an example..i just looked up speciation
spell-check gives me 4 other options..none of which spell it properly

never the less..google found it

i chose this link

this quote..<<...Suppose now that for some reason or other..there is a complete geographic separation between parts of the species range. Gene flow from the other parts of the range stops, and the separated populations evolve to suit their new, restricted environment...This encourages the genetic divergence of the separated populations, and might* become so great..that if the two populations were rejoined they would no longer be successful at interbreeding."">>

indicating to me..a new genus is indicated/created..if you will
but read..as science peers..ignore any mention of genus..defined as nonbreeding capability..[no fertile young]

QUOTE,,<<[Even if limited interbreeding were still possible, the local adaptations might have become so advantageous that there would be strong selection for individuals to discriminate in order to mate preferentially with members of their local population, rather than with immigrant individuals.]..

*..The two sets of organisms have become new species.!*&?..

..This concept, in which physical and genetic separation of populations leads to speciation, describes allopatric speciation."">>

my next search term thus would..<<..allopatric speciation>>..

but what happen to genus?

species=breeding ability/surviving offspring
genus=not capable..but likely related..but by what means..taxon phenotype..[appearance]..or falsifiable genotype fact..

its for me..
its EITHER falsifiable fact [sciewnc]
or....its faith or political or deceit..!

[note taxon..im told by spell check..is spelled wrong
those taking it all..on faith..wouldnt even notice..
and expert's.. like ludwig or your good-self..

well*....[sigh*]

sorry i left of the link
http://mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu/cowen/HistoryofLife/speciationmode.html

but this line so peeves me still

,<<..The two sets of organisms
have become new species>>

rubbish..at best one may have
but if capable of mating fertile young

no evolution of say bacteria into say insect?..or a cat into a dog..as evolution NEEDS,,to claim lineal evolution [ as postulated,by decietes..like the tree of life]..

of virus 'evolving into man
that takes heaps of faulsifyable steps..
.that simply cant be proven* to egsist

what are evolutions faulsifyables?
not natural selection,..thats chance..
effected 'naturally',..by nature[not by science method/repeatability]

nor survival of fittest..again,,..*not 'science'
its sad but im getting over it,..it seems..peer pressure works

i dont like being the most despised..ridiculed
i dont get off on insults..[either way]..

i just want proof of concept..[*faulsifiables]

Hi OUG, your absence has left you with an avalanche of issues resulting in you dominating your own thread.

Can’t remember much about biology but I do think you are guilty of misdirection.

Firstly, bacteria and genus offer no direct equivalency. Bacteria do have DNA but it is not encapsulated in chromosomes. Bacteria cannot evolve but they can mutate. They only mutate in reaction to a host.

Animals and plants can evolve because of chromosomes, bacteria cannot. Naughty, naughty OUG. (God I’m going to regret this).

Try this; three businessmen go to a restaurant for the $10 special lunch. They did not enjoy the lunch and when the bill for $30 arrived they complained to the waiter. The waiter passed on their complaint to the manager who agreed to discount their lunch and gave the waiter $5 by way of refund. The waiter couldn’t divide $5 into three customers so he gave them each $1 refund and put $2 in his own pocket. The math says each businessman paid $10 but got a $1 refund, $9 lunch. 3 X $9 is $27, plus the $2 in the waiters pocket = $29. Where did the missing dollar go?

That is what you just did.

Anyway, welcome back.

UOG: im sorry your leaving..Cossomby. it seems everytime..i raise the issue..it seems i upset someone. another time it was ludwig..[who actually teaches botany..subtopic..specialty : eucalyptus..very learned etc..much im presuming like your good self]

Like Ludwig, I have a background in biology. I am not upset, just frustrated, because it is impossible to have a discussion with someone who is straight-out wrong about some things, won't listen, but just repeats and repeats the same thing, errors and all. Personally, I like learning new things, especially when they take me beyond what I thought I knew. I love the feeling 'wow, I thought I understood that, how exciting to find it's really something way different'. The eureka moment. Probably why I became a scientist.

UOG also wrote: regardless..you cant have missed
the subtle put downs i have received..
im called ignorant or a creationist..or told to goto this site or read that link..

You do much the same. For example, some of your posts call taxonomists/biologists frauds. That's me you are accusing. But I don't take it personally because I realise it is based on your misunderstanding.

