im sorry that the previous post's got messy
pleasse note all links by me..trying to clarify
so to try to clarify further..and hopefully talk again with cossomby

Cossomby..quoted my first post..intro..
then replied..quote..<<This is a misunderstanding of the difference..between the nature of the categories species and genus. The species is the basic biological evolutionary group...>

generally speaking..please note
how in every word..evolution gets tacked on..when speaking of the topic

to requote,the bit im replying,<<..species is the basic biological evolutionary group...>>

so i check that out and its not fully accurate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

<<n biology,..a species (plural: species) is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank...A species is often defined as a group..[..KEY*..>>]..of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring...!

continue cossomby's post..<<The genus is a human construct>>

both are

<<a category for grouping species that are similar>>
ie that can interbreed

<<,..and so are probably closely related
(ie. evolved apart fairly recently).>>>

ie THEORIZED to..
<..evolved apart fairly recently..>

so in theory,..i agree..
but please note the key bit excluded..capability*of INTETERBREEDING

no doubt left out..by accident
BUT VITAL*

i then added the link..[removing the s..so it works..this time]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomic_rank

next we come to genus
from same link

<<..Species *hypothesized ..lol..to have the same ancestors
are placed in one genus, based on similarities...<KEY>..The similarity of species is judged based on comparison of physical attributes,>>

ie phenotype..ie looks like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype

<<..A phenotype (from Greek phainein, 'to show' + typos, 'type')
is the composite of an organism's..(*observable characteristics or traits>>..

..<<..The genotype of an organism
is the inherited instructions it carries within its genetic code>>

<<Not all organisms with the same genotype look or act the same way because appearance and behavior are modified by environmental and developmental conditions. Likewise,<<KEY>>*..not all organisms that look alike necessarily have the same genotype.>>

then the lumping /splitting thing
this is simply taxonomists ..lumping some species 'together'

or splitting genus apart....
as the evolving THEOY*,..without..lol..faulsifyables..lol..further evolves.

its a form of hairsplitting
never the less the tree of life is fraud
never the less..no evolution of genus EVER recorded observed nor reported

one day some kid..will write the thesis refuting his peers
and become outcast..and get a fail mark..

and so
the lies go on.

<<im sorry that the previous post's got messy>> LOL

My apologies for posting in the wrong place - it was late at night! Here's my original post.

Just one comment - otherwise I'd be here all night...

A statement on the initial post: "As many know..i fully validate evolution of species BUT NOT EVOLUTION OF NEW GENUS..so i think this adds to my case if not please provide science..[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).

A genus is fairly arbitrary and different biologists will create different genera by grouping related species in different ways. 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. Over time, one version tends to get broadly accepted as the best way of categorising related species.

So if you look at older zoological papers, you'll find all the big kangaroos, big wallabies and some smaller wallabies were placed in the genus Macropus. Now they would be grouped into several genera: Macropus, Wallabia (or Protemnodon) and Thylogale (plus a couple of others I can't remember). In between, each of the big kangaroos, the greys, red and euro were for a time each put in a separate genera.

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

I have had some difficulty following OUG's responses to my post. Juxtaposing sentences from my post with quotes from Wikipedia which say the same thing seems a bit odd.

Here is another quote from OUG:

" there are millions..lol..new genus must be popping up..all the time..yet...lol. yet no science..record of even one genus 'evolving'
its time to hang all taxonomists..by their special bits
till they validate..their fraud..lol faux science.."

I'll try again.

Genera have no biological existence at all. They do not 'pop up all the time'. They are just a human filing cabinet to help get our minds around the diversity of species. Species are the only biological entity. All the taxonomic categories - genus, families, class, are just part of a human sorting system. Therefore the question of whether genera evolve or not is a non-question. As with any human filing cabinet, if you get new documents (ie research produces new information), you might rearrange the file folders. This is not fraud.

OUG's basic misunderstanding of this influences the rest of his arguments, making it rather difficult to have any sensible discussion.

QUOTE..<<Genera have no biological existence at all.>.

of course not..

but they name/classify *living things..
according to the clasified beasts ability to RE-create..living bioform,s ..*that definitivly egsist..or egsisted

or in the case of fossils
are claimed./.to have been living bio-form,s

""They do not 'pop up all the time'.""

yes i know
but think please..there are millions of taxonomic genera
[see previous link]..isnt it strange..evolution process is claimed to have evolved so many..yet none have been witnesed by [EVER] by science]

<<they are just a human filing cabinet
to help get our minds around the diversity of species. Species are the only biological entity.>>

all very neat aint it
BUT just as genera is a classification..thus so is species/group/family etc are the same as species

classification;s..not living entity
including species

<<All the taxonomic categories - genus, families, class, are just part of a human sorting system.>>

based on species
that first BASE clever classification..,,not entity
thus your claim...<<pecies are the only biological entity.>>..isclearly errant

<<some how now Therefore the question of whether genera evolve or not is a non-question.>>

ok..i will concede..if you conceed species is a form like genus
not a .living form..it at best describes/defines..but dont live

same/same..a descriptor/classifier
but species aint living neither!

<<As with any human filing cabinet,>>
are all taxonomic classing s

<<if you get new documents (ie research produces new information), you might rearrange the file folders. This is not fraud.?}|>>

it is when you claim species *IS life
when it simply classifies living things*

but worse ignores that which 'changes' genus
of species..non-fertile young.,.

non living offspring
is where your thesis is fatally flawed..