Can I disprove Macro-Evolution

ICANT, you're severely missing the point that Taq is trying to make.That single gene is not the only gene responsible for the eye. It is merely one of hundreds or thousands that are involved.
The fact that placing this or that single gene into another animal results in something forming does not make it the only thing involved in making that something.You are trying to argue a nonposition, that a single gene can express the dozens of different proteins making up a single organ like the eye. That alone would make you wrong on this point.The genes you refer to are not the "{organ} genes". They do not build the organs.
They are the "put an {organ name} here" genes. All that they do is switch on the genetic machinery that constructs the organ in that place, a process involving, as mentioned, hundreds or thousands of genes coding for about as many proteins and structures. Which is what Taq has explained multiple times already. Is it really so hard to concede the point when somebody clearly knows what they are talking about? Double helix? Yes, that's part of the definition of DNA.
Human cells contain far more than just one piece though. Ever heard of chromosomes? They're all linked strands of it. 46 helices in 23 pairs, in each cell. Then there's the tidbit of mtDNA as well. So 47 chunks of it floating around, not just one. No. That's not how it works. You made the claim that it contains that number, so you have to support it.Each strand of DNA in those different chromosomes is a different length. The smallest contains around 400 genes in 130 million base pairs (reading from a chart) and the longest has around 4200 genes in almost 250 million base pairs. That's a factor of more than ten and slightly less than two, respectively.I can't convert that into megabits for you, since I don't know what you count as one bit; is it the base pairs? the genes? the codons? Whichever way, you'd be wrong regardless.To state that all have the same amount of information is thus wildly incorrect as well. Because they did.But you are still missing the point. Putting that gene there does not make it the only gene involved in constructing the eye. All it did was tell* the other genes which were already there to build an eye. Well yes, they do.
However, you've been arguing that they effectively do the same thing: you say that these single genes are the only ones that build the eye, Taq used the analogy that this is like saying only the gas tank is involved in making your car go because you can stop the car by putting a hole in the tank. You might be seeing the point now, then...Yes, it is the "master control" gene. Because it controls. Controls what?
Might that possibly be "controls the rest of the genes involved in constructing the eye"?

Hi WK, Sorry my presentation is as old as I am.But the eyeless was presented as the sole gene responsible for the eye development in the leg of the fruit fly. According to the information found in SCIENCE VOL. 267 24 MARCH 1995 pp. 1766-1767.I do want to thank you for answering my questions as Taq either refused to answer or did not know the answer. I agree. That agrees with the information from my source. If I understand what you said it was: that had not the eyeless been introduced there would be no eye in the leg.I also understand that since the eyeless was introduced that a operational eye was produced.If I understand you the DNA in the host cell contained all the information necessary to build a ectopic fly eye when trigered by the eyeless.If I got this wrong please correct me.Now the question I have is where did the information to construct the first eye come from?And where did the information to construct the first cell come from? As I understand it there are very few cells in which the DNA does not contain all the information needed to construct the creature in which the cell exists.God Bless,Edited by ICANT, : Add strike through the

---

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

You need to understand that assertion to see just how futile responding to ICANT is.The figure he uses, IIRC, was how much storage it would take for some database he found. It has absolutely nothing to do with any measure of information or DNA or Macro-Evolution or just about anything else in the known world, it is just yet another example of ICANT simply not understanding what he is talking about.And what the hell would an eye have to do with the topic in the first place?

---

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

Yeah, I kind of figured that myself already. His being wrong was a working assumption, and actually having evidence to support said assumption made it factual.It never hurts to debunk the silliness when it does appear though; 84 lurkers (at the moment) could be reading his nonsense and without a sound rebuttal, it's like asking for them to accept it as correct. But seriously, could you resist hitting the pinyata?

Hi Nij, I see the eyeless as being the central processor of that process that processes the information in the DNA and instructs the different genes to do their job. Would you agree that all human cells except the mature red blood cells contain a complete genome? Source"To get an idea of the size of the human genome present in each of our cells,"The human genome present in each human cell."Since the human genome is 3 billion base pairs long, 3 gigabytes of computer data storage space are needed to store the entire genome. "3 gigabytes of computer data storage space needed to store the information in the human genome found in one human cell. Geeze that is equal to over 4 cd's. So you are right I was wrong.So where did that 3 gigabytes of information 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."

Deep in the mountainside near the Ariege river in France, ghostly images of long ago still dance across the rock walls of tunnels, overhangs, and vast caverns.

​

Explore this digital panorama, constructed from more than 100 individual photographs, and discover the images put there 13-14,000 years ago by the people now known as Magdalenian.

