stezza<<Proof that a species has evolved "out" of a genus into another genus would assume that what is classified as a genus remains constant.>>>..all seagulls are one genus..[all fruitfly are one genus]..a species fluctuates within its species mean..[darwins finches are all finches]..lol

had you read the links..[which you havnt]..you would have read the link on darwins finches..finding out the season determines the species vairiation,predominant according to seasonal vaioriability..according to dry or wet seasons

[in dry times the thick beak..[in wet times the narrow..[all fl;uctuate WITHin is species mean..NEVER LEAVING ITS FINCH GENUS

you can prattle on about<<..This is not true,as all the species in all genera are constantly evolving.>>..but can offer NO EVIDENCE OF NEW GENUS EVOLVING..because it simply cant happen..

as you claim it does..PRESENT proof..[and not flies into flies..[or seagulls into seagulls,..they are all still within the genus..[of seagull,or fruitfly]

<<..how you understand this topic along with explanations for the evidence of evolution we can observe>>..evolution WITHIN the species..is well known..

..[BUT IS NO PROOF FOR EVOLVING A NEW GENUS,

<<such as artificial speciation>>..speciation MEANS WITHIN ITS SPECIES[

evolution CLAIMS genus-ification..[your ignorance knows no bounds[claiming no genus is insane..[please provide evidence]

<<and the changes we see with bacteria>>..ARE ALL BACTERIA

<<viral adaptation to artificial selection.>>..are all still virus
ie within the genus for bacteria
or within the genus for virus

its not the first time some fool claims the science term used isnt relitive..[read the link..[some retard disclaimed abiogensis is a science theory,..when i advised..[him/her]..that life comes from life..[as witnessed by science itself...

[thus non-life making life is scientificly absurd..[..they also were unable to name this first-life]..lol..very scietific..lol

[as is your claiming speciation..[within species,..is proof of genus evolution...lol..[for which not a single proof is to be found..

[the 5 claimed..[in the fossil record]..have been rebutted in the first debate..[see link]

Jurisprudence has been described as the science of law. The author says; Lack of self-discipline, and not adhering to a set of rules is detrimental to the individual and to society.

It was so then, and it is so now. He is so right. The Super Set of Rules, that have been applied as a science to government since about 1215 and the Magna Carta by the English were the Gospels. Those four narratives carefully selected from about 35 tales by early scholars, and referred to in the OT, have been the basis of the science of self government until 1970 in New South Wales.

In 1970, a small clique of gangsters and politicians, decided to allow nine lawyers, all Judges and Atheists, to write a Koran for the government of New South Wales. A new State Order, called the Supreme Court Act 1970, was published, and it broke all the preexisting rules. This new State order has evolved into the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999. This is the catechism of the State of New South Wales Church. It fails to accept that Almighty God exists so it is the Atheists Bible. It refuses to acknowledge that Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second is Sovereign, and refuses to apply the universal and long tested Rules, that governed and ordered society scientifically, since 1215. Instead of separating Church and State, it makes the State the Church. It is not a Christian State, it is governed by nine Lawyer/Judges, on a Rules Committee. In practical terms New South Wales is an Atheist’s republic.

As a republic and a self proclaimed Sovereign State, the State has become Almighty God. This is the ultimate lack of self discipline. You may whinge and grizzle about Christians, but when your children decide you are past your use by date, and want your assets and can send you to a nursing home so they can sell them, on an order from the Guardianship Tribunal, you may just wish that Christian values still prevailed. Before 1970, anyone could have helped you to live with dignity. Now no one can

Stephen, science and religion are not opposing camps.

Yes, “science” is used by atheists/agnostics to refute religious beliefs, and the Theory of Evolution is one of the better known counter-arguments trotted out in such debates.

But that is the best that “science” can offer. Atheists certainly do not have the final answer and further, the argument itself is very thin on “science”. You might note that Creationists use “science” (convincingly) to argue back.

“Religion” is not anti-progress or anti-science, nor does science = progress . These are over-simplistic generalizations,not accounting for the differences between the world religions, or between individual believers.

Einstein was a Jew. Right? But he was also the influential scientist who sent a letter to the American president recommending that the new science of splitting an atom be exploited to develop weapons of mass destruction. He later expressed regret that this influenced the decision to commence the Manhattan Project. Science does not equate to progress if you weigh your definition of progress more heavily with those genetically-loaded empathetic tendencies.

Contributors here are quick to uptake the “religion” = “backwardness” idea.

Shadow Minister: “ but the nutjobs of the religious world continue to bay at any progress that erodes their belief system and try and have the science or teaching of the science banned.”

Einstein, for example? Or, like Clownfish, are we only talking about the “hordes of murderous nutases (who) actually started killing one another over some fairly ordinary cartoons”.

And undidly offers: “Intelligent children from the religious classes can escape and are welcomed into the tech world. “

Which doesn’t really explain why a large Government department pays me to be a computer programmer, and further, that I was a programmer first and became a believer later (nor, necessarily, assume that I fit this exclusive category of intelligence, or that I continue to be welcomed in the "tech world" since I converted, I suppose).

I get that “religion” has so many negative connotations, but in fairness, perhaps ONE of the world religions is being allowed to taint all religions.

Predictably, this has drifted into the usual simplistic arguments. The fact is, science and religion don't need to be at each other's throats.

The only time when there needs to be conflict, is when religion claims something factual, and it's proven to be wrong - like the literalists who think the earth's only 5,000 years old. They need to take a new interpretation of their bible and realise that religion is a form of philosophy - not a factual history, except in allegorical senses.

As for the arguments equating evolution to religion, I say, balls to that.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25510735-30417,00.html

Here's yet another damn suggestive piece of actual scientific evidence that's been unearthed in the last few days. Another missing link in evolution.

As opposed to scriptural tales from one religion among thousands, that claims truth in the form of thousand year old fairy tales.

It's pretty obvious to thinking people, that religion can be taken philosophically but not literally.

So to the literalists such as runner...

Get educated or suck eggs.

I see the desperados again claiming they have found the missing link. What a joke and insult to those who believe in true science. Yet another fraudulent claim. As I said before fairy tales for adults. This another case in point.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30826552/

TRTL writes

So to the literalists such as runner...
Get educated or suck eggs.

You mean get brainwashed like yourself and be filled with self righteousness. It is this kind of 'science' that only the most gullible could swallow. To create your evolutionary story around this fossil is as dumb as the many other attempts to ease man's corrupt conscience.