Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

Asking if there's a "guiding intelligence," referring to cells as "sentient beings," calling them "intelligent," seems like an open invitation to being misunderstood.--Percy

The approach you're taking seems to be:

1. Find someone who you think has a falsification argument against evolution.
   ​
2. Convince everyone he's so wonderful that he must be right.

An approach you might consider is:

1. Reach agreement with other participants about what Shapiro is actually saying.
   ​
2. Discuss Shapiro's actual views to determine whether he actually has a falsification argument against evolution.

--Percy

Other people seem to think that what you actually posted was your misinterpretation of Shapiro's views. People are not going to discuss the details and implications of what they feel is a misinterpretation, they're just going to continue pointing out that you're misinterpreting Shapiro. If you want to actually discuss Shapiro's views then you're going to have to reach a consensus with the other people here about what those views really are.Shapiro has been critical of the field of biology for inappropriately insisting on evolution as a scientific orthodoxy rather than just one of many dynamic and changing scientific theories. He seems to derive this belief from decidedly incomplete observations of the creation/evolution controversy, taking no notice of the fact that this is an arena where scientists are forced to make simple and unnuanced claims because of the general lack of knowledge and familiarity with evolution of laypeople in general and fundamentalist Christians in particular. Scientists take it as a given that all fields of science are dynamic and changing, but this quality of "dynamic and changing" which evolution shares with physics and chemistry and cosmology and geology and all the other fields of science does not mean that these theories are in danger of being overturned or even just radically changed.Both Shapiro and Koonin have chosen extreme ways of expressing their views which garner them attention, which is I guess what they want. If you really believe Shapiro thinks that, for example, cells are intelligent in the same way that people are intelligent, then send him an email and ask him about it: jsha@midway.uchicago.edu--Percy

After all this discussion I have to assume that you know that random mutation can change the information in a genome, and that you're really focused on the part about discovering that random mutations cannot accumulate to create new species. This would be like knowing you could walk across the street but discovering that for some reason you couldn't walk across the country. Or it would be like knowing that objects fall but that given a deep enough hole that objects couldn't fall all the way to the center of the Earth. These would be be stunning discoveries.The answer to your question is, "Yes." If it were discovered that random mutations cannot accumulate to cause species change then the underlying mechanism behind the origin of species would be gone, and evolution as we know it would be falsified. Given what we already know through observation and experiments this is about as likely as discovering that the sun really does orbit the Earth. Your interpretation isn't accurate. You won't make any progress by continuing to trot out one misinterpretation after another. Molbiogirl's link works now, read the paper, look at the table on page 16. Shapiro does at times express himself in ways that must sound like music to creationist ears, but if he were really saying what you think he's saying then all his colleagues would be calling him on it. But they're not, because you're misinterpreting him as saying something that he's really not.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Just picking one wrong thing at random: Shapiro does not believe cells are intelligent in the same way that humans are intelligent. This has been explained to you over and over nine ways from Sunday.We're all aware that Shapiro expresses himself in ways that actually encourage creationist misinterpretation, but we've explained how you're misinterpreting him. You have to respond to those explanations instead of just repeating your misinterpretations. There's really nothing new we can add.--Percy

Where in my post did I say "human intelligence"? I said in the same way that humans are intelligent, which is the standard of intelligence that creationists use when talking about intelligent design. Don't you remember the intelligent design argument, that only intelligence has ever been observed creating a design? They're referring to designs created by people, and they're arguing that the designer is intelligent in the same way that humans are intelligent.To put a finer point on it, Shapiro is not talking about the kind of intelligence as intended by the word "intelligent" in the term "intelligent design." He's using the term intelligence in a very uncommon way that leaves him open to misinterpretation by creationists like yourself. He's using the term intelligent (who knows why) to describe natural evolutionary processes. He's not endorsing intelligent design. If you think otherwise, send him an email. Invite him here to explain to everyone discussing with you how wrong we all are.--Percy

I think everyone here would be delighted if Shadow would switch to discussing Shapiro's data instead of misinterpreting his writings. Except that is does look exactly like that. For some reason Shapiro prefers to refer to some processes whose results cannot be predicted as non-random, and he likes to call cells intelligent because of some of the ways they can respond to environmental pressures, but neither his actual opinion nor his data support any aspect of intelligent design.--Percy

