dr stezzra of course i have my list of faulsifyables
like the repair mechanisnms of dna
http://www.google.com/search?q=dna+repair+mechanism

the thesis to aj phillips antithesis..thesis if you will

recall his words

""Another “falsifiable” is the complete lack of any mechanism preventing genera splitting off into several different genera;""

ignoring his ignorant phrasing
the google search clearly reveals at least 3 mechanisms of dna re-pair

of copurse another faulsifyable
would be your presenting a validated change of genus

there are some other
that come to mind

but lets keep it simple
[as my reply to aj seems to have sent him away]
and avoiding debate..*dont mean its not time we had one

based on the facts of course...
[thats why i put up the world freeman society link]
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?t=3225

So evidence that DNA is not always repaired by one of these mechanisms (thus remains mutated for generations) would contradict your theory?

im wading through your link dr stezzra

quote..""It lacked however fundamental functions,
including transcription,
processes for extracellular communication,..
and enzymes for deoxyribonucleotide synthesis.

Proteomic history reveals the urancestor is closer to a simple progenote organism..but harbors a rather complex set of modern molecular functions.""

but essentially..*didnt live!

despite having...
""advanced metabolic capabilities,
..especially rich in nucleotide metabolism enzymes,
pathways..for the biosynthesis..of membrane
sn1...,2 glycerol ester..and ether lipids,

and it had crucial elements of translation,..including a primordial ribosome with protein synthesis capabilities.'''

YET....it hasnt got life
''IT LACKED...fundemonmental..fun-ctions''

clever words usage[spin]

""considered to be either"""...lol

""a simple 'progenote' organism
with a rudimentary translational apparatus

or a more complex 'cenancestor'
with almost all essential biological processes""

lol

""ALMOST all""...lol

tell me what means ESSENTIAL...?

""that urancestors were always placed
at their base and rooted the tree of life in Archaea""

thus the tree has no root?

lets keep this in context

""The tree of life..defines the
last universal common ancestor (LUCA),"""[as]

""an organism responsible for the emergence of Earth's primary lineages....*However,..the current tree of life is not universal, i.e. not all primary lineages..are represented in the tree.

The tree describes the evolution of organisms with ribosome-containing cells..(ribocells)..and does not incorporate viruses or other lineages that lack ribosomes(virocells),

>>have biological boundaries
that are difficult to define,
or are evolutionarily highly mobile""

lol

the numbers needed are huge

""recent study of 184 genomes..identified 669 orthologous protein families,..which cover 561..*detailed functional classes

that are involved in almost all essential biological processes of extant life,..including translation,..transcription and its regulation,..DNA replication,..recombination,..and repair,*

plus...""transport and membrane-associated functions,
electron transfer,and metabolism ""

in short uncountable odds
no science faulsifyability as to how/what...
chance random/event's..accumulated into a first..'life'

its just all so funny

i noted the word euacestor
so googled up images

http://www.google.com/search?q=uracestor&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi

SIX results
all vague synthesis drawings
of lol proto-eonemes?

aint it grand to be in
at the theor-retical ground floor..of a new lie?

*[f] deleted

proteomes had many more pictures
http://www.google.com/search?btnG=Search&um=1&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&oq=proteomes+&aq=f&aqi=&gs_upl=259034l262122l0l263743l1l1l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&q=proteomes

but these are looking a bit like simple dna
but heck aint the pictures pretty

if only the pictures moved
[seeing is believing]

but lets go back to your words
""You may add that to my previous statement
that identifying fossils of the homo genus..alongside
those of the Eoraptor genus...""

heck lets hear your proof

""I could list falsifiables all day.""

well lets start tomorrow
[im down to one post..for the rest of the day]

.ps..
.
..i love charles darwin

""If it could be demonstrated..""

who will pay..to refute the theory...lol
the peers..KNOW its their reason de'tre..[reason for being]

""that any complex organ existed,"'

not any complex organism?
could he be refering to species modifications
[like fan tails..or long legs?..short beaks/long beaks?]

