Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

Well, it seems i haven't missed much. You are still trying your darndest to run away from your random mutations like a bad case of leprosy. Sorry, your side bought it, now you own it.You really think you can convince anyway with even a slightly critical and honest skepticism that horizontal gene transfers are going to make up all the complete, synergistic and elegant systems we see in living creatures? Did you used to sell used cars?How's about you giving a simple explanation for how a system of digestion, which utilizes kidneys, spleens, pancreases, livers, and a split digestive pathways, and an entire network of interdependent metabolisms arises through horizontal gene transfer?Every time a new discovery is made in biological research we see less and less of the kinds of random variation that your side predicts we should see and banks on, and instead see more and more evidence for rapid, intelligent pathways to adaptive successes..and yet with each chink taken out of your "life is just lucky chaos" fairytale, you just run further and further from reality.Epigentics suggest that the genome has a flexible memory that changes over one's lifetime, and imparts that lifetimes worth of knowledge into the cell in some fascinating and clever way. Darwin is dead wounded king, I know how much this hurts Dr. A and Granny's and Percy's and your world view, but the theory has already been falsified, you just didn't notice it with all those patches over your eyes and ears.But hey, go ahead and try to show how HGT can explain it all.

Hi barbara, thanks. And yet machines\devices have been built that beat chess-masters at chess. The logical conclusion then is that chess does not involve decisions, which is ridiculous, so therefore your premise is false.Enjoy.

---

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)

Except apparently the whole point of the post you are replying to.I mentioned HGT because it is something that makes reconstruction of very early cellular and precellular ancestral genomes highly challenging and potentially impossible. Where you got all the nonsense you are throwing up here is beyond me.I cetainly wasn't running away from random mutation in any sense. Yeah, and?! Once again we are principally talking about somatic cells, epigenetic modifications are a vital way of allowing one identical genome to give rise to multiple differing cell types, but that is a developmental not an evolutionary process. There is some epigenetic programming of the germ cells during development and some evidence for short term intergenerational inheritance of some epigenetic modifications. But if you are pinning your hopes on epigenetics as the medium for some sort of equal Lamarckian mode to the readily evident Darwinian one then you have backed a losing horse.And once again, no matter how many times Creationists scream from the rooftops that evolution (or Darwin) is dead, it doesn't become any more true.TTFN,WK

Ever own an 8Ball?

---

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

Percy writes, 1. No my approach is to make known what a very qualified molecular biologist has written about his doubts with the current theory of evolution, on a thread titled "potential falsifications of the theory of evolution."Give my intrepretations of his papers and let the scientists on this board to express their thoughts on his conclusions.Was it wrong for me to find such a person and post his views?2. Ask opinions about his views to the posters on this board.You suggest I should reach agreement with others participants about what he is actually saying before I know what their reactions are to his views, and then quietly go into the sunrise, agreeing with what those who will not accept any criticism of the current theory of evolution, so that all will be well and good.Then I should discuss Shapiro's actual views, rather than what he wrote in his papers so we can all agree that he is not really saying that their is, or may be, a fallsification of the theory of evolution as accepted today.In other words, BE a good soldier and don't question our beliefs.Percy, I can't do that.I posted Shapiro's views, and will post in the future the views of many out front molecular biologists who do have the opinon ,based on their work, that the theory of evolution as accepted today needs revisions.Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

molbiogirl writes, Perhaps the statementWhen he says our current knowledge of genetic is fundamentally at variance with neo-Darwinist postulates alerts me that he may not be in agreement with the current theory of evolution. And if he is correct, that may in some way falsify in some ways the current theory of evolution.I really think that as a biologist you must be amenable to the fact that the theory as currently accepted may need fine tuning or even major adjustments.

And perhaps you as a creationist should realize that this "fine tuning or even major adjustments" will most likely only make the theory of evolution stronger.It will not be evidence of creationism; it will be the opposite.Edited by Coyote, : Change title

---

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

molbiogirl writes in message 566 "What in the above falsifies evolution?"Shapiro writes: I interpret this to mean that he is questioning the theory of evolution as per the modern interpretation.
I am not saying that evolution is false, only that the theory as stated today may be wrong per Dr. Shapiro.I think your question what above falsifies evolution?, is too broad, My query is what may falsify the current theory of evolution, not that evolution has and continues to occur. The basic question is How has and does it occur.

coyote writes, Why do you bring creationists into your agruments? If the theory needs adjustments, then it needs adjustments.What the future holds after adjustments we will then be able to attempt to determine what we will learn from the adjustments.Perhaps we will learn that "evolution" is indeed programmed through information in the cells.Then you may have to face the fact that , Yes, there was a creation event.I can live by Anthony Flew's statement "We must follow the argument wherever it leads."Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

Even if there was some creation events (which is pretty much what everyone thinks) it still adds no support for a god, God or GOD.

---

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

Shadow wrote, Razd replied, My question is, Does this show that there is a program in the cells that activate responses, other than by a random process?It appears that the cells have computer like information that activitvates responses to stresses etc., clearly not a random, non programmed event.If this is correct, what effect does that have on the the current theory of evolution?

Jar writes, Well then we would have to find out what was behind the creation event. I would not think it would be nature, because nature woud not be in existence before the creation event.Perhaps it could be Richard Dawkins, or Daniel Dennett, but I would put my money on God.

So far EVERY cause we have EVER found for ANYTHING has been natural.If it is supernatural, then it is not natural then it is not something that we can even study.

---

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

The evidence so far has been toward an increasingly accurate theory of evolution and away from reliance on ancient tribal superstitions.Can you live with that?

---

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

Hi shadow71, still trying to make reality fit fantasy? Not really, what you have is a system that turns the rate of mutation up or down in response to input from the ecology. We still have the process of evolution defined as: That rather obviously still applies. Curiously, it does not mean that specific pre-programmed singularly directed responses are activated, but that what is activated is increased random mutations. First, once again, your interpretation is not correct, so the answer is moot, however if you wish to know what the impact of scientists like Shapiro finding new mechanisms by which some evolution occurs for some organisms would have on the modern theory of evolution ... see below. Then you are equivocating between neo-Darwinism and the modern interpretation of the theory of evolution, in spite of being told several times that these are not the same thing.Let me see if I can make it a little easier for you - the modern interpretation of the theory of evolution can be simply stated as: This means that everything we know about how evolution occurs, and everything we know about the diversity of life, is part of the modern interpretation of the theory of evolution.This includes Darwinism.This includes neo-Darwinism.This includes all the current knowledge within the field of biological evolution about all the mechanism involved in the process of evolution.This also means that any new knowledge that is confirmed and validated by the scientific process concerning new mechanisms for the process of evolution, whether for specific organisms or general, will be incorporated into the theory of evolution, and that when that is done, we can "redefine" the modern theory of evolution to be: Enjoy.

---

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)