Slow down a bit OUG. Abiogenesis is a different topic altogether than evolution.

We're talking about the origin of species.

You agree speciation occurs. You posted evidence that it happens in your own posts *rollseyes*

So excuse me while I giggle before continuing, while you flap your arms around claiming that basic science is an atheist conspiracy and trying to call me every different name under the sun. *rollseyes*

Firstly, alleles don't match up between ANY creatures! This is part of the concept of evolution, look up allele frequency in populations. This is one of the driving forces in evolution diversity and speciation *rollseyes*. Yet another evidence you are claiming, which is part of evolutionary theory.

Secondly, the taxonomic tree we have been using to describe relationships between creatures, looking at the evolutionary history, has never been a fixed one. Evolution is an ongoing process of speciation. The concepts of family/genus etc etc are just arbitrary points of reference in the hereditary tree of life. Of course there is no new genus at the speciation level, as genus is a reference to PAST speciation events. Indeed however, new 'genus' found all the time and they create a genus to describe their relationships of speciation events. eg : http://www.google.com.au/search?q=new+genus

As woot stated, indeed it's not accurate for describing relationships really any more as life gets more diverse. A better method is Cladistics. The reason it's viewed this way is because all living creatures have the same genetic code. We also have important proteins such as the DNA and RNA polymerases and ribosome that are found in everything from the most primitive bacteria to the most complex mammals. When we compare genes molecularly across all animals and plants, it falls in a hierarchical pattern, which is best explained as a 'family tree'. It's a good model for explaining the pattern, but with the ever growing complexity we are needing to look at better ways if visualising the immensity of it.

Where is your evidence for creation? what stops further diversity?

You have nothing do you?

he haw-howsuss quote<<Abiogenesis is a different topic altogether than evolution>>>lol...before you can evolve one...you need to create the first...you have no first...you have no mutation of gensus...you have nothing.

<<We're talking about..the origin of species>>look at the words[origen...meaning:...beginning:..the place where something begins.. where it springs into being;and talking about species..WELL FUNNY BOY NAME THE SPECIFIC FIRST SPECIES

<<You agree speciation occurs>>>speciation/within the species...look atr the word[..clearly your ignorance knows no bounds..its not genus-ification ya retard

<<You posted evidence>>speciation..is limited to species...not genus

<<<alleles don't match up..between ANY creatures!>>>..lol..

<<<look up allele frequency..in populations.This is one of the driving forces..in evolution diversity and speciation>>>..*rollseyes*.

<<the taxonomic tree,..we have been using..to describe relationships between creatures,..looking at the evolutionary history,..has never been a fixed one.>>>..lol..*rollseyes*.

<<Evolution is an ongoing process..of speciation.>>within the genus..lol..*rollseyes*.

<<The concepts..of family/genus etc etc are just arbitrary points of reference in the hereditary tree of life.>>>.lol....*rollseyes*.

<<Of course..there is no new genus..at the speciation level>>>..lol..*rollseyes*.

<<as genus is a reference..to PAST speciation events.>>>..*rollseyes*.

<<however,..new..'genus'..found all the time>>>..lol..*rollseyes*.

<<and they>>lol genus or species<<..create..a genus>>>..*rollseyes*.

<<to describe their relationships..of speciation events.>>>..*rollseyes*.



<<it's..>>which it..[genus/species/..your/vacuousness<<..not accurate for describing relationships>>>lol..they both do oh suss one....*rollseyes*.

<<really any more..as life gets more diverse.>>>..*rollseyes*.

<<A better method..is Cladistics...The reason it's viewed..this way is because..all living creatures..have the same genetic code.>>>..*rollseyes*.

<<When we compare genes..molecularly..across all animals and plants, it falls in a..hierarchical pattern,>>.within their genus divisions...

<<..which is best explained..as a 'family tree'.>>>..*rollseyes*.

<<It's a good model>>>..*rollseyes*...not science..lol

<<for explaining the pattern,>>.im seeing a pattern in your bluster

<<but with the ever growing complexity>>>..*rollseyes*.

>>we are..needing to look at better ways..if visualising the immensity of it>>>..*rollseyes*....one would have thought if science then science is needed...lol

<<what stops further diversity?>>..diversity within the genus and species is limited..within its biological paramitors...genus in the macro/..species in the micro

You have nothing do you?
..*rollseyes*...

poor..gee/heehaw/suss
poor google-eyes.....*rollseyes*...heavenwards

OUG The Theory of Evolution is not abiogenesis. We are talking about the fact of evolution, that you are saying does not exist, whereas everything you have talked about, is evolution but with a total misunderstanding about what it means, or basic biology.

