Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can I disprove Macro-Evolution
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 53 of 238 (590038)
11-05-2010 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Nij
11-05-2010 12:46 AM


Re: Eye
Hi Nij,
Nij writes:
These ARE chemical reactions. They occur because of physical and chemical laws.
What laws?
Are you sure you are not confusing your laws with the information stored in the DNA?
Nij writes:
"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 Message 44 I said:
qs=NijSo, do you actually want to make an argument about evolution,
No.
But I would love to argue with you about 'Macro-Evolution' if you would present verifiable reproducible evidence for such an occurance.
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.
Nij writes:
In any case, try these first
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Nij, posted 11-05-2010 12:46 AM Nij has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Nij, posted 11-05-2010 7:55 PM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 54 of 238 (590041)
11-05-2010 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by crashfrog
11-04-2010 11:52 PM


Re: Eye
Hi crash,
crashfrog writes:
Those processes are all chemical reactions.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 11-04-2010 11:52 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by crashfrog, posted 11-05-2010 9:07 PM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 55 of 238 (590043)
11-05-2010 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Coyote
11-04-2010 11:49 PM


Re: How do you deal with 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution?
Hi Coyote,
Coyote writes:
Many pages of details are available at this source. They show that, contrary to creationists' claims, macroevolution does occur.
How do you deal with all of that evidence?
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Coyote, posted 11-04-2010 11:49 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Coyote, posted 11-05-2010 2:44 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-05-2010 2:53 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 61 by Taq, posted 11-05-2010 3:02 PM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 63 of 238 (590062)
11-05-2010 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Coyote
11-05-2010 2:44 PM


Re: How do you deal with 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution?
Hi Coyote,
Coyote writes:
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.
Why is it my job to pick out your argument and refute it before you present it?
Present your evidence that 'Macro-Evolution' has occured.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Coyote, posted 11-05-2010 2:44 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Taq, posted 11-05-2010 4:09 PM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 65 of 238 (590079)
11-05-2010 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Taq
11-05-2010 2:53 PM


Re: Macro-Evolution
Hi Taq,
Taq writes:
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.
Well I went to school with a fellow we refered to as monkey. Since his head was shaped like the head of a monkey does that mean we came from monkeys?
I also had a teacher that we called Gorilla Gordon. His head was shaped like a gorilla and he had just about as much body hair. Does that mean we came from gorillas?
Just because things look similar does not mean they produced the other.
Just because things had a common origin does not mean they produced each other.
Taq writes:
Cave paintings are much older than that.
When they are considered writings I will modify my dates to reflect that.
I have no problem if you find drawings or writings that are 2 billion years old in caves.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Taq, posted 11-05-2010 2:53 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Taq, posted 11-05-2010 5:51 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 72 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2010 1:18 AM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 66 of 238 (590080)
11-05-2010 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Wounded King
11-05-2010 2:58 PM


Re: Eye
Hi WK,
Wounded King writes:
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).
I understand that DNA has built in correction and redundancy.
Which is one of the reasons I argue so hard against
'Macro-Evolution'. The built in checks and correction would negate or at least reduce greatly the influence of mutations.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Wounded King, posted 11-05-2010 2:58 PM Wounded King has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 80 of 238 (590495)
11-08-2010 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Taq
11-05-2010 5:51 PM


Re: Macro-Evolution
Hi TAq,
Taq writes:
True or false. The theory of evolution predicts that there should have been species who had a mixture of modern human and basal ape features.
The ToE does not predict anything.
People predict that the ToE predicts certain things.
'Macro-Evolution' is one of the things people predict that the Toe predicts.
Out of all the billions of 'Macro-Evolution' events that would be required to have taken place between the first life form on earth to produce all the different life forms of earth today there is no first hand account to read for any of them having taken place.
There is none that are reproducible.
The only evidence presented here is that there are changes that take place over time due to mutation and selection.
Since they happen on a small scale they 'MUST' happen on a large scale.
'FAITH' is required to believe these small changes can produce the changes necessary to produce the life forms of today, since there is 'ZERO' evidence to support such a position.
It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.
Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened.
Source
I am amazed at their statement:
The basic evolutionary mechanisms mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.
They then present an equation:
Mutation
     Gene Flow
    Genetic Drift     +  3.8 billion years = Macroevolution
  Natural Selection
But they nor anyone else can produce firsthand evidence for just one account of 'Macro-Evolution' having taken place in that 3.8 billion years.
According to Evolution 101 by Berkeley:
There are no first hand accounts to read.
They say, "When we've FIGURED out what events have taken place." (emphasis mine)
How is it possible to figure out what has happened if we have no firsthand accounts of events that took place to examine?
The only mechanism is the imagination of mankind.
Now if you have verifiable, reproducible evidence that
'Macro-Evolution has actually taken place please present 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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Taq, posted 11-05-2010 5:51 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Taq, posted 11-08-2010 1:21 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 83 by lyx2no, posted 11-08-2010 3:29 PM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 81 of 238 (590496)
11-08-2010 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Nij
11-05-2010 7:55 PM


