No. What im saying is that biologists have blurred the lines by classifying organisms into increasingly inclusive groups. By the way they have defined animals, they've made it impossible for a 'genesis kind' to fit in anywhere without it appearing incorrect.
You can't define your term and it's someone else's fault?
You don't have to use those terms at all if you don't want to. Just give us a definition (not examples, a definition) that works and--this is key--stick to one definition.
If you don't think the term "genus" makes sense, why did you choose it as the one and only word you wanted to define your term? Are you now retracting that?
If it appears incorrect its because in biologic terminology, a species applies to any group of interfertile animals (or plants) but at the same time, many of these species are put into a genus on their own rather then grouped together as a Genesis kind would do. This is why its confusing because in a genesis Kind there could be many such species or varieties within a single genre.
You realize that you're just spouting gibberish at this point? If you don't like the biological terms, don't use them. I think it's best if you don't, because I don't think you have a firm grasp on what they mean.
I submit that is not your problem at all. Your problem is that your hypothesis is false, not just false but impossible. You need to have everything fit into a small wooden boat, and then dramatically expand into millions of species all over the world. The way YECs try to finesse this is to have the term mean a broad grouping on the ark, and then a narrow category now, to hide this problem.
There is no definition that works, because the scenario is impossible. Either the ark was the size of Australia, or you would have to see dramatic, constant, rapid evolution of new species, which is not observed and is in fact impossible.
And that is why we try to pin down your definition, in order to make this clear.
each of these belong to one genesis kind:
On what basis do you say that? How do you know?
