Don't forget about the marijuana OUG, you bred that as well. How's that going BTW?

I see you still don't understand that 'genus' is an artificial construct used by taxoniomists to classify groups of species.

You may at this point want to look up the word "phylogeny". If you post gibberish again, I think I'll have to revert to my standard position of ignoring you.

Phylogenetic groups, or taxa, can be monophyletic, paraphyletic, or polyphyletic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetics

<<a phylogenetic tree is based on a hypo-thesis>>>ie its a theory..just like evolution

a..theory..<<of the order in which evolutionary events are assumed>>>assumed..>>..to have occurred.>>...lol very scientific

<<Cladistics is the current method of choice to infer>>lol<< phylogenetic trees.

The most commonly-used methods to infer>>>lol<<<..phylogenies include parsimony,..maximum likelihood,..and MCMC-based Bayesian inference.>>inferance...lol..

<<Phenetics,..popular in the mid-20th century but now largely obsolete,..uses distance matrix-based methods to construct trees based on overall similarity,>>.lol

<<which is often assumed>>>lol..<<to approximate phylo-genetic relationships.

All methods depend upon an implicit..or explicit..mathematical model describing..the evolution of characters..observed in the species included,..and are usually used for molecular phylogeny,..wherein the characters are aligned nucleotide or amino acid sequences.

Phylogenetic nomenclature..,(PN)..or phylogenetic taxonomy..>>lol

<<..is an alternative..to rank-based nomenclature,..applying definitions from cladistics ..or phylogenetic systematics).

Its two defining features..are the use of phylogenetic definitions,..of biological taxon names,...lol

..and the lack of..obligatory ranks.>>>just so taxonomy cant fire friendly fire...an act od subterfudge to give taxinomic debiability...lol

<<It is currently not regulated>>>lol,..but..the PhyloCode (International Code of Phylogenetic Nomenclature)..is intended to regulate it....once implemented...>>LOL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_nomenclature

hahaha...lol

but there is more...lol

<<The terms cladism/and cladist..were first introduced by Ernst W. Mayr in 1965...They..sometimes..>>lol<<..refer to cladistics..as a whole,..but often..in particular/the former..refers to phylogenetic nomenclature and those who....

..advocate..a taxonomy...>>LOL<<..founded on cladistics,..>>LOL

<<..going beyond mere use of phylogenetic analyses..as a tool of systematics.>>lol

<<These terms are particularly frequently used by those who prefer a rank-based nomenclature,..and are thus often used somewhat disparagingly.>>lol

Phylogeny...as a central principle in taxonomy:
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&rls=MEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB&q=author:%22de+Queiroz%22+intitle:%22Phylogeny+as+a+central+principle+in+taxonomy:+...%22+&um=1&ie=UTF-8&oi=scholarr

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&rls=MEDA%2CMEDA%3A2008-36%2CMEDA%3Aen-GB&q=Phylogenetics+means+taxa&btnG=Search&meta=

Oh dear, it's like having your favourite meal thrown up on the table in front of you at a dinner party.

If I ever have one, I'll know who not to invite.

OK OUG you will have to admit I have never been rude to you.
Yes I once ,trying to help not hurt told you about spell check.
And yes I am opposed to your beliefs and the way you present them here.
But I have refrained from being rude, you have not.
Often using insults and in a most unchristian way.
So here are my views on you, sometimes you do not seem to be in control of your thoughts.
Often you seem to think your Christianity gives you the right to be rude.
I have seen you hint at use of some vegetation not quite legal.
OK no saint myself but why tell us about it.
Some times one under god I think your self belief is miss placed.
And bloke you tread a path different than mine I like to know answers to questions, every thing man is and has been but you regard anything that may prove you are deluded as wrong.
Stay in control one under god if you can that is.
And read your Bible I did you know, followed it word for word, maybe a different one than yours?
The God I once believed in but no longer do, would not be happy with your presentation in his defense.

belly<<..I have refrained from being rude,you have not.>>oh belly..robust..but your right...i thought you could be..revealed the better man...i agree
<,Often using insults and in a most unchristian way.>>only against those who should know better..[ps im not xtian...

<<sometimes..you do not seem to be in control of your thoughts>>...in reading others posts...yes i have an open mind..and can change opinion with the right facts...so yes others affect my thinking

<<Often you seem to think your Christianity>>>im not xtian

<<gives you the right to be rude>>>nom mate..nothing to do with religion...im ignorant..but not as idiotic..as some think me to be.

<<vegetation not quite legal.<>>>more than hint i smoke yanndi[oldman weed al the time..non stop...chainsmoke..grow the herb/study genetics/law/politics...whats it to do with you?

<<why tell us about it.>>>often what i say..has no rebuttal...so the dope..gives them something to make their point with...i just slam it back to em

<<your self-belief is miss placed.>>>..mate im lower than low[scum...but i know god loves me..like he loves you...i dont believe in this meat..i simply believe in god...full-stop

And bloke you tread a path different than mine I like to know answers to questions, every thing man is and has been but

<<you regard anything that may prove you are deluded as wrong.>>..mate...i takes me lumps...i have no fear...really cant be bothered to censor my thoughts nor thinking...

its in writing..and can be quoted..via link at any time...by anyone...please provide links that prove your case...truth is often stranger than fiction...i know what i have done..you cant..except by what i chose to reveal

<<Stay in control one under god..if you can that is.>>mate im speachless...i value control..of the self/flesh..our god/given/spirit animates..

<<read your Bible..I did you know,..followed it word for word,..maybe a different one than yours?>>>i more than likely read youyrs..but no way you read mine...first was a new age/language version of new terstiment/then kingjames..

then marybakereddie/swedenborg/arcana celestia//book of morman/badinski/koran/talmud..hundreds i have read..[plus the science holy texts..19,000 books last time i counted..plus non stop radio/tv...now internet...im sort of over reading..but know what i know.and evolution is a theory/not science

It's high time OLO installed a creationist sub-forum so that this rubbish can be banished to an appropriate e-ghetto.

No-one's forced to accept the theory of evolution, or the theories of gravity and relativity for that matter. If an illusion of divine specialness is what someone's ego requires to survive, good for them. They will make no contribution to our understanding of the natural world, and in Australia their votes are too few to have any significant effect in elections (preferencing stunts by major parties notwithstanding).

Richie10, OUG, runner nor any of OLO's other creationist diehards will be convinced by observable, testable scientific data, and it's folly to try. They don't start these threads in order to gain knowledge; they're testing their faith to prove beyond doubt that no amount of factual information can shake their comfortable preconceptions.