Re: Eye
Hi Nij,
Nij writes:
I don't know much more simple it could be. The stuff is even laid out in a nice linear progression, with all these categories and intralinks; the second one is exactly what it says: a list.
Of transitional fossils.
Which you predict do not exist.
Because of there being no macroevolution.
But they do exist.
So you are wrong.
And thus there must be macroevolution.
If it is so plain and simple present your information in your words for me to argue against.
I am not going to argue against a bare link.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Nij, posted 11-05-2010 7:55 PM Nij has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 84 of 238 (590530)
11-08-2010 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by crashfrog
11-05-2010 9:07 PM


Re: Eye
Hi crashfrog,
crashfrog writes:
"Information transfered from the DNA to the ribosomes via mRNA" is an analogy for what is actually happening. What is actually happening is a chemical reaction between DNA, a suite of enzymes, a bulk amount of nucleotide triphosphates, and charged tRNA molecules. You can read about these chemical reactions in any undergraduate biochemistry text, such as Lehninger's Principles of Biochemistry.
Will the ribsome produce a protein if it does not receive an order from the DNA?
The DNA in a human cell contains the instructions for the manafacture of over two million proteins. These are coded for by only 20,000 to 25,000 genes.
So how does the ribsome know which of these millions of proteins to build?
How can there be a chemical reaction between DNA which is in the nucleus of the cell and the ribosomes which are outside of the nucelus?
Can this occur without the information being sent from the DNA to the ribosome by the mRNA?
Can the ribosome understand what protein the DNA has requested to be built without the tRNA translating the information being delivered by the mRNA?
If there are only chemical reactions, how can there be mistakes made?
If there is no copying errors there can be no 'micro-evolution' muchless 'Macro-Evolution'.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by crashfrog, posted 11-05-2010 9:07 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Taq, posted 11-08-2010 4:34 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 88 by crashfrog, posted 11-08-2010 6:20 PM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 86 of 238 (590539)
11-08-2010 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by crashfrog
11-05-2010 9:18 PM


