*we all know what a theory is*

You know as a lay person what you call a theory, but you clearly
don't know how the term is used in science. What you call a theory,
they call a hypothesis. What you call a fact, they name a theory.
Now if you want to understand science, you need to know the rules
by which they work. You clearly don't, no wonder you are confused.

Genus simply refers to another taxanomic rank, used in the
classification of living and fossil organsims. When a new genus
is classified, it has to meet the rules set up by international
organisations which determine the protocol, in other words, so
that scientist around the world, are talking the same language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus_(biology)

Of course speciation is an evolutionary process! I hate to
post all these links, but you do need to learn the basics, if
you want to discuss these things:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation_(biology)

DNA and the fossil record are both used to show how species are
related. If you accept speciation, then you accept evolution,
for the principle is the same, it is just a question of more
time, more mutations, more adaptation etc.

Take a bit of time to understand how all things are related, down
the tree of life. This is all very basic biology 101.

YABBYquote>>DNA/fossil.record...show how'species'are related.>>

yes species is related[i accept that]..but genus[this'link'is un-able to be proved]'cannus'is the'genus'for the species wolves and their'speciated'decendants breeds;dog's...

that'speciation'story is accepted by me,but you cant'prove'that canus genus mutated into a new genus to make a new genus[do you claim it's canus genus mutates into...WHAT?

>>If you accept speciation,..you accept evolution,>>

i completly accept'speciation'[within its'genomic'quotant;within the genus[say;cannus]

but i have seen..no proof of genus'EVOLVING'into an other genus,...that is what evolution theorises[but]is unable to'prove'

>>...principle is the same,<<...it is not[mating a'dog'to a'dog'has only'dog-genes'..there can only be micro-mutation[that is very common]

[our bodies contain an average of 20,000 of them[we all do..i have posted the links...[but they self-repair in sexual-mating,keeping within,the.'cannus'genomic mean[dogs breed dogs]

>>..more time,more mutations,more adaptation etc.<<

[we have'fossils'unchanged from..presently-living'animals'[the colealiacynth,crocodile,ants'the list of unchanged'living'fossil's is quite extensive]revealin'genus'stasis

>>..understand how all things are related,down,the tree of life>>

reveal which'branch'on the'tree'..your refering to
and which'link'is proving/what between which'branches'

there are now'evolution-wheels'and lots of other'trees'but they,neatly cover over the truth/,only,gaps reveal...they dont link up

>>This is..basic biology<<i am aware of that,your showing you know your subject[so just one thing

[give me a/one-link/you claim reveals the whole tree.

it will either be so narrow with/specialised minutia[or so'general'so as to neatly avoid explaining it]..

it takes only one or two limbs to'fall-off'the_tree of_life'to make the tree into a forrest'thing is the/branches dont join up..cant name if the un-named first cell'mutated'into flora/fauna

[was it one cell or two],regardless no-one can confirm,thus no one knows the science[thus no one can validate the theory into;science/fact]

science cant make a'cell-membrane['it'has to pump out a'living-cell's'/dna/rna even just to'make'life in a test-tube]without the cell membrane able to be made by science method..one of many absurdities are revealed

'evolution'postulates dead/matter somehow'formed'into life,it cant repeat[that they hold as'sacred'],

thus are revealed as frauds,doing speciation isnt genus-ification..,
cloning isnt abiogenesis...but reveal the root of the tree and i will reveal its not one root[let alone a tree]

UOG, if you can prove that life began more then once, you are free to do so
and win fame, fortune and a nobel prize!

No website reveals the whole evolutionary tree lol, for there are millions
of species, many which have not even been classified by taxonomists.

The bloke who discovered the mysteries of dna is still alive. Automating
the reading of it, only really happened with the human genome project.
So the tree of life continues to be assembled as we speak, but it is a gigantic
undertaking. What we will see is how the dna evidence ties in with the
fossil record evidence and the taxonomy evidence. The mountain of
evidence continues to be assembled and to grow.

The thing is, we see a common pattern in all life forms. Every living
being is either a cell or is made of cells, tiny animate entities that gather
fuel and building materials, produce usable energy and grow and duplicate.

And inside all living cells, from bacteria to humans are the same or nearly
the same molecules that make life work.

The basic structures and mechanisms that sustain life on earth today are
common to all living creatures and the processes that have created life
as we know it have been guided by a common set of rules.

How did life first begin? Probably not as a cell as we know it at all,
but far more simple then that. DNA is basically a molecule that
replicates itself and organisms are the vehicles that is uses to do so.

For a start, no cell would have been required, for the chemical soup
that made up planet earth was sterile. What we do know is that
if you combine the basic chemicals that made up planet earth,
you land up with short strings of rna, very similar to dna plus
amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins.

From simplicity plus millions and billions of years, slowly you
land up with complexity.

