Can I disprove Macro-Evolution

That the eyeless gene is in the normal flies, too. That's what you seem to currently not be understanding. It's not the presence of the gene in the DNA that creates an eye on a leg; it's the repositioning of the gene from the region of DNA with homology to the head to the region of DNA with homology to the leg that puts an eye on the leg instead of the head.Like the way a blueprint has regions with homology to each room of the building - rooms on the east part of the blueprint wind up being built in the east part of the building, and so on - there are regions of DNA with homology to the physical body of the insect. These homology regions are the easiest to envision in a species such as the roundworm - the beginning of the homology region is homologous to the head of the worm, the middle of the homology region is homologous to the middle of the worm, and the end of the homology region is homologous to the posterior of the worm. But all the evolutionary descendents of the roundworm - almost all complex metazoan life - inherited this system of homologous DNA regions, which is why the bilaterally-symmetric, "tube-within-a-tube" body plan, with modification, is so prevalent among animals. We all inherited it from worms. It's why segmentation is so universal among such species - the banded bodies of earthworms, the segmented bodies of insects as both larvae and adults, even the segmentations of your spine. Well, in fact we have abundant evidence, some of which you've been shown in this thread. That you insist on closing your eyes, plugging your ears, and shouting "na na na can't hear you, la la la" like a petulant child doesn't obviate the existence of that evidence. Well, there is. For instance: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common DescentSevral Nobel Prizes have already been awarded to scientists who have contributed to the overwhelming proof of evolution: Herman Joseph Muller, in 1946, for the discovery of X-ray mutations; Selman Waxman, in 1952 for the discovery of streptomycin; George Beadle, Edward Tatum, and Joshua Lederberg, in 1958, for the discovery of gene regulation of chemical reactions, genetic recombination, and gene structure; Crick, Watson, and Wilkins in 1962 for the discovery of the structure of DNA; Holley, Khorana, and Nierenberg in 1968 for the discovery of the universal codon substitution table; Aber, Nathan, and Smith in 1978 for the discovery of restriction enzymes; Barbara McClintock in 1983 for the discovery of transposons; Lewis, Nusslein-Volhard, and Weischaus in 1995 for the discovery of the means of genetic control of embryonic development; and Blackburn, Greider, and Stozack in 2009 for their discovery of telomeres.At this point the Nobel Committee would sooner give a Nobel Prize for the discovery that the sky is blue than give a prize for new evidence supporting macroevolution, because they don't give out the prize for proving something everybody already knows is true.Now, with most of your nonsense put aside - there were many points in the posts you've replied to. Are you prepared to respond to any of them, or not?

Those processes are all chemical reactions.

With some exceptions, yes. No. That information can certainly create an eye. This has been explained to you since the time you replied. For these three, yes. It's a trivial fact that the gene which tells the body to produce an eye must be present for the organism to have an eye.And unfortunately for you, none of those points is a rebuttal of the fact that one single gene is not responsible for the cinstruction of the entire eye. These ARE chemical reactions. They occur because of physical and chemical laws."Would you like to make an argument about evolution?"
"No, but I would like to make one about evolution."What the fuck, dude? I'm sure you aren't really that obtuse.
In any case, try these first.
29+ Evidence For Macrevolution
Wikipedia: list of transitional fossils

Hi Crash,You are using homologous in a very odd way here. Homology is a term to describe similar structures which share a common evolutionary ancestral origin. Different genes can be homologous to each other, different body parts can be homologous, but I don't see how it makes sense to talk about DNA being Homologous to body parts.An enhancer element driving expression in the head isn't homologous to the head under any meaning of the word I have come across.When you say 'homologous' what you seem to mean is Homoeotic as in the Hox genes with their spatial colinearity.TTFN,WK