Re: Eye
Hi crash,
crashfrog writes:
None of the 29 evidences presented at that website are assumptions; each is a verifiable, empiric element of evidence that, when taken together, more than demonstrates that macroevolution occurred by some means. That it occurred by the mechanisms of natural selection and random mutation is proven by the observation, in the contemporary lab, that natural selection and random mutation can cause macroevolutionary change.
Can you present the contemporary lab experiment that proves 'Macro-Evolution' has occured from all the little changes brought about by chemical reactions as you claim?
Why does Berekely say in Evolution 101 that there is no firsthand evidence of 'Macro-Evolution'?
Why do they say we have to figure out the events that happened?
Why do they then say we have to figure out how it happened.
Is that because there is no direct evidence that 'Macro-Evolution' has ever occured?
Now if you want to present one or more of the 29 evidences presented by talk origins as evidence for 'Macro-Evolution' please do.
I am not going to argue with a web site.
crashfrog writes:
Incorrect. Every citation I presented was a Nobel Prize for contributing to the mosaic of evidence that supports macroevolution.
Are you saying the picture they painted proved that
'Macro-Evolution' has occured?
I thought they got the awards for coming up with a great scientific discovery.
crashfrog writes:
In this thread along you've been presented with more than four dozen pieces of evidence, all of which you've ignored.
I have been presented:
In Message 15 Taq gave me a reference to Thomas D. Schneider
talking about Shannons definition of information and how information could evolve.
In Message 23 Taq presented a photo of 14 different partial skulls as evidence for 'Macro-Evolution'.
In Message 36 Coyote presented cave images as evidence for writings over 6800 years old.
In a general post in Message 45 Coyote referenced the 29 evidences found at 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent.
He made no argument.
In Message 46 you referenced the same website without presenting any of the 29 evidences and making an argument for them.
In Message 48 Nij presented two web sites with no argument from either.
29+ Evidence For Macrevolution
Wikipedia: list of transitional fossils
The list of transitional fossils states:
This documentation needs attention from an expert on the subject.
RAZD mentioned the University of Michigan definition of evolution in Message 69 and another thread on micro-macro evolution.
In Message 71 you referenced talkorigins and their assertion.
So where are the four dozen references to information that
'Macro-Evolution' has taken place.
If you want to present the 29 references in talkorigins as evidence for 'Macro-Evolution' please do so one at the time.
State your case and present what you are affirming. General statements can not be rebutted.
crashfrog writes:
There are no eyes in single-cell life forms, because eyes are comprised of many thousands of cells.
So where did the information in the DNA come from to build the eye come from?
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by crashfrog, posted 11-05-2010 9:18 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by crashfrog, posted 11-08-2010 6:06 PM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 89 of 238 (590558)
11-08-2010 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Taq
11-08-2010 1:21 PM


Re: Macro-Evolution
Hi Taq,
Taq writes:
So I will ask again. When people use the theory of evolution to make scientific predictions do those predictions include fossils with a mixture of basal ape and modern human features? Yes or no?
I googled "Is there fossils with a mixture of basal ape and modern human features"
The first hit I got was the message I am replying too.
I did not find another such statement.
So if you got any pertenent information present it.
Taq writes:
Yes, the theory of evolution predicts that evolution occurred. Crazy, isn't it?
The ToE predicts that small changes will be made in populations which can be verified. Being a farmer I have used eveloution in the breeding of animals.
Many people predict that the small changes can over 3.8 billion years produce 'Macro-Evolution'.
There is not one verified instance of 'Macro-Eveloution' above the species level.
From the OP:
JRTjr writes:
I want to vary specific here, when I say Macro-Evolution I am speaking only of a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. {Quoted from Wikipedia.org}
Just so we are on the same page when writing our posts, I am using the definition of 'Macro-Evolution' as presented in the OP.
Taq writes:
The scientific method does not require a past event to be reproducible. What it requires is that the data produced by measurement or experiment be reproducible. It would really help if you actually understood how the scientific method works.
Then just produce one instance of 'Macro-Evolution' that is verifiable.
Taq writes:
Macroevolution has been directly observed, many times.
Then it should pose no problem for you to take your bare web site presentation and search it out and present one verifible instance of 'Macro-Evolution' that has taken place.
I will say once more I am not going to argue with talkorigins.
If you want to take one of their 29 evidences and present it stating what you affirm, I will then attempt to rebutt your argument.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Taq, posted 11-08-2010 1:21 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Coyote, posted 11-08-2010 9:29 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 114 by Taq, posted 11-09-2010 4:20 PM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 91 of 238 (590562)
11-08-2010 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by lyx2no
11-08-2010 3:29 PM


Re: Macro-Evolution
Hi lyx2no,
lyx2no writes:
How long, ICANT, will this utter stupidity be repeated.
Until someone can present verifiable evidence that 'Macro-Evolution' (evolution above the species level) has occured.
As to your kindergarden example.
If a man started out and a man ended up on the west coast where would the 'Macro-Evolution' be?
Now if whatever is supposed to be the ancestor of chimps, monkeys, apes and modern man started out moving its chair one inch at the time and chimps, monkeys, apes and modern man appeared along the way then you would have 'Macro-Evolution'.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by lyx2no, posted 11-08-2010 3:29 PM lyx2no has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by DrJones*, posted 11-08-2010 9:54 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 93 by Coyote, posted 11-08-2010 10:06 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 116 by Taq, posted 11-09-2010 4:25 PM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 96 of 238 (590574)
11-08-2010 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Taq
11-08-2010 4:34 PM