This is a pity because the bacteria at Lake Vostock are fascinating and well worth a serious debate

UOG wrote: i hoped could debate the issues. instead i get peer pressure to change. yet even facts cant change.

Me: But, people can get facts wrong. In this case, I am stating as a professional in this field of study, that you have the 'fact', of what a genus is, wrong.

For example, you quoted " suppose ... geographic separation between parts of the species range. Gene flow from the other parts of the range stops, and the separated populations evolve to suit their new, restricted environment...This encourages the genetic divergence of the separated populations, and might become so great..that if the two populations were rejoined they would no longer be successful at interbreeding." Then said: "indicating to me..a new genus is indicated/created".

Me: This is describing a mechanism for species formation. Genus was not mentioned nor is relevant.

As I've said previously, the filing box category 'genus' has no biological status. I have been quite puzzled by why you are so hung up on this view that 'genus' is 'real' biologically and that for some reason biologists are being deceitful.

And I've just had a Eureka moment! Maybe you think this because of the similarity of the words 'gene' and 'genus'? This is an accident: the meanings are not related. Gene come from the Greek meaning generate; genus comes from the Latin, meaning group, stock. It had a broader meaning in logic as a class or group of things (ie a category term), before it was used as a category term (ie a filing box) in biology. (Facts from the OED).

So maybe I am pressuring you to change, or at least learn a correction. And why not? If, as I biologist, I pointed out that the mushroom you believed was edible, was in fact extremely poisonous, would you say 'stop trying to change me' and eat it? You might accept that since I was a biologist I might just be right.

I hope you have a nice Eureka moment about the meaning of genus, and them maybe we could discuss the bacteria on Lake Vostock

yes spindoc..i did add..5$..of new info..to the kitty
because the bill was only 27 dollars...[not 30]

anyhow..you said..<<..Firstly,..bacteria an/genus..offer no direct equivalency.>>

i agree..[for the same reason..i resist..;species equating a living organism..when its a classifier..of life*into a taxa-framework..

you added..info..[new to me]..<<Bacteria do have DNA/but it is not encapsulated in chromosomes.>>

im presuming we are heading towards...linkage to antibiotic resistance...but,encapsulation ..would protect dna..and its my feeling*..that bacterial dna..*in bacteria..being relitivly exposed..have a higher transcription/error_rate

its more likely..to have resistance because..the dna errors allow more diverse options..the dna still needs transcription/into rna to make hormones/proteins etc..plus the mechanism's mitochondria etc

this surprises me..<<Bacteria cannot evolve..but they can mutate.>>..but it sounds..a fact..but at a level..that depends on precise definition..of what mutation is..versus..what*..evoloution is

[hair-splitting,..in some way..?
i thought life began with virus..into bacteria...etc..up to man..but i would need to read..the info..MORE NARROWLY TO COMMENT.

<<They only mutate..in reaction to a host.>.,
somehow that sounds..only part of the story..

eg..i would say
'reaction to the hosts..various systems'..
that activate..on/off..a reaction..in the dna:transcribed''

to turn maybe..newly mutated genes on..or off
..but again..im only thinking..by visualization
and rationalization..to this..new info..

this one..somehow..i resist..<<Animals and plants..can evolve because of chromosomes,bacteria cannot.>>..because chromosonal mutations..can be domminant..but mostly are resessives..

thus dont show up in the F1 population..till they re-pair..in a future mating..often via geographic isolation..or F1 matings/via mendelic mechanism/s

Cossomby,..its only taxonomy..not taxonomists/biologists

in particular..Linnaeus in 1753,..who devised*the system still in use..for the naming of species..cannabis..*all to be sativa..

his lie..saw me jailed..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis

i proved it..in 2002..when i took seed
to a canberra police station

this from above link..

<<..In September 2005 New Scientist reported that researchers at the Canberra Institute of Technology..had identified a new type of Cannabis>>..

was from those seed..[from the namoi river nsw]..7 branched hemp
like exodus/burning bush..i based aborigonal money..on the seed[wikiseed wikigeld]

in act..50dollar fine
qld the same act..got me..3 mths jail

all via a police/taxonomy expert
who learned her lies..on a weekend course..[you didnt train her?