thankyou for revealing your ignorance stezza...google groups/families/genus species...and you will learn the basics

its sad you cant comprehend the basics of genetics...little wonder you and your ilk...claim science...yet have no clue how science works

see that there are birds...for egsample..these are in the subheading aves...these are then sorted/divided...into families...[near relations..these are then sorted into yet other groups called..genus...these genus are then divided into species

now genus is a type...the dodo is one type of a type of bird...the dodo and the pigion are of divergent genus...though both being in the same familie.../group...finaly we get to genus...columbia.....that darwin.used in evolution of species]the genus of columbia..then divied into species

each life has its group/family/genus/species...its own/branch on
the tree of life[how ignorant you chose to be]

please use the search function
many are peer revieuwed
even wikpedia

then you might avoid looking so dumb next time

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=groups+families+genus+species&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Dear david f,

Thanks for the kind words. All I wanted to say was that not knowing your Lutheran pastor’s congregation, it might be the case that he did not want to “disturb their simple faith” for the same reasons that one should not “disturb” 12 years old children’s simple understanding of physics (and common sense) with things they could not possibly comprehend. The same about the Catholic priest of your father’s acquaintance.

>>I don't buy the analogy of questioning religious faith as equivalent to poking a screwdriver in back of a powered TV set <<
I agree this was a clumsy example; you indeed might question whether the psychological shock of loosing one’s lifelong faith (e.g. based on naive, uncritical beliefs) is comparable to the shock of being electrocuted. Perhaps more relevant would be to say that it suffices for the simple viewer to know how to operate his/her TV set without understanding the relevance of Maxwell’s equations that govern the broadcasting he/she enjoys.

One can question everything but sometimes the best answer is “either accept a simple and naive answer or do a lot of study to gain a deeper understanding of what you are questioning”.

>>You strike me as an individual capable of questioning your faith.<<
I think I understand what you mean, although to me faith is a state of mind that one can change (slightly or dramatically e.g. by “loosing one’s faith”), but not question.

On the other hand, one’s world-view (religious or not) is based on - among other things - rationally formulated presuppositions (beliefs, “a priori truths”) that one might and should question from time to time. However, this questioning as well as acceptable answers depend on the intellectual sophistication, cultural background etc. of the questioner.

I would think that my understanding of my religious beliefs is more sophisticated than that of the average old lady in the pew, and accordingly so is the questioning and answers that I can accept. However, even this old lady has a right to beliefs she can understand to build on her world-view and faith.

Stezza: << Please define what a GENUS is, by who and when it was defined. >>

Didn't you know that God defined the immutable taxonomic level of the genus, when He was busy creating life, the universe and everything?

George,

<<Perhaps more relevant would be to say that it suffices for the simple viewer to know how to operate his/her TV set without understanding the relevance of Maxwell’s equations that govern the broadcasting he/she enjoys.>>

Yes, but the “simple viewer” doesn’t run the risk of discovering that the TV doesn’t actually exist if they look deeper into Maxwell’s equations, and they don’t run the risk of spending the rest of their life attempting to justify the contradictions and absurdities in the TV’s manual (while passing them off as mere “challenges”) by conjuring unnecessarily complex, convoluted and inventive arguments while blaming themselves for not being able to understand the TV or its manual when no amount of creative thought explains an absurdity.

Nor would they suggest that those who try to point out to them that the TV doesn’t exist are just not sophisticated or intelligent enough to understand the TV - while rejecting any and every suggested notion of what the TV is - when in fact they are not only intelligent enough to understand, but also intelligent enough to see through the inventiveness of the techniques used to support the concept of the non-existent TV.

By the way, I could understand how one would rationally formulate the presupposition that no gods exist, as a nothing-before-something’s-proven stance is a more rational approach to take - for similar reasons that it is more rational for a juror to presume 'not guilty' until evidence has been presented - but how does one rationally formulate the presupposition that a god of some sort exists?

ajphylips..quote..<<..how does/one rationally formulate/..the presup-position..>>talk about/..loaded..with inuendo

,,<<that a god/of some sort..exists?>>...seeing as how/you have given plenty of latitude..lets..have a go eh

i was raised/in science/..told there wasnt no god..
and lived quite contentedly/absorbing science-method...for 30 years

i then/..as a child believed science/man...
could do anything...but in time realsed..mankind's feet of clay...

how to/give you..a thumbnail .of a lifestime..of learning

realise...the theory..is taught to children/for good reason..they are told..your/only a child...later..you will know better...

but by the time..later came...it didnt..in fact...as it progresed..it grew ever more/..specialised

study science..[a]...study science..'b'...well i studied them both/..then you get to go..to uni...and ever more narrow/specialities are offered...

the more/they study..,the narrower/..their field of exper-teaze

we get to the stage/..where like in the previous/topic
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10424&page=0

we get;..experts...[in paddymelons...or like dear forrest..EXPERTS..in eucalypt..or experts..in fungi...or yabbies]...still holding on to/..the delusions..taught to children

we neatly gloss\over..basics..like mendelic inheritors...like groups/families..genus...and begin talking about..OUR SPECIALISED AREA>..dealing within the..one genus...ie/..talk about species..within/our genus/speciality

even the texts..of the darwinian/god/head darwin..[god bless him]..talked about evolution/;..of species...[in fact i followed closely his subheading/of columbia/liva...that being pigions

bred pigeons...crossbred pigeons...learned the mendelic tables..like they are some/holy-grail...[ps..they refute evolution/..out of genus]..having no mendelic ratio..for change of genus

levi/and hollander..continued.on from darwins/pigeons...in their magnificent opus..the pigeon..

i wrote my theories to hollander...
and the great giant returned my letter's...

in time i broached/..the true reason..for my pigeon facination...[to revive the dodo...the pigeon/..being its nearest relitive
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-120553140.html
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-83362819.html

but hollander/..soon wised me up on..*the genus barrier
i foolishly informed him/his thinking was old...
and..in time learned,...,he was right

there is a barrier...between genus...!

i learned science/based on species/evolving...lol..is a scam...
the hard way..

ever notice/they only talk in species...the only egsamples they give are species..thats children...repeating/mantra..that they learned/earned..as children

even those as wise as..gazza...dont know their species/genus...lol...species/are evolving ONLY..within their genus...

even those wise...in their own theory...dont have a clue/of which they speak...dont know their genus..from their species...

and thus remain..the fool..

being blind..failing..to see the delusion..
chosing/to remain in ignorance..of the true sciences
that are able to replicate...and provide faulsifyables

faulsifyables..that evolutionry/THEORY...dont got

present them/..if you claim them
if not..stand revealed..as a child/decieved

under one god,

I was simply attempting to understand your point of view, it can be difficult to identify your argument from your posts. However you failed to answer any of my questions.

As CJ alluded to, the definition of genus and species is a man made phenomenon, and so is subject to change over time. The tree of life you describe is simply mans attempt to describe the relationships between various animals.

Simply reference (as in a peer reviewed paper) where it states that evolution involves the evolution "out of genus..into new genus.

PS please try spellcheck then you might avoid looking so dumb next time