Can I disprove Macro-Evolution

I stand corrected.
'Probably' was far to strong a word and incorrectly conveyed a sense of optimism in regards to JRTjr's success.A better phrase would have been:
"By only submitting a single short post, JRTjr's failure was pretty much guaranteed."

Hi crash, So what causes the ribosome to come in contact with the mRNA and tRNA in a human cell? 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. YesNow 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. 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? SourceCan 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'. 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? 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. SourceSo 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."

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 ICANT, from reading your posts in this thread it appears that you accept that speciation has taken place: this fits the definition of the biological species concept, so no problems there.
Biological species concept - Understanding Evolutionas you are using the definition of 'macro evolution' from the op: it would seem as though you accept at least one instance of macro evolution.

This firt bit is for Percy:Hi Percy, just to point out since this has come up again so soon, this is what happens when you mollycoddle people who don't understand science by telling them we know what they mean. They keep on repeating the same mistakes again and again, and I'm not referring to one individual, we have had several creationists/IDists who think mutations are about transcription. ICANT specifically draws a distinction between DNA replication and transcription, but he still has some absurd wrongheaded notion that transcription is what is important in mutation and therefore in evolutionary terms.And for ICANT: Mutations rate are increasingly well quantified in many species. We can measure the error rates of Polymerases which synthesise new DNA strands. We can empirically measure mutations as the result of environmental damage too. The rates are consistent with the comparative data on genetic distance between species. Do you have any reason to think they are not sufficient?Most polymerases are highly accurate, in some bacteria the principle replicative polymerase DNA Pol III is accurate enough that their average mutation rate is below 1 mutation/genome/generation when the genome is small enough. Can you tell me when anyone has attemmpted this? It sounds like all the fictional Drosophila experiments Idist/creationists keep saying failed to produce beneficial mutations. Given that your source was writing in 1867 he had no more of an understanding of molecular genetics than Darwin did, the 4th generation may have been morphologically indistinguishable from dogs but genetics might be quite different. Since genetic elements are discrete it should surprise no one that an outside trait may be lost following successive rounds of inbreeding, however when it comes to the whole genome it seems unlikely that all traces of the jackal genome would be lost in all it's descendants after 4 generationsTTFN,WK

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."

Certainly.In the transition between fish to tetrapods, we see a pretty continuous line of critters that gradually evolve tetrapod, land animal features that are modified from existing fish features. The most recent finds are related to Tiktaalik. The importance of this find is not just that it shows the continuing macro-evolutionary trends seen in the other critters in the line, but that it was possible based on the characteristics of the older and younger examples what the critter would be like even before it was found as well as the general age of the rocks where it would be found.The chain from fish to tetrapod is verifiable evidence of macro-evolution.Now YOU present the verifiable evidence that there is a god.

---

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

Well because macro is loads of micro evolutions, when enough micro evolutions acure that we can call it a new species we call it macro evolution.
.By moste definitions one is a member of the same species if one can sucsessfuly mate and produce an offspring that can do the same.1. Two strains of fruit flies lost the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring in the lab over a 4-year span ... i.e. they became two new species. from wiki but what the hellSpeciation - Wikipedia2. A new plant species, created by a doubling of the chromosome count from the original stock3. Multiple species of the house mouse unique to the Faeroe Islands occurred within 250 years of introduction of a foundation species on the island.Just a moment... i have named 3 now can you name 3 species that poped out of thin air and had a note attached to them the desighner made me to prove creationNow if you wait a while i will provide some links if i find them cause i know you will not take my word for it.Edit found 2 linksEdited by frako, : No reason given.Edited by frako, : No reason given.Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Would it be asking too much to ask you to use your noodle instead of google?There are TRANSITIONAL hominid fossils which is verifiable evidence that hominids TRANSITIONED from a common ancestor with apes to modern humans. Sure there is. There are many known observed instances of speciation:Observed Instances of Speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html That would be the transition between the common ancestor of chimps and humans and modern humans. It is verified by these fossils:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg "Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella."
Observed Instances of SpeciationThe evolution of multicellularity. That is definitely macroevolution.

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."

Transitional fossil hominids are that verification. Macroevolution is the total journey. Wouldn't you predict that at some point he would be transitioning between the east coast and the west coast? Wouldn't that be a logical consequence of the process? If we had pictures of this man at many points along the way wouldn't this be verification of his journey?

It is what evolution has done compared to what it is doing now. Geology and fossils are that history, and those historical events have led to the life we see now. Why are you being so obtuse?Do you really think it is impossible to reconstruct past events with evidence found in the present? Have you ever watched the TV show CSI? I did present specific evidence from the site, and you ignore it. Go figure.

Nope. mRNA is made by RNA trascriptases. They use DNA as a substrate. The inability to make proteins. If you have a reaction vessel with hydrogen and oxygen and you ignite it what do you get? Water. If you take away the hydrogen what do you get? No water. The same applies here. When you remove one of the chemical reactants you do not get the product. They are good analogies for the process. When you burn wood you get both carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. The same thing applies to all chemical reactants. I know of no chemical reaction that produces just one product. Even the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen will produce water along with trace amounts of hydrogen peroxide. Any combination of chemicals that is allowable by thermodynamics will probably occur in any reaction. DNA does not make mRNA or tRNA's. DNA is the substrate for enzymes that make these molecules.Also, any mistakes that are made in the processes of translation and trascription only make it into the protein that is produced from that mRNA product. My educated guess is that very few proteins contain errors made during trascription and translation, and those that do have mistakes are swamped out by correctly made proteins.Also, errors made in trascription and translation are not heritable. Only mistakes made in DNA replication during the production of gametes are passed on to the next generation.

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.