Can I disprove Macro-Evolution

Hi jar, Then present the verifiable evedince for one instance of
'Macro-Evolution having ever 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."

Hi crash, Is this mRNA strand formed by the DNA in the necleus of the cell? Are you sure you are not a lawyer? You sure do use a lot of misdirection. Eliminate the tRNA and what result would you get? Is this information incorrect? Then explain to me how my combining baking soda and vinigar can produce two different reactions by being combined.I do know that there are a lot of combinations of chemicals that can be made by the instructions that is stored in the DNA of the human cell. But none of those combinations can be made without the information in the DNA. Therefore they are not random. Even the mis-copying that gets through is not random. It takes place because the wrong information is in the mRNA and acted upon in the ribomsome by the tRNA.If the DNA does its job and copies the proper sequence to the mRNA and the tRNA acts upon that information in the ribosome the requested protein is created.If the DNA mis-copies the instructions the correcton process takes over and cuts and splices the proper information to the mRNA and the tRNA acts upon this information in the ribosome and the requested protein is created.Very few of these errors ever get through and of those that do most are said to be deadly some netural and some beneficial.So how could there ever be enough small errors to bring about the 'Macro-Evolution' (transmutation) in creatures that is required to get from a single cell life form to the present life forms plus the 99% of all life forms that are extinct?Then if it did happen why isn't there at least one verified 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."

Hi crash, What is the difference in the history of 'Macro-Evolution' and
'Macro-Evolution'?Why did they say "Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms. "They don't have a history so they put one together.Then they say, "Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. "So we have to figure out what happened then we figure out how it happened but we have no history to tell us how it happened.That means there is no direct verifiable evidence for 'Macro-Evolution" A first hand account to me would be a verifiable account of
'Macro-Evolution' occuring. At least one of those should be in the history of 'Macro-Evolution'. Oh but we don't have a history to go on. We have assertions and assumptions. And I have said I will not argue with talkorigins.
The rules says I should not have to and you should not present them. Now if you want to discuss one of those 29 evidences please present it and explain what you are affirming from that evidence.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, I could argue that the beautiful continuious transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus is false. I was taught this line in the school.Gorge G Simpson in Life of The Past on pg. 119 agrees it did not happen.In fact Kathleen Hunt in the FAQ referenced in your quote explains it very well.I could also make the argument that the wide spans of time with no changes raised questions as to the process taking place.I could argue that the absence of transitional forms raises doubts as to the process.I could raise the question of the three toes to one as presented concerning the process, raising questions as the South American story is from one toe to three toes.But since I know creatures can change over time as I have preformed the experiments myself on the farm why should I deny that change takes place. Things can evolve and devolve.If you will enlarge my avatar you will see a animal the size of the Hyracotherium. Since the only pictures we have of the Hyracotherium is an artist rendition of what somebody thought the Hyracotherium looked like they could be the same animal except for the feet and teeth.Since all those modifications could be and was made by microevolution where is the 'Macro-Evolution'?Since everybody here screams they are different critters when they can't breed I would like to put forth my avatar animals as evidence that is a false assertion and assumption.There is no way the stallion, the big horse can breed with the mare, small horse in my avatar.Now if you want to get 'Macro-Evolution' in the horse picture you would need the critter that produced the Hyracotherium, and you might or might not have one. But that critter has not been found and we don't know what it looked like or what it was.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 ok,Welcome to EvC. I am a farm raised person who has taken wild hogs we called piney-woods rooters that could survive on little food and water who weighed less than a hundred pounds. Through selective, breeding produced animals that weighed over 700 pounds that could survive on small amounts of food and water.Could the 700 pound product breed with the less than 100 pound variety? NoWere they both hogs? Yes.Are they classified as different species? Yes, go figure.To me they are just a different variety of the same thing. What instance of 'Macro-Evolution' are you talking about?You highlighted: "at or above the level of species," as if at speciation was the event of speciation. The definition would carry no such meaning. The at would mean that speciation has already taken place.So no My avatar is of a very large horse and a very small horse. They both are 100% horse with over 2000 pounds of flesh and bone difference. It would be physically impossible for them to breed. So according to the definition of species they are two different creatures.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 WK, In the early 1900's many tried to create a separate mule breed of animals. Was scientist interested is this no. But farmers wanted a work animal that could reproduce and be evolved into a bigger animal than the one produced by an ass and a horse.Now as far as my discussing DNA and information I will cease to talk about or answer posts that do in this thread. It seems to be pulling this thread further OT than intended. As I wanted to tie the two together.I will at a later date begin a thread on the origin of information, the information contained in the DNA, and its purpose.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 frako, Source'Macro-Evolution' takes place after speciation has taken place.So when my two horse in my avatar could not breed 'Macro-Evolution' had not occured. It just got to the point they could not breed because of size of the animals. Do we have two fruit flies that can not breed?If we have two fruit flies that can not breed where is the 'Macro-Evolution'?We only have two fruit flies that can not breed. I remember my tobacco growing days and we had many species of tobacco. Some produced low tonage crops with high quality and othere produced high tonage crops with lower quality. But they were all tobacco with nicotine that would kill you in them. Why do you call them "multiple species of the house mouse"?Is it because they were all mouses?If they were all mouses where is the 'Macro-Evolution'? I will take your word for what you said above that I quoted.But if you want to present 'Macro-Evolution' you need to provide an instance of one critter becoming a totaly different critter.When that fruit fly ceases to be a fruit fly.When that mouse ceases to be a mouse.I would ask for something other than your word for that.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 Taq,