Re: DNA
Hi Taq,
Taq writes:
A ribosome will produce protein from mRNA no matter where that mRNA came from. This is due to the chemistry of both mRNA and ribosomes.
Which protein will the ribosome produce?
Is there any place other than the nucleus of the cell that mRNA comes from?
Is there such a thing a tRNA?
Then what is the job of tRNA?
I have stated the DNA gives instructions to the mRNA that takes the orders to the ribosomes which is translated by the tRNA for the ribosomes.
Proteins are composed of building blocks called amino acids. A string of amino acids is called a polypeptide chain. Once such a chain has folded into its working three-dimensional shape, it is a protein. Though there are tens of thousands of different proteins, all of them are put together from a starting set of 20 amino acids. It is the order in which the amino acids are linked in a polypeptide chain that determines which protein will be produced.
There are two principal stages in protein synthesis. The first stage is transcription, in which the information encoded in DNA is copied onto a length of messenger RNA (mRNA), which in eukaryotes moves from the cell nucleus to structures in the cytoplasm called ribosomes. The second stage is translation, in which amino acids are linked together at the ribosomes in the order specified by the mRNA sequence.
Source
Now in such a operation there is room for errors to be made.
If there is nothing but chemical reactions there would be no room for errors to arise.
If no errors arise there would be no mutations thus no change in life forms of any kind.
Since that is not the case then it stands to reason that there is information required to construct the building blocks that can acquire errors in the process because mutations do exist.
But to assume that a lot of small changes can amount to
'Macro-Evolution' is a streach.
Evolution above the species level is assumed, believed, accepted because the alternative is creation by outside means.
Now have you found one verifible instance of 'Macro-Evolution' occuring?
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Taq, posted 11-08-2010 4:34 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by DrJones*, posted 11-08-2010 10:31 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 98 by jar, posted 11-08-2010 10:32 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 100 by crashfrog, posted 11-08-2010 11:01 PM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 99 of 238 (590584)
11-08-2010 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by crashfrog
11-08-2010 6:06 PM


Re: 'Macro-Evolution'
Hi crash,
crashfrog writes:
Can you present the contemporary lab experiment that proves 'Macro-Evolution' has occured from all the little changes brought about by chemical reactions as you claim?
I can and have. Can you respond to it, or not?
Since being the old fuddy duddy I am I can't find that information. Would you please put it in a single message with no other comments so there is no way for me to miss it.
crashfrog writes:
Why does Berekely say in Evolution 101 that there is no firsthand evidence of 'Macro-Evolution'?
They do not say that.
Well explain the following statement then.
Berkeley.edu writes:
It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.
Give me a firsthand account and I will accept it as evidence.
crashfrog writes:
29 evidences and more have already been presented that macroevolution has occurred and continues to.
Which of those 29 evidences do you call direct evidence of 'Macro-Evolution'?
I can't find one so if you want me to get it you will have to point it out and then explain it to me.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by crashfrog, posted 11-08-2010 6:06 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by crashfrog, posted 11-08-2010 11:07 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 102 by Coyote, posted 11-09-2010 12:54 AM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 107 of 238 (590695)
11-09-2010 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by crashfrog
11-08-2010 6:20 PM