So what if it has not yet been replicated in the labs? Do you have
a sterile-environment-as-big-as-earth?

the post limit made me forget this debait,but your honest enough to admit a tree of life cant be printed big enough for the whole story[saves me looking up the ones presented as proof last time]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2305

we can dance arround each other as long as we chose, you cant prove evolution ,and for me to disprove it needs me to rebut every the ever more absurities you call theory as you dance arround your inability to present fact, to support your absurdities

science cant make life from nothing, thus has not/can not replicate their/your theory[this ;your latest;mythical world size lab absurdity you suggest in the last post ,reveals the extent of how far you are prepared to go with your deneyal ,you steadfastly refuse to present any proof[thus clearly dont have any]

your latest absurdity supporting life out of a cell membrane;reveals the lengths of absurdity you will venture, my reasonable request for proof shall in no way be forthcomming, thus i know better than to ask

the best facts dont allways win the debate[but you didnt prove evolution] but are a natural debator,of the masses

anyhow present your proof of non intra cellular life, your absurdities have become inane

you may ask me to prove your ambiogensis
but its your science theory ,
as usual speculating absurdities such as life from non life
yet you are unable to present proof

thus you know i cant rebut it ,but the proof i have rebutted stands by itself, if you really want to debate facts state what you feel the facts to be [your lack of faulsifyable/confirmable facts finish the matter]

should you deem to supply facts i will rebut them
i cant be more fair than that

the facts rebutted so far are at the link[clearly you were following that debate]and decided not to present facts in this one,because i would only point out their flaws, but your failure to present facts here REVEALS YOU DONT HAVE ANY

[thus the facts POSTED HERE AND THERE[@-LINK]stand as evolution rebutted]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2305

UOG, there is indeed a mountain of evidence, but once again, it
does not come in a single web page, as the less educated like
yourself expect.

But then, I doubt if you have an inquistive mind that wants to learn,
more likely a religious mind that wants to prove your religious
beliefs. If you still believe in the magic of the heart for
instance, despite the development of mechanical hearts etc, then
I can't really help you. Some people just believe what they believe,
some people want to understand the world and what we know, how
if functions, why things function as they do. They have an open
mind, unlike yours.

Just yesterday I dusted off a book in my library called
"What Remains to be Discovered" by John Maddox, an eminent scientist
who edited "Nature" for many years, so was at the cutting edge
of science. It was published in 1998. You are free to obtain a
copy from your library.

In it he has a chapter discussing exactly what you cannot even
imagine, ie. the chance of prebiotic replicators, based on
rna and dna, based on the laws of chemistry. Biologists such
as Dawkins have written about the same. Yup, no cell required
when things are sterile. But then chemistry and biology are
clearly not your field of expertise or interest.

Maddox also points out that there is less and less funding for
these kinds of science projects these days, as Govts insist on
more applied research, which generates revenue. Our own CSIRO
is a typical examples of how things have changed.

Once again, the huge mountain of evidence is out there, in our
universities, in our science journals, libraries, but it is
complex and not just a web page as you seem to imagine.

Just to understand what Maddox is writing about, will require that
you know a little basic chemistry, so that you can understand the
behaviour of molecules like rna and dna.

Its up to you really, if you want to inform yourself or not.
Somehow I doubt it

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WMD-45FS9MY-20&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=57bcdf05ed6c12113934046382e3c3af

A model of prebiotic replication discussed by Szathmary and Maynard Smith(1997)....The refined model accounts for two processes associated with replication:1)Replicators always decompose at some rate.>>

this is no doudt because the enzime[needed to split the dna]needs to be able to be switched on and off,..naturally the cell membrane isolates the chromosonal material facilitating this

in a fictitious'sea of dna'the enzymes would destroy all the dna[much like our stomaches do

no cell membrane;no dna

>>2)Replicators deplete their reactants at a rate equal to the rate of their own replication.

Consequently,replicators and their reactants are linked by a non-linear feedback process that keeps them within limits and leads them toward a steady state.>>

naturally this needs the cell membrane to facilitate isolation from enzymes

>>The model suggests that:(a)All competing replicators,including those which replicate at sub-exponential“parabolic” and super-exponential“hyperbolic” rates,are subject to natural selection.

(b)Survival/extinction is determined by positive/negative net-replication irrespective of the mechanism of replication.

(c)Being fit/unfit is the consequence of survival/extinction rather than its cause...In other words,natural selection and survival of the fit is the outcome of continual extinction of the unfit.>>

clearly a dna/rna;soup has no fitness[to'survive';nor any'selection']

thus the topic is void sans a cell membrane

>>† Author to whom correspondence should be addresssed.E-mail: cflifson@weizmann.weizmann.ac.il.<<

PLEASE PROVIDE PROOF NO CELL MEMBRANE IS NEEDED

note the definition of life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

>>To define life in unequivocal terms is still a challenge for scientists,and when derived from an analysis of known organisms,..life is usually defined at the cellular level.

Conventional definition:The consensus is that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena:

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.

Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.

Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.

Growth:...Adaptation:..Response to stimuli:..Reproduction:...>>

a dna soup just dont cut it[lol]