OUG, if your not careful, you'll have an aneurism:)...Friend, this has all been discussed with the public vote....."let the people speak and if you listen, you will hear them"....the bible tells of this....and O yes, I've read it. Evolution like time, is a constance and since the human race has only just taken off its baby boots, don't worry about finding the answer that defines it all OUG.

My advice....get your favourite book out, sit back with a cup of tea and go and enjoy your world.

all the best.

Planet3

p3/quote..<<..careful,..you'll have an aneurism:)...>>

the spell check says..that aneurism..is spelled incorrectly
of the choices offered..i pick/and chose..*one more apt..amateurism

if-so-fact0..guilty as charged

[i dont trust paid pro's..rent'a scientist..
they are prepared to risk their mortal soul..for cash

<<Friend, this has all been discussed with the public vote....."let the people speak..and if you listen, you will hear them"....>>

yes i hear..silenmce
the sound..of one hand..slow clapping
where others only hear/here..an old dog yapping

<<the bible tells of this>>

please do tell....
chapter and verse,..>?

where does the bible say ignore..those who implore?

,<<and O yes, I've read it.>>

YES ITS A GREAT READ..oops

[but?]..<< Evolution like time, is a constance>>

mutational errors are constant..i can agree
BUT..mutation isnt evolution..

<<and since the human race..has only just taken off its baby boots, don't worry about finding the answer that defines it all>>

i agree the baby boot thing
turns out my 100,000 year old is only 50,000years

from
http://www.prb.org/Articles/2002/HowManyPeopleHaveEverLivedonEarth.aspx

<<..According to the United Nations Determinants and Consequences of Population Trends,..modern Homo sapiens may have appeared about 50,000 B.C>>

BUT its time we 7 billion now living..grew up
[as saul/paul of the new testy-meant said..
its time we stopped drinking mothers milk..and began eating meat

according to previous site..[assuming 50,000years]..that<<..This semi-scientific approach yields an estimate of about 108 billion births since the dawn of the human race.>>

that is ..to slip this bit in..<<..So,..our estimate here is..that about 6.5 percent..of all people ever born..are alive today.>>

its facts like this..that make this comment spurious..<<My advice....get your favourite book out,>>

i got just under 30,000 boooks
but the best book..is this clapped out hand-me-down..7 inch note book

and it must be allowing you to watch me via the camera..as your writing that im already doing right now..ie

<<..sit back with a cup of tea and go and enjoy>>
[your word's]..

cheers ya ol'salty

thanks for visiting..but im into swords..
[s/words=sacred words]..[ie..true words],

[ie new faulsify-able words][ie facts not frictions]
[truths not opinions]..thinking reasoning www,wurds..

in live-time
on the net/web

FUBAR!

Planet3

FRA

acronym,
"Frequently Rebutted Assertion(s)".

False dichotomy
(np) 1. The principle that since no one brought apples to the picnic, pears must have been brought instead. Actually, though, everyone brought potato salad exclusively.

An interesting example of an attempted false dichotomy usage was at the 1981 Arkansas Act 590 trial, where one of the lawyers for Arkansas, whose name was Wilson, tried to get Francisco Ayala to agree with the "two-model" argument.

Ayala replied, "My name is not not-Mr. Williams.
This courtroom is filled with people whose names are not not-Mr. Williams."

FGU
acronym, "Frequently Given-out Understanding", any of a number of illiterate writings elsewhere described as FAQs, FRAs, FABNAQs, or jargon files. [den., Ted Holden, who gives as a vocalization guide for FGU the string "fugg-U"]

FIF
acronym, "Favorite Incoming Flame". A bit of derogatory rhetoric directed at a person which, due to its source, is considered a compliment instead.

For example, Chris Nedin often includes a quote from Carl Wieland, a down-under SciCre-ist, in Nedin's signature, stating, "How can Nedin be trusted?"

Flame
(n) [FAQ] 1. An insult, put-down, or other invective aimed at another participant in a discussion.

Flame
(v) [FAQ] 1. The act of insulting, putting down, or lading with invective another party in a discussion.

Falsifiable
(adj) 1. As prescribed by Karl Popper, the property which is required for a theory(1) to be scientific. There must be some test which can be performed that will indicate that the theory is wrong.

For example, the flat-Earth theory can be falsified by circumnavigating the planet; the theory is thus scientific, although falsified. Despite recent SciCre legal and propaganda tactics, evolution is falsifiable.

Posted by Cossomby..on the bullying thread
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5902&page=0

re-quote edited...<<[name one evolutionarily new genus."

This is a misunderstanding of the difference between the nature of the categories species and genus. The species is the basic biological evolutionary group. The genus is a human construct - a category for grouping species that are similar, and so are probably closely related (ie. evolved apart fairly recently).>>>''

from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomic_rank

<<In biological classification, rank is the level(the relative position) in a taxonomic hierarchy...Examples of taxonomic ranks are species, genus, family, and class.

Each rank subsumes under it a number of less general categories. The rank of species, and specification of the genus to which the species belongs is basic, which means that it may not be necessary to specify ranks other than these>>

back to your quote..<<A genus is fairly arbitrary and different biologists will create different genera by grouping related species in different ways...>>

reply,..new link..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus

quote from link..<<The composition of a genus is determined by a taxonomist...The standards for genus classification are not strictly codified,..so different authorities often produce different classifications for genera.

In the hierarchy of the binomial classification system,
genus comes above species and below family.>>..

your post..<<There are even terms for this: splitters v. lumpers.

The former separate related species into lots of different genera, the latter are more parsimonious...Neither is right or wrong, and a biologist can use either version, stating (or implying) the system being followed.>>

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

<< Lumping and splitting are opposing tendencies in any discipline which has to place individual examples into rigorously defined categories>>

or
http://www.cactus-art.biz/note-book/Dictionary/Dictionary_L/dictionary_lumpers_splitters.htm

<<...Lumping and splitting are opposing tendencies in any discipline which has to place individual examples into rigorously defined categories.
The lumper/splitter problem occurs when there is the need to create classifications and assign examples to them>>..lol

http://www.cactus-art.biz/note-book/Dictionary/Dictionary_L/dictionary_lumpers_splitters.htm

<<.. * A "lumper" is a taxonomist who group by similar traits, assuming that differences are not as important as similarities. And place organisms which share a few major characteristics in the same group.

When two named species are discovered to be of the same species, the older species name is usually retained, and the newer species name dropped, a process called synonymization or convivially, as lumping.

* A "splitter" is a taxonomist who takes precise definitions, and creates new categories to classify organism on the basis of the smallest known difference, <NOTE>>so every small difference is considered sufficient to create a new separate group.

Dividing a taxon into multiple,
often new, taxa is called splitting.>>

back to your quote..<<Over time, one version tends to get broadly accepted as the best way of categorizing related species.

examples edited.

<<The only way genera 'evolve' is in the changing categorisation by biologists as knowledge and understanding improves.>>

yes i agree genera DONT EVOLVE
except via taxonomic deceits

anyhow thanks for the extra evidence