Re: DNA
Hi crash,
crashfrog writes:
The ribosome will produce a protein any time it is in solution with ATP, mRNA, and charged tRNA molecules.
So what causes the ribosome to come in contact with the mRNA and tRNA in a human cell?
crashfrog writes:
The ribosome doesn't know anything. Ribosomes produce proteins by chemical reaction any time the reagents they need to do so are present, just as how any spontaneous chemical reaction will occur when the conditions under which it occurs are present. When you react baking soda with vinegar, you don't need to tell the reaction to begin - it begins as soon as baking soda and vinegar come into contact. Similarly, as soon as a ribosome comes into contact with mRNA in the presence of ATP and charged tRNA's, a protein will be formed.
The ribosome can make over 2,000,000 proteins. Something has to control which of those 2,000,000 proteins the ribosome produces.
What controls that process?
Would the information provided by the mRNA that the DNA has constructed in a specific secequence of the string cause the ribosomes to produce a specific protein?
If I took a container of baking soda and a container of vinigar and placed them on a table side by side how long would it take to produce a chemical reaction? I'll answer for you. Never.
Now if I was an eternal being and had an endless supply of baking soda and vinigar and was to mix the two chemicals together in different locations every 2 minutes for 5 billion years would I get the same reaction everytime they were mixed? I will answer for you. Yes
Now if you mix mRNA and ribosomes will it produce the same protein everytime they contact each other? I'll let you answer this one.
Since there are over 2 million proteins that the ribosomes have to produce what causes the ribosomes to produce each one of them? I'll also let you answer this one.
crashfrog writes:
Ribosomes don't chemically interact with DNA; they interact with RNA molecules called "mRNA's." When mRNA, ATP, and charged tRNA's are present proteins will be produced. It's a complex chemical reaction but it is nonetheless a chemical reaction.
So ribosomes don't chemically interact with DNA. Yet the DNA has all the information contained in it to make the 2+ million proteins that the cells need to build and maintain a human body.
So how does that information reach the ribosomes?
Is the following answer correct for this question?
There are two principal stages in protein synthesis. The first stage is transcription, in which the information encoded in DNA is copied onto a length of messenger RNA (mRNA), which in eukaryotes moves from the cell nucleus to structures in the cytoplasm called ribosomes. The second stage is translation, in which amino acids are linked together at the ribosomes in the order specified by the mRNA sequence.
Source
crashfrog writes:
Ribosomes don't understand anything, they're just enzymes. They catalyze a series of chemical reactions including base-pair hydrogen bonding between nucleosides and the condensation of a peptide bond between amino acids.
Can the ribosomes produce over 2 million proteins?
How is the determination made as to which of these proteins the ribosome produces?
You keep saying it is only a chemical reaction. But to produce a specific protein it has to be a specific reaction to a specific set of instructions.
If it is only a chemical reaction like the baking soda and vinigar it will produce the same protein everytime it comes in contact with the mRNA.
If that is the case there is no way an error could occur and therefore there would be no mutations. No mutations = No eveloution of anykind. Micro or 'Macr-Evolution'.
crashfrog writes:
The mistakes happen as a result of these reactions being chemical ones. Chemical reactions are not deterministic, they are stoichiometric; their results are determined by probability and statistics. For instance, the reaction between toluene and iron bromide results in three different products - mostly the para and ortho products, and very rarely (if at all) the meta product.
Let me see if I understand what you are trying to tell me.
The chemical reactions are not inevitable but are concerned with, involving or having the exact proportions for a particular chemical reaction.
So the reaction that the ribosome will have has to be determined before by the secequence placed in the mRNA by the DNA.
Does errors occur when the DNA copies information creating the the mRNA string?
Is there a correction measure taken if a copy error exists?
If a copy error is removed and a correct one inserted how does an error ever occur?
If copy errors are so rare as to make them improbable, how does 'Macro-Evolution ever occur?
crashfrog writes:
The chemical reactions involved in DNA replication and transcription highly favor the desired outcomes, but the other products - the mutations, the "mistakes" - are improbable, not impossible.
Building proteins and DNA replication are two different things.
The chemical reaction can not produce errors.
The only thing that can produce the errors is when the DNA copies the instructions to the mRNA.
Without these errors there can be no form of evolution including 'Macro-Evolution'
If those errors are improbable that means they don't happen very often. If they don't happen very often how can there be enough accumulate to produce transmutation?
I know no one today likes to talk about transmutation as that is what is required for 'Macro-Evolution' to take place.
A mule is the nearest to transmutation or 'Macro-evolution' that I know of.
But when trying to create a new animal the attempt fails. A horse and an ass can produce the mule, but mules are always unproductive.
The hybrid dog-jackal can produce offspring with either dog or jackal. If the hybrid has pups produced by a dog and those pups have pups produced by a dog and those pups have pups by a dog and those pups have pups by a dog there will be no trace of the mixture. Source
So if the errors are improbable and we can't produce a different animal with our present knowledge how did 'Macro-Evolution' take place.
If 'Macro-Eveloution' did take place there should be many verifiable instances of such an event. Yet no one has presented one.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by crashfrog, posted 11-08-2010 6:20 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Wounded King, posted 11-09-2010 2:38 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 119 by crashfrog, posted 11-09-2010 7:38 PM ICANT has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024