Can I disprove Macro-Evolution

Oh, are you back?Are you going to return to the threads you abandoned?

Cells in the leg already have the genes for eyes, since every cell in an organism's body has the same genes.You don't understand what is being done, here. They're not putting an "eye in the leg", they're not putting genes for eyes in leg cells - no need to, those genes are already present in leg cells - they're putting genes for eyes in genes for legs - in every cell in the fly's body.It's beyond the scope of a single forum post to try to explain to you or to anyone how a normal fly's eye cells know to be eyes and it's leg cells know to be legs even though both cells have both the genes for eyes and the genes for legs. Experiments with the "eyeless" gene, and other experiments, inform us that there are sequences of DNA that encode homology to the body's tissues, in the same way that a blueprint encodes homology to a building. And in regards to buildings and blueprints, several things are true, several things are true that are relevant to your misunderstanding:1) The symbol for "toilet" on the blueprint doesn't tell the builder how to build a toilet, it tells the builder where to install a toilet. The plans for toilets are different blueprints.2) Adding a toilet symbol to the blueprint only adds a toilet to the building if you change the blueprint before you build the building.Several people have tried to explain to you that the "eyeless" gene is not actually a gene for eyes, it's a gene that says where eyes go. The genes that build eyes are different genes. Several people have tried to explain this to you but you've ignored them, presumably because of your longstanding, adamant, but baseless conviction that all biologists are engaged in a conspiracy to lie to you.

You continue to display absolutely no understanding of what we've very patiently tried to explain to you about the evolution of morphology. There was no "construction of the first human eye." The first human being had completely functional, completely fully-formed eyes, which it inherited from its nonhuman ancestors. If you're interested in the evolution of the human eye, you're necessarily going to be talking about species that are millions of years the ancestors of anything even resembling a human being.When a new species evolves, it doesn't go through a half-formed period where it has to evolve a new body plan all from scratch. New species inherit almost all of their traits from the species from which they descend. The result is that new species are morphologically very similar - if not altogether indistinguishable - to the old one they descended from, which means that new species - genuinely new species, not simply old species we're discovering for the first time - are discovered usually only by genetic investigation.

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.

"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.

Then please make an effort to be more precise. I'll attempt to do the same. The evidence that macroevolution has taken place can be found at 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descentof which the conclusion says:

quote:

---

These previous points are all evidence of macroevolution alone; the evidence and the conclusion are independent of any specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations.

---

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. Incorrect. Every citation I presented was a Nobel Prize for contributing to the mosaic of evidence that supports macroevolution. Among the several people replying to you in this thread are scientists who know that macroevolution has taken place, and they've already provided the evidence of it to you. You're simply shooting spitballs from behind a wall of invincible evidence. But acting like a petulant child doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist. Your obstinate ignorance convinces absolutely no one. In this thread along you've been presented with more than four dozen pieces of evidence, all of which you've ignored. In other threads you've been presented with entire reams of evidence, all of which you ignored until ultimately you fled the thread altogether. Instead of asking for "evidence" and then closing your eyes as hard as you can when it's presented, why don't you tell me what kind of evidence you would need to see to substantiate macroevolution in your own opinion? There are no eyes in single-cell life forms, because eyes are comprised of many thousands of cells. And an eye that has just begun to exist is nothing more than a photosensitive patch of skin, such as that possessed by planarians. As the evolutionary descendents of ancient planarian-like flatworms evolved and expanded in complexity and capability, so did their eyes. The story of the evolution of the human eye is the same story as the evolution of the human being in total.

Well, that's what I get for speaking in universals. The only thing universally true in biology is that nothing is universally true.

I can and have. Can you respond to it, or not? They do not say that. 29 evidences and more have already been presented that macroevolution has occurred and continues to. Very well, I choose to present all 29+ of them. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common DescentIndeed. When are you going to respond to that evidence? You can read all 29+ of them one at a time, if you choose, at the website at which they appear. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common DescentBy random mutation and natural selection, the same processes that have produced all the information in the DNA of all organisms; the same processes that are responsible for every feature of every living thing.No matter what feature you ask about, ICANT, the answer is the same - random mutation and natural selection, because these are the processes by which macroevolution is known to occur and to have occurred. Any time you feel you're able to grapple with the evidence, you can start with the dozens of evidences already put before you.