Species derive from speciation events, as I have previously described, the taxomomy tree is the historical classifications of the speciation events within the branches of evolution.

Genus is a taxonomical association to a speciation event, as with all the names in the taxonomy system. It is not a defined class, however much you throw your hands in the air and sook about it, and resort to name calling, stamping your feet and repeating that genus does not have speciation events (which is exactly how we have species!).

Please provide evidence of creation, and let's compare.

You are attacking the vast amount of evidence, denying what you accept as evolution saying that it has 'bounds' but have not provided any evidence to any of your claims regarding what those boundaries are caused by.

Effectively, you are just stating because science might not know about aspects of things yet at the beginning of the evolutionary process, your god exists in those spots. A complete leap to a conclusion based on no evidence whatsoever.

Classic god of the gaps.

suss_quote..<<..The Theory of..Evolution..is not abiogenesis...>>.not having..a first life..'the tree'..cannot have..a root...lol

without/a starting point..[..your deluding the rest..being decendant/..evolving...from it..[get it?]

<<We are talking about..the fact of evolution,>>..its not fact..ITS THEORY

<<that you are..saying..does not exist,>>.thats a fact..[it dont]..thats what...im saying

<<whereas everything..you have talked about>>>,..is basic biology..a valid science

<<Species..derive from speciation/events>>>..species events..only occure at the species level...evolution posits..genus creating new genus...look at ya..damm tree/..pure delusion

<<the taxomomy tree..lol..is the historical-classifications..
of..the speciation events...within the branches..of evolution>>>

its a hypo-thetical attempt..[theory]..to further..darwins tree....to try to expand his..species theory...into genus evolution..

..via..[deception]..taught to children...darwin..specificly wrote evolution..of species[..not evolution...of genus...lol

<<Genus..is a taxonomical/association..to a speciation/event>>>
genus is the boundry...beyond which evolution..of species..cannot go

<<all the names in the taxonomy system>>..look at the damm thing...
http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:6Bnm6OkU7fUJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution+evolution+of+genus+tree&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au

QUOTE<<..the human branch...Human evolution,.or anthropogenesis,..is the origin..and evolution..of Homo sapiens..>>..

..<<..as a distinct species...>>

<<The term.."human"..
..in the context..of human evolution..
refers...*to the genus Homo*,>>...lol


<<It is..not a defined class>>>..lol..raises eyes to heaven...lol

<< name calling,..stamping your feet..and repeating that genus..does not have speciation events..(which is exactly..how we have species!).>>>lol..yes species my retarded other...

species..within the genus...AT NO TIME..HAS ANY SPECIES BEEN OBSEREVED..OR RECORDED TO LEAVE..ITS GENUS,....get it genious?

<<Please provide evidence..of creation,>>..YOU claim science/method...get your science...TO MAKE/replicate..BUT ONE LIKE IT...ie..[abiogensis]...first life...make and name

<<You are attacking..the vast amount..of evidence,>>>lol..about micro evolution of species...WITHIN THE GENUS..

you have not one proof..of the gaps..between genus...joining..to any other genus..the..[branches of the tree]...lol..dont join to the root..[nor trunk]

<<you accept..as evolution..saying that it has..'bounds'..but have not provided..any evidence..to any of your claims..regarding what those boundaries..are caused by.>>>SEE PREVIOUS POSTS..oh..RETARDED ONE

<<you are just stating..because science..might not..know>>..LOL...it dont..so why you lot..claiming it do?

<<about..aspects..of things>>>lol...genus things..or..species things?[macro/nmicro?

<<yet..at the beginning..[lol]..of the evolutionary..process,>>>to witt..abiogensis...the root...unknown/..unnamable..first life...lol

<<your god..exists in those spots>>>..yes..you got it correct

<<based on no evidence whatsoever>>..i wasted..half my life following..the delusions of evolution....

i tested their/your theories...and the genus boundry is firm...nothing..EVER evolved..out of genus...thats where..your gaps are...lol

<<Classic god of the gaps>>..even a fool..can get things right..

once in a while....no matter how suss they are

So because science has concepts of how abiogenesis may have occured, but nothing confirmed, is the basis you think a magic man did it, and the whole evidence of evolution is wrong? LOL

In science, a Theory is what describes the mechanics of a fact. Evolution is a fact, the Theory of Evolution describes the mechanics, Darwin postulated one aspect of the theory, there have been others since then that have built on it. Grade school kids learn this OUG. It's not a hard concept. You state you did genetic science, so you either didn't, or you are deliberately trying to use the non-scientific version of theory to be decietful in presenting exactly where science stands with regard evolution.