Responsible for the induction, not the development. If you put Eyeless into the wing or leg imaginal discs of a fly which has had certain other genes knocked out you will not get an eye.Eyeless just binds to certain specific genetic elements causing changes in the regulation of other genes which then go on to regulation the further downstream elements of eye development.I can similarly induce ectopic limbs if I implant a bead soaked in FGF-4 into a chick embryo's flank (Cohn et al., 1995). This doesn't mean that the FGF-4 molecule contains the information for developing an entire limb, it just tells the other genes in the limb deveelopment pathway where to build. This depends on what you mean by operational. The eyes are relatively normal anatomically, though not perfect, and are responsive to light, some of them even send out axonal projections which contact the central nervous system (Clements et al., 2008). What they don't do is connect to the visual lobes of the drosophila which would allow them to perform the normal function as sensory organs. That is correct. Well those are 2 distinct and vastly separate questions. In terms of the first cell you seem to be demonstrating the traditional creationist/IDist lemming like tendency to run off to abiogenesis as soon as a discussion has started, even though abiogenesis is not the topic. The topic is whether macro-evolution exists.In terms of the eye it depends a lot on what you think constitutes the first eye. Was it the first time a photosensitive membrane receptor arose? The first time a true retina formed? The first time an eye with a lens formed?In terms of the information, I will repeat what I have said on countless threads- The information comes from the environment. The environment imposes constraints upon the organism and the interaction of these environmental constraints with the genetic variation arising from mutation causes certain variations to proliferate in the population over subsequent generations. For a more formalised approach to this issue see Frank (2009) for a paper suggesting how natural selection can maximise Fisher information. That is arguably the case, but many times there are other elements in oocytes which are from the mother which are vital to normal development, similarly there are modifications to DNA which vary between cells and some of these can compromise the ability of the DNA to trnasfer the infromation for developing the entire organism. Just having the necessary DNA is not all that is required to reconstitute an organism, if it was cloning would be trivially easy instead of really hard.TTFN,WK

Hi crashfrog, I thought I said that an eye could not exist without the eyeless.If it can't exist in the leg, or wing without the eyeless, it stands to reason an eye could not exist in the head either without the eyeless. That would mean the eyeless had to be in the portion that becomes the head for the eye to exist.So yes I think I understand that the eyeless exists in the portion that becomes the head. From the conclusions: " As explained in the introduction, none of the predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred;"You may be satisfied that predictions are evedience of 'Macro-Evolution' but there was no evidence presented that 'Macro-Evolution has ever taken place.When there is no verifiable, reproducible evidence that 'Macro-Evolution' has occured the only evidence is "FAITH" which is the same thing I have that God caused everything to begin to exist.Now if you can find just one verifiable, reproducible piece of evidence in those 29 assumptions present your argument. I notice the one for verifying, and reproducing 'Macro-Evolution' was missing. Can you find me one scientist who knows 'Macro-Evolution' has taken place rather than believes 'Macro-Evolution' has taken place?The person that knows 'Macro-Evolution' has taken place will have the verifiable reproducible evidence of the event taking place.If you have such evidence please present it as you have presented zero evidence so far. Since I replied to everything except your toilet references if you want to discuss those please start a thread on blueprints and I will be glad to discuss them with you.Here we are supposed to be discussing 'Macro-Evolution', which there is no scientific verifiable, reproducible evidence for and is therefore falsified as a scientific theory.I brought up the eye because for the eye to begin to exist from a single cell life form massive amounts of 'Macro-Evolution' had to occur.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Why?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Hi Nij, What laws?Are you sure you are not confusing your laws with the information stored in the DNA? Talk about cherry picking and quote mining you take the cake.I maintain if you would like to present verifiable, reproducable evidence for 'Macro-Evolution' I would love to discuss such an occurance. I am supposed to argue against bare internet sites?If there is any verifiable, reproducible evidence on those sites present it and we can discuss it.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi crash, Are you saying no information is transfered from the DNA to the ribosoms via the mRNA and translated by the tRNA?If so please present support.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Coyote, Well I can find no verifiable, repoducible evidence there that proves 'Macro-Evolution has occured. If fact they state that their information does not address how 'Macro-Evolution' has occured.Now if you have some verifiable reproducible evidence to present please do.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I don't doubt that you can find no evidence in those pages. From your past posts you are expert at ignoring evidence.And further, where do you dredge up "reproducible" as a necessary qualifier? It is never necessary to reproduce historical events, just to show that they occurred, which those pages do. (You don't really need to reproduce the Gettysburg address before you accept it, now do you?) The question we are discussing is whether macro-evolution occurred, not how. Stick to the subject.I have steered you to the evidence. Please address it in your next post. Pick one specific topic and we can start there. Trying to hand-wave it all away is a typical creationist tactic. Sorry, it doesn't work.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The theory of evolution predicts that there should have been species with a mixture of modern human and basal ape features in the past. These fossils fit that prediction. Therefore, these fossils are evidence in support of the theory. Cave paintings are much older than that.

OK, next question.Do you have health insurance?

This doesn't necessarily follow, there is another gene Twin of eyeless (Toy) which can induce ectopic eyes in flies in which Eyeless has been knocked out (Jacobsson et al., 2009). Similarly the gene Eyegone can induce ectopic eyes independently of Eyeless (Jang et al., 2003; Dominguez et al., 2004).TTFN,WK

What does that have anything to do with what I said? Why don't you find the spot in the paper where they discuss this matter? Why are you asking me when you can read their paper directly? The eyeless gene constructs the eye in the same way that the key moves the car. The eyeless gene is the switch, not the motor.