""which could not possibly..have been formed by numerous,
successive,...slight modifications,"""

all sussesfull and all adding tyo survival
the odds become huge

then and only then
if refuted...only then will

""my theory""
of species evolving..[and im fine with species evolving]
just not NEW*..genus emerging

only then...'my theory..""would absolutely break down" Charles Darwin.

recall him
knowing his genus from his species
tell me why..did he write 'EVOLUTION ...of SPECIES*

not evolution..of genus

his species evolution is completly valid
but our sumation..of species info..into evolution of genus..
is approaching a colluded fraud...with no faulsifyables its a con

darwin was a great man..[i found him by study of pigeons]
via levi and hollanders..the pigeon encyclopedia

corrosponded with hollander
got into much other stuff
with mozaic grafting and celular modifiation/by synthesis

i do not make his words lightly

yes you can put up faulsifyables...
that if refuted..*refute your theory

im fine with that

please present them

Thats alot of words to avoid one small question. I'll repeat,

You stated:
"of course i have my list of faulsifyables
like the repair mechanisnms of dna"

And I questioned:
"So evidence that DNA is not always repaired by one of these mechanisms (thus remains mutated for generations) would contradict your theory?"

POST LIMITS DEAR BOY..!

back to your last question

*noting..no genus evoltion
out*..of genus..was presented..!

but..i note..your clever....
[planned use..of an outlyer?]
to negate..the normal formalty..
of automatic..dna repar mechanisms

""So evidence..that DNA is
not always..lol...repaired
by one..of these mechanisms..""

one..
cant exclude*
or refute..the other two

one..dont confirm..all..
or indeed indicate its..applicable to all

so no..
it will cleverly be..some complex annomility..[outliner]..
that destracts..from the sure facts..
THAT..dna gets repaired..*

heck
look at the word..RE-paird

dna pairs..are gods way
of making sure..change of genus..can never happen

but.at species level..sure

a mutation that..*isnt fatal
can be expressed..if domminant..at species level

[like a fan tail..or frill in a pigeon..
or multiple eyes/legs etc on a fruitfly]
or paired..*if ressesive

""(thus remains mutated..for generations)""

SURE..within its genus bounds
AT SPECIES level

ie..only within the species
of the given genus...

[unless we get into
inserting mutations..manually...like gmo]

[ie corn..that makes the 3rd generation sterile]
or inserts salmon genes..into strawberries]

""would..[that]..contradict your theory?""'

not in the least...

i know all dogs..are genus cannus
all breeds of dogs..are species..*within canus genus..

so any mutation..from any dog
[or pigeon..or fruitfly/human..any life]..

will transcribe
into any other species....[*in the same genus!]

as long as breeding is factilitated..into fertile progeny
that again breed..*WITHIN their genus bounds

gmo dont count

so present..it..by all means
lets keep an open mind..lets focused on facts

but if,,
(its not a change of genus]
its refuting..the flawed evolution..of genus thesis..!

oh well
thats it for me for the day

4 limit posting..makes refuting destractions difficult

BUT not impossable

keep it comming

will reply/refute
as fast as i can post

*please present faulsifyables*
that state definitivly...what it faulsifies

and what if refuted...would faulsify
the thesis..theor-rised..

refuting..or proving one
cant refute..or validate..them all

be specfic
very specfic

we will..get at
how..god done it

*in time
[his time..or ours?]

lets get it together

now?

i pick..a picture

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.abrf.org/ABRFNews/1996/December1996/wilkinsfig1.GIF&imgrefurl=http://www.abrf.org/ABRFNews/1996/December1996/Proteome.html&usg=__9H1lhVK5mcnfz4kogzl4mH3svkw=&h=435&w=681&sz=9&hl=en&start=2&sig2=jcT2_V0Ak1k5cnv9JPrGqw&zoom=1&tbnid=NJMk29iMWEKRhM:&tbnh=89&tbnw=139&ei=KkvRTsqLCsW4iQeC4aXcBg&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dproteomes%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1

to quote..""we still do not understand..how
the simplest living organisms
actually work.""

at least honesty..