​

Look for bison, horses, ibex, and even a deer. Let your eyes and mind wander. Why were they put there? What did they represent? As close as we can get to the images themselves, the answers to these questions still disappear, like the light of our flashlights down dark tunnels, beckoning us to continue the exploration.

​

History & Culture

Hmmmmm. Older than 6,800 years, eh?What do it mean? What do it mean?If you want to discuss this, start a new thread. Maybe you could title it, "Nothing on or in this earth is greater than 6,800 years old." That could be fun!

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hi jar, Everything.You have to get that 3 gigabytes of information (according to the Human Genome Project) from a single cell life form that there is no reproducible evidence for, to be able to construct the first human eye.That would take a lot of 'Macro-Evolution', for which there is no reproducible evidence available.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, Just as soon as the images you presented is clasified as writings I will change my 6800 years to 13,000 to 14,000 years ago.And yes I would like to see a discussion on the subject but I don't have time right now to host 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."

I'm sorry but that is simply bullshit and totally irrelevant.

---

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

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.

Then you would be still be wrong on that highlighted bit.
"Master control gene" is also a bit of a misnomer. All it does is wave the start flag, then bugger off. The processes are chemical reactions and the only thing they require is the DNA being used to build the protein.Taq made the assertion:

quote:

---

there is no single gene for building an eye

---

and you questioned that claim. He made several posts explaining why this was so. I have continued this explanation: one single gene cannot possibly code for an entire eye, because the eye contains more than one type of protein, making it impossible for one gene to do so. You have so far failed to provide anything demonstrating that any of those single genes are responsible for constructing the eye, as opposed to merely being the green flag for a multitude of other genes. With my understanding, no, I wouldn't: gametes.
They only have half the genome of the individual producing them. Hence why you need two gametes, an ovum and a sperm, one from the male and one from the female, to produce one complete genome in the offspring. But they're usually considered as one of the distinct groups, the other being every other cell in the body; collective terms are "germline cells" and "somatic cells".And your quoted material still doesn't address the problem. You said that each strand has 750 megabits of information. I showed that this was impossible: the strands are all different lengths. Taking the material into account, you are now saying either that there are approximately four strands (3 billion divided by 750 million) -- which would make you incorrect, as there are 46 different strands in 23 pairs, as mentioned earlier -- or that your original assertion of 750 megabits is wrong. Oh, FFS ...You may have heard of something called evolution. It works by a variety of processes, the most notable of which are called genetic drift -- random change in frequency of alleles by e.g. mutation; reproductive 'random sampling' processes; immigration or emigration of populations -- and natural selection -- the change in frequency of alleles by removal of those which are disadvantageous and increase in those which are advantageous.
There exists a large body of work regarding the phenomenon. Perhaps you could research some of it in your spare time, and thereby become better acquainted with it?So, do you actually want to make an argument about evolution, or are you going to play the 'ignorance', 'incredulity', and 'blind assertion' cards, as we normally expect?

Hi crash, In Message 32 I said: The eyeless gene was used to cause the eye to develop in the leg.The information (blueprint for that eye) was contained in the DNA in the cell the eyeless was introduced into.Which caused an eye to develop at that location.Had the eyeless not been introduced there would have been no eye developed on the leg.So what is it that I don't understand?In Message 41 you said: Yes I believe the first modern human had fully-formed eyes as well as everything else we have today. Because I believe he was created by God in His image/likeness.You on the other hand believe he came from that nonhuman ancestor which you have no reproducible verifiable evidence for.But maybe I am wrong and you do have that evidence. If you do would you share it? Yes like the two horses in my avatar. They can't bred but they are both horses.There is no verifiable reproducible evidence of 'Macro-Evolution'.It is a prediction of the ToE but no evidence is available to validated that 'Macro-Evolution' has ever happened.If you have such information now would be a good time to present it. Then you could invite me to be present when you get your Nobel Prize.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 Nij, Do we agree that all the information necessary to construct an eye is in the DNA of a cell?Do we agree that eventhough that information is there the information cannot create an eye?Do we agree that for the fruit fly to have an eye the eyless gene must tell the cell to produce an eye?Do we agree that for the mouse to have an eye that the Small gene must tell the cell to produce an eye?Do we agree that for the human to have an eye that the Aniridia gene must tell the cell to produce an eye? I thought the process was a little more complicated than that.I thought the DNA sent the information by mRNA to the ribosome which was translated by the tRNA. The ribosome then carries out the instructions. I could be mistaken and if I am I know I will be corrected. I thought I admitted in the message you are replying to in this message that I was wrong by over 3 cd's. No.But I would love to argue with you about 'Macro-Evolution' if you would present verifiable reproducible evidence for such an occurance.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."

The introduction from: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Version 2.87
Copyright 1999-2006 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.

Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).

​

Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.

​

This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.

​

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

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?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.