Of COURSE species events only happen at the species level, that is the level of where ALL life is or ever has been. Things NEVER where at family level, or genus level. These are only describing the heritage of life. If we go back 300,000 years, and taxonimists were there, all the current life would be at species level *rolls eyes*, it's a nameing convention for heritage, it's evolutionary heritage.

Nothing is ever a 'genus' only and not a species. Genus is a reference to a past species having a speciation event, and taxonomists have chosen that point in the tree of life, to build a classification of life from that point on.

The way you describe it, at some point there was just a 'Family' called funghi and nothing else, but this is just totally wrong. All those funghi at the time were species. the taxonomy system is just a classification of species into classes.

The problem is that this isn't a good way to look at it, that's why the move to Cladistics.

Your whole concept of the taxonomic tree is skewed. Either you are just totally ignorant of what I am saying, or as many creationists do, you are being decietful.

Now, again, where is your evidence for creation? Let's compare the evidence logically and with reason.

SUSSsquatch quote<<<abiogenesis..nothing confirmed,..is the basis you think a magic man did it,..>>>..till the science has..the facts ...IT DONT HAVE THE FACTS..their believers..think they do..its sold as such a done deal...[the retaRDED/DORKINS REFUSES TO DEBATE THE TOPIC

<<and the whole evidence of evolution>>.there is no whole of science...indeed any science...of evolving into any new genus...the species proof..does not prove genus evcolving into new genus

so..you got no first life..no evolution of genus...ie you got nuthing

<<Evolution is a fact>>>ok name the first life...provide..one genus into genus..evolvutuion..you got no fact/..no proof..of either

<<<Grade school kids learn this OUG...It's not a hard concept>>if you use the buzzwords...ignoring..the persistant use of simu-lie's..the transpherance of species micro/into genus macro..and no root/for ya tree

<<You state you did genetic science>>.i bred pigeons/fish/weed,using the mendelism and other teqniques...all bred true to their genus...any one else can confirm, the same...all in the parental genus[without a single exception

<<<Of COURSE..species events..only happen at the species level>>>...lol

<<Things NEVER where at family level,..or genus level>>.genus determines if you fly./swim..have feathers..or scales...cold/blood...or not...

ducks breed ducks...live with it

<<These..are only describing..the heritage of life>>>these what...you say nothing..but the same mantra...heritage of life..[is what?evolution principle...lol]...some new spin words..you just made up?

<<..species level..*rolls eyes*,..it's a nameing convention for heritage,..it's evolutionary heritage.>>your deluding/and repeating ya mantra...lol

<<Nothing is ever a..'genus'..only..and not a species>>..you have learned...there are genus/..with only one single species
Cryptosporidium:..Evidence for a Single-Species Genus
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC551396/

<<Genus is a reference to..a past species..having a speciation event,>>repeating your bull dont make it true...the genus is the broad category,..the species is a type..within that category,..and the differentiae..are the distinguishing characteristics of the species.
http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:GgupnPd7rZoJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus-differentia_definition+define+genus&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk

as repeatedly stated..GET EDUCATED...your looking so foolish
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=MEDA%2CMEDA%3A2008-36%2CMEDA%3Aen-GB&q=define+genus&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g2

<<taxonomists have chosen that point..in the tree of life>>>as previously posted...PLEASE NAME THIS STARTING GENUS/species

YOU MUST HAVE A STARTING POINT<<to build..a classification of life..>>>evolving..<<<from that>>..GENUS?..SPECIES?..<<point on>>.

<<the taxonomy system..is just a classification of species into classes>>>..CALLED GENUS...lol...

Your whole concept of the taxonomic tree/species/genus/abiogensus... is skewed...

YOUR SIMPLY.... REPOSTING THE SAME GIBBERISH...
masked as science..when you got..not the faintest clue

how pathetic...very lol..dorkins-esque of you ...lol