The ribosome will produce a protein any time it is in solution with ATP, mRNA, and charged tRNA molecules. For instance that is how RNA viruses are able to reproduce - the ribosome will produce proteins by chemical reaction any time it is in the appropriate chemical environment to do so. 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. 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. 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. 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.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.

It will produce whatever amino acid sequence is specified by the sequence of base pairs in the mRNA. Obviously mRNA doesn't come from the nucleus of cells that have no nuclei. mRNA can also come from viruses. 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. "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. No, completely wrong. Chemical processes are statistical and random; it's precisely because these are chemical reactions that "errors" - another analogy - can occur.

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. 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. 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. Every single one, taken together. They're available at: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Diffusion. The ribosome doesn't know how to make even a single protein. All the ribosome does is catalyze several chemical reactions, including the base pairing between mRNA codons and tRNA antticodons, and the condensation formation of the peptide bond between the carboxy terminus of the elongating protein and the amino terminus of the new amino acid residue.It's just chemistry. The mRNA isn't a switch telling the ribosome to produce a protein from memory; it's a chemical template that, as part of the elongating ribosome complex, catalyzes the formation of the appropriate protein. If mRNA, ATP, charged tRNAs, and ribosomes are present, then proteins will form according to the sequence of mRNA, regardless of that sequence's origin, it's information content, or any other concern. It's just a chemical reaction. Well, both the vinegar and the baking soda are undergoing chemical reactions inside their containers. The acetic acid in the vinegar is reacting with the water in the vinegar to produce acetate and hydronium (H3O+), the acetate in the vinegar is reacting with hydronium to regenerate acetic acid; the whole system is in a constant state of flux - a constant state of proton exchange between the acid and the water, statistically stable according to the percentages, but each molecule reacting one way and then the other, constantly.That's chemistry. We can describe the system statistically and say (based on the temperature and pressure) how many molecules of acetic acid vs acetate there are at any one time, but we can't predict whether an individual molecule is in the acid state or the conjugate base state. It's stoichiometric. Yes (assuming constant temperature and pressure), and that reaction product would be a specific mixture of products each time. In the case of protein translation, that's a chemical reaction where the primary product, to about 99.99% of yield, is the desired protein product, and .01% of the yield are proteins with incorrect residues. A ribosome can produce any protein, whatsoever. They're not limited to any set of 2 million or any other number, because the ribosome is not where protein sequences are stored. DNA is where protein sequence is stored. No, absolutely wrong. Given known quantities of reactants, temperatures, and pressures, we can precisely predict the proportions of products. In the case of protein synthesis, the products consist primarily of the desired protein and a very small percentage of "wrong" products. No, absolutely wrong. It'll produce the same proportion of desired protein to wrong protein every time, and it does. Which protein will be wrong is random. The number of proteins that will be wrong is absolutely not random. Absolutely wrong. Chemical reactions can and do produce a very precise number of errors, both in DNA replication, DNA transcription, and protein synthesis, because chemical reactions are statistical, stoichiometric processes. Mules are not an example of speciation. Many dozens have been presented to you and are awaiting your reply, in this and other threads.

Macroevolution is the process by which the history of macroevolution occurred.Are you telling me you don't understand the difference between something, and the history of that something? If you can't tell the difference between the past and the present educating you is going to be beyond the scope of this forum. Because the history of life occurred in the distant past, which cannot be directly experienced by any living human being. Thus to arrive at knowledge about the distant past we must examine what is left for us in the present.Surely the concept of "history" is not beyond you? We have 4.6 billion years of history, in fact. So, you're admitting that whenever we show you evidence, you'll simply not look at it.Why should I give a damn what you will or will not look at? You've been shown the evidence; claiming you've not is a lie, as you now admit. In fact the rules state the exact opposite:

quote:

---

Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument.

---

Just one more thing you're completely wrong about.

That's macroevolution - over time, our classifications describe a greater variety of organisms. You watched your "piney-woods rooters" go from describing one species of swine to two.That's macroevolution. One kind of pig becomes several. "Canine" comes to describe an abundance of wolves and domesticated dogs. "Mammal" no longer refers to one kind of furry rodent (as it did in the time of dinosaurs), it refers to thousands of different types of organisms.We classify living organisms in a hierarchal fashion. As species evolve and change over time, as new species arise, these levels of classification expand. That's macroevolution, and now you've admitted that you've seen an example of it first-hand, which is what you asked for. If they're both horses, why are they so different? If they're so different, how do you know they're both horses?Be specific.