25 mya apes                                      195,000 tya homo sapiens
                  /                                                                /
                 /                                                               /
                /                                                              /
   Common ancestor
                                       \                           \
                                          \                          \
                                            \                          \
                                       15 mya monkey        545,000 tya chimpanzees

So I take a few skulls of apes, monkeys and chimpanzees and homo sapiens and says that is 'Macro-Evolution'. I have no idea what the common ancestor was, I don't know when it went extinct but if it went extinct before homo sapiens began to exist how do you tie them to the common ancestor? If the homo sapiens came from the same common ancestor that apes did then that common ancestor existed 195,000 tya. Why don't we have fossils of that common ancestor? Why don't we have a 25 my record of the line of homo sapiens back to the ancestor apes divided from?Where is the 'Macro-Evolution' history? What is the common ancestor of chimps and humans?You have pictures of 14 different skulls and some of them only being fragments.The only thing you verified by these pictures is that a creature with that skull existed at one time. Anything else you claim is verified is nothing more than a conclusion. I thought it said the multicellularity was induced.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 Taq, Skulls of different creatures does not verify 'Macro-Evolution' has occured.It verifies that there were creatures with different skulls. A man leaves point A and a man reaches point B where is the 'Macro-Evolution'?I am sure he changed a lot during the trip you described one being that he would be very, very, very old.But if he is still a man when he arrives no 'Macro-Evolution' has occured. Whether the journey took a week or a billion years, and no matter how many pictures of that man you had along the way.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, Not one verifiable instance of 'Macro-Evolution' has not been shown to have occured.In fact no good argumentation has been presented to support such a position.Circumstantial evidence along with assertions and bull headed conclusions has been presented in this thread as evidence of verifiable instances of 'Macro-Evolution' having occured.The problem is none of those are verifiable instances of
'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."

Hi crash, 'Macro-Evolution' is the process that is proposed to explain how we and all other creatures extinct or living arrived on planet earth from a single cell life form.The history of 'Macro-Evolution' would be a detailed account of how that process took place to date.Anything short of a detailed account is a partial history.When you have gaps of millions of years you do not have a complete history. We do not have a 4.6 billion years of history. We have a book of 4.6 million years with many chapters covering millions of years missing. If you want me to look at it present your argumentation along with the link. I can then read your reasoning and check your link for confirmation.If you make an assertion and present a link, why should I even consider 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 fraco, Well this creationist believes that your mice that can not breed with other mice is still mice.When they cease to be mice then 'Macro-Evolution' will have taken place. If that is true could you tell me where I could pick up a cross between a Great Dane and a Chihuahua? You can call it anything you want to call it. But if you start with two mice and a billion years later you got trillions of mice and billions of them can not breed with each other because of changes or habits you still got trillions of mice, whether they can breed with each other or not.So call it what you will it is not '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."

Hi jar, I am still waiting for anyone to present a verifiable instance of
'Macro-Evolution'. That is enough of those little micro-evolution events over time to transform one creature into a totaly different creature.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 Dr, I don't see how the big stallion and the little mare in my avatar can breed and produce an offspring.They are both classified as horses.So where is the difference other than size?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 fraco, I buy that statement.It is possible for a stallion and a Heffer to mate. But it is impossible for them to produce offspring.Now if they could produce offspring that could in return produce offspring I would call that 'Macro-Evolution'.

---

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