|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4335 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can I disprove Macro-Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
If a man started out and a man ended up on the west coast where would the 'Macro-Evolution' be?
Way to completely miss the point of the analogy. To further dumb it down for you: a large journey can be brought about by taking many small journeys, which is similar to how a large evolutionary change can be brought about by many small evolutionary changes. Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given. It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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. Scientists and just plain folks from all around the world can see it. It is only folks who subscribe to a particular narrow religious belief who can't see it. Your name, ICANT, is apt. You are willfully dismissing any evidence that doesn't comport with your religious belief no matter what that evidence may be. And you don't have to study that evidence and see what it is, you just dismiss it out of hand. Heinlein noted, "Belief gets in the way of learning," and you are making yourself the poster boy for that statement. (The history of the past few centuries has shown that belief vs. evidence is not the way to bet the rent money.) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
How many specimens of just Australopithecus have been found so far?
Edited by jar, : missed an "h" there some ow Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I haven't kept up with all the details since grad school, but it is several.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
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. SourceThere 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. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
If there is nothing but chemical reactions there would be no room for errors to arise.
why would you claim this? It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
If there is nothing but chemical reactions there would be no room for errors to arise. Why?
But to assume that a lot of small changes can amount to 'Macro-Evolution' is a streach. Why?
Evolution above the species level is assumed, believed, accepted because the alternative is creation by outside means. Totally untrue. It is accepted because there is evidence of the methods and processes foe the Theory of Evolution while there is NO evidence of creation by an outside means. Given two possibilities, one where there is evidence and one where there is absolutely NO evidence, it seems reasonable to accept the former and reject the later. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Which protein will the ribosome produce? It will produce whatever amino acid sequence is specified by the sequence of base pairs in the mRNA.
Is there any place other than the nucleus of the cell that mRNA comes from? Obviously mRNA doesn't come from the nucleus of cells that have no nuclei. mRNA can also come from viruses.
Then what is the job of tRNA? tRNA is a kind of adapter interface that allows amino acids to base-pair with mRNA at the A site of the ribosome. It does nothing on its own - it's just a way to attach an anticodon to an amino acid. Chemically, a tRNA has a greater binding affinity for its complimentary codon sequence than for other sequences, simply as a result of its chemical structure. It's not a matter of anything being "translated", that's just an analogy for the binding specificity 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. "Orders" and "translation" and "instructions" are just analogies for the process.. What is happening is chemistry. Ribosomes don't "get orders." tRNA doesn't "translate" anything.
If there is nothing but chemical reactions there would be no room for errors to arise. No, completely wrong. Chemical processes are statistical and random; it's precisely because these are chemical reactions that "errors" - another analogy - can occur.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Would you please put it in a single message with no other comments so there is no way for me to miss it. So it can be ignored again? Maybe there will come a day when I do your homework for you, ICANT, but it's not tonight. I'm too tired.
Well explain the following statement then. Sure. They say there's no first-hand evidence of macroevolutionary history. Not of "macroevolution". They don't say what you said they said, as I said.
Give me a firsthand account and I will accept it as evidence. I'm not old enough to give you a first-hand account, and even if I could - that account would be second-hand to you. If you want to have the first-hand account, you would have to be the one to have it. But, if you can figure out a way to have been born in 4,600,000,000 AD and lived for nearly five billion years, you can have a first-hand account of macroevolutionary history. If you'd like to have a first-hand account of macroevolutionary processes, why, that's as easy as enrolling in a microbiology lab course at your local university. I recommend it, it's a lot of fun. But again - by definition, nothing I can say to you will be a "first-hand account", it'll be second-hand since I'm the one giving the account. If I give someone else's account, that's by definition a third-hand account to you.
Which of those 29 evidences do you call direct evidence of 'Macro-Evolution'? Every single one, taken together.
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. They're available at:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
ICANT, this is a test.
We have the following passages from: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common DescentVersion 2.87, Copyright 1999-2006 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent [V]ery complete fossil records should be smoothly connected geographically. Intermediates should be found close to their fossil ancestors. We have here a very brief summary of 58 million years of horse evolution. More complete details can be found all over the interweb for those who care to look. Your test, and the test for the co-religionists you represent, is to explain this evidence in some other way than it is explained by the theory of evolution. Your grade depends on the completeness of your answer, the degree to which your answer explains the data, and the internal consistency of the various points you make. In order to falsify this evidence for macro-evolution you will need to do more than just say, "Where you there?" You will need to do more than just say, "Is it reproducible?" You will need to do more than hand-wave it all away with some pseudo-clever creationist quip. The degree to which you can do this determines your grade on this test. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
So has the OP disproved Macro-Evolution, then?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Larni writes:
Since JRTjr has only made one short post, I would be very impressed if he had. So has the OP disproved Macro-Evolution, then?My current emotional response is: "not very impressed". It would have probably helped if he had taken part in his own topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
It would have probably helped if he had taken part in his own topic. Oh, I seriously doubt that. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024