Can I disprove Macro-Evolution

Hi lyx2no, 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."

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

That "verifiable" evidence has been presented.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.

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!

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.

Hi Taq, 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. SourceNow 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."

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

Why? Why? 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!

Hi crash, 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. Well explain the following statement then. Give me a firsthand account and I will accept it as evidence. 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."

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

ICANT, this is a test.We have the following passages from:29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Version 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.

​

The Equidae (i.e. horse) fossil record is very complete (though extremely complex) and makes very good geographical sense, without any large spatial jumps between intermediates. For instance, at least ten intermediate fossil horse genera span the past 58 million years. Each fossil genus spans approximately 5 million years, and each of these genera includes several intermediate paleospecies (usually 5 or 6 in each genus) that link the preceding and following fossil intermediates. They range from the earliest genus, Hyracotherium, which somewhat resembled a dog, through Orohippus, Epihippus, Mesohippus, Miohippus, Parahippus, Merychippus, Dinohippus, Equus, to Modern Equus. Every single one of the fossil ancestors of the modern horse are found on the North American continent (MacFadden 1992, pp. 99, 156-162). For more detail about the known evolution of the Equidae, consult Kathleen Hunt's thorough FAQ on Horse Evolution.

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.

So has the OP disproved Macro-Evolution, then?

Since JRTjr has only made one short post, I would be very impressed if he had.
My current emotional response is: "not very impressed".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