Can I disprove Macro-Evolution

Fossils are verifiable and reproducible evidence. They are empirical in every way. When scientist A measures the size of the brow ridge in an H. erectus skull he gets the same measurement as scientist B.

And there are lots of remains of modern humans from long before 6000 years ago as well.BUT...there is NO evidence of God creating man in his own image.ICANT is simply once again trying to lead people down those attractive rabbit holes.

---

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

Hi Coyote, Why is it my job to pick out your argument and refute it before you present it?Present your evidence that 'Macro-Evolution' has 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."

You could at least deal with the arguments that have been put forth.The theory of evolution predicts that there should have been species that had a mixture of modern human and basal ape features. Fossil species such as H. erectus and H. habilis have a mixture of modern human and basal ape features. Therefore, these fossils are evidence of macroevolution.

Hi Taq, Well I went to school with a fellow we refered to as monkey. Since his head was shaped like the head of a monkey does that mean we came from monkeys?I also had a teacher that we called Gorilla Gordon. His head was shaped like a gorilla and he had just about as much body hair. Does that mean we came from gorillas?Just because things look similar does not mean they produced the other.Just because things had a common origin does not mean they produced each other. When they are considered writings I will modify my dates to reflect that.I have no problem if you find drawings or writings that are 2 billion years old in caves.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, I understand that DNA has built in correction and redundancy.Which is one of the reasons I argue so hard against
'Macro-Evolution'. The built in checks and correction would negate or at least reduce greatly the influence of mutations.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."

According to cladistics, we are monkeys. What next? We have hair like mammals so does that make us mammals? Yep, sure does. If you share a lot of characteristics with your siblings does that mean you came from your cousins? No. But it does indicate that you share a common ancestor. True or false. The theory of evolution predicts that there should have been species who had a mixture of modern human and basal ape features.Or perhaps you can try your argument out in a court of law as a defense attorney. You can try to convince juries that even though the swirly patterns of oil found at the crime scene are similar to the swirly patterns of ridges on your client's fingers it doesn't mean that one produced the other. I'm sure they will buy it.

No, I'm not. The transfer of information by mRNA and tRNA occurs via chemical reactions. Chemical reactions follow the laws of physics and chemistry.Do I really have to explain this stuff to an adult like it's basic addition? You wanted to talk about this, you do the learning required.Macroevolution is evolution.
I asked whether you wanted to talk about evolution. You said no, you wanted to talk about.. evolution.
So no, that is not cherrypicking or quotemining. It is a simple example of your lack of faith in this debate, continued by your refusal to examine any and all evidence supplied to you. All it requires on your behalf is to 1. click the link, and 2. read the fucking evidence.I don't know much more simple it could be. The stuff is even laid out in a nice linear progression, with all these categories and intralinks; the second one is exactly what it says: a list.
Of transitional fossils.
Which you predict do not exist.
Because of there being no macroevolution.
But they do exist.
So you are wrong.
And thus there must be macroevolution.As you can say, I've begun reducing my sentences to those a child would understand, since speaking as if you were an adult obviously doesn't work.

Hi JRTjr, welcome to the fray, if I haven't already said it.I hope you are reading the replies and intend to return & respond at some point. Unfortunately it seems the major thrust of your OP has been obscured by the posts so far It appears that you have some misconception about macroevolution. ‘Darwinian Evolution’ is a term commonly used by creationists to talk about microevolution, and natural selection is a part of ‘Darwinian Evolution’ and microevolution. Another source for definitions about micro and macroevolution is:
The Process of Speciation

quote:

---

Definitions of Biological Evolution

​

We begin with two working definitions of biological evolution, which capture these two facets of genetics and differences among life forms. Then we will ask what is a species, and how does a species arise?

• Definition 1:
  ​
  Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation
  ​
• Definition 2:
  ​
  The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity

Note that the first definition emphasizes genetic change. It commonly is referred to as microevolution. The second definition emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution.

​

A full explanation of evolution requires that we link these two levels. Can small, gradual change produce distinct species? How does it occur, and how do we decide when species are species? Hopefully you will see the connections by the end of these three lectures.

---

In science macroevolution is considered to have occurred when speciation occurs, where a parent population divides into two or more daughter populations that no longer interbreed.Can you describe what you think occurs in macroevolution? Do you think something other than microevolution occurring in different populations of breeding organisms living in different ecologies results in different adaptations within the different populations? How much change is necessary for macroevolution to be demonstrated?See MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? for more on this topic.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrty

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

"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.

No,it means that they had a common origin.You have made 3,815 posts on this forum and you can still write a sentence like that ...One would think that what with all this talking with intelligent educated people some of it would have rubbed off on you.

Fascinatingly, this is untrue.

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

What are we talking here? Chlamydomonas and Euglena eye spots? Or bacteriorhodopsin?TTFN,WK