissent might be the never-ending quest of God-haters to remove all biblical references from science, such as the created "kind". Removing the "kind" from the dialogue is just one more nail in the coffin of freedom of religion and liberty."
>>Joey Denier: "even your hero Linnaeus never used the word "kind" as a classification. Does that make him an enemy of "freedom of religion and liberty"?
Is that a red herring or a straw man?
Child.
Mr. Kalamata
Right, according to your own posts, Linnaeus simply borrowed words from what you tell is a mistranslation of the Bible and used those words for his own arbitrary classifications.