What aspect of intelligent design do you think this supports? Given that these are all observed processes taking place naturally without any hint of guidance from anywhere, where is the evidence to claim otherwise? The general answer is descent with modification and natural selection. The specific mechanisms that research has uncovered that carry out this process are complex. I don't think anyone but you has described it in this way. What Shapiro calls non-random processes are not new. They might be more recently discovered than other mechanisms, but they aren't new. All the mechanisms of which we're now aware have been operating alongside one another for a long, long time. We will undoubtedly discover more (and more subtle) mechanisms that have been around for a long, long time. My religion doesn't enter into it. If for you this is a religious discussion then you're in the wrong thread.--Percy

What is it about Shapiro's findings that you think suggests intelligent design? Shapiro certainly doesn't think they do. Even minute examination of life's processes reveals nothing more than natural processes. Where in these processes do you see evidence for an intelligent designer? In their complexity? That's just the old tired claim of intelligent design, that life is too complex to have risen and evolved naturally. None of the evidence that would be apparent if an intelligent designer were at work, such as non-nested relationships between at least some species, or novelty arising in a single generation, has ever been observed. Shapiro certainly offers no help for intelligent design.Creationists are latching onto Shapiro because he expresses himself in ways that they interpret as supportive of intelligent design. The reality is that Shapiro doesn't support intelligent design, and that's because his research doesn't support intelligent design. What his research does suggest to him is that the mechanisms of evolution are so far beyond what was originally conceived in the 1920's when the modern synthesis between Darwinian evolution and genetics arose that he has come to believe that it should be replaced with a more varied and nuanced framework. Most others disagree, pointing out that the 80 year old framework *has* changed a great deal and has already incorporated the ideas he enumerates. Mutation is random, selection is not. Evolution includes both mutation and selection and cannot be described as "completely unguided randomness." In Message 624 you listed a bunch of processes that you labeled "adaptive intelligent responses" (I've edited this to make it more readable): If the effect of any of these on the genome is non-random then you should be able to tell us what that effect will be. Pick one or two and tell us the specific changes they will cause to the genes of individuals. You won't be able to do this because when Shapiro says non-random he doesn't mean guided and certainly not deterministic. You've already made a few wrong choices. Your first wrong choice was in deciding to continually mischaracterize evolution as random. Mutations are random, selection is not.Your second wrong choice is in thinking of the issue as either/or. It's not. The issue is following the evidence where it leads. When we examine life all we see is matter and energy following known laws of chemistry and physics.Your third wrong choice is equating complexity with design. Cars and computers are examples of complexity designed by people. Kangaroos and kumquats are examples of complexity designed by nature.--Percy

Hi Bolder-dash,You misunderstood or misread the question. The question asked about the specific genetic change. Your position is that the term "nonrandom" refers to guided or directed changes in the genome toward a specific goal resulting in improved competitive success in the current environment. But when asked for examples all you provided was: None of these processes result in genomic changes directed toward any specific goal of improvement. The result is random with respect to reproductive success within the environment. Actual improvement to the genome will be through selection of these random changes across a population of organisms experiencing the same environmental stresses.Care to try again? Or would you like to finally acknowledge that "nonrandom" in the way that Shapiro is using the term does not mean guided toward any specific goal?What Shapiro actual means by nonrandom is that the when, where and type of mutations is to some degree under the control of molecular processes within the cell. What is not under cellular control is what the mutation will do and whether the mutation is beneficial or not.--Percy

Don't you want to ask Shapiro questions that would actually cast light on whether you're misunderstanding him or not? I think you need to ask him whether non-random means guided.In answer to a question posed during a "chat" at William Dembski's ISCID (International Society for Complexity, Information and Design) Shapiro answered thusly (this is taken from James Shapiro Chat, and links like this are the kind of information Molbiogirl has requested that you supply when you're cut-n-pasting, and I think everyone else here feels the same way, in addition to making unambiguous which words are your own and which are not): In other words, the mutations are random with respect to their effect or impact on fitness, but they are nonrandom with respect to the type of mutation and where in the genome they occur. Since they are random with respect to their effect they cannot be considered guided toward any particular goal. They are nonrandom in the sense that the types and locations of the mutations are more likely to have a relevant effect, but that effect would still be random with respect to fitness.--Percy

You think the cells are doing engineering? What actual engineering do you see them doing? Engineering is just a colorful way of referring to the microbiological processes within the cell.Regarding your claim that there is "nothing random" going on, the result of these processes is random with regard to fitness, so obviously there *is* something random going on. As has been explained to you, evolution is a combination of both random and nonrandom processes. Mutations are random with regard to fitness. Selection is nonrandom with regard to fitness. DNA replication during cell division is primarily nonrandom with regard to the sequences produced in the DNA copies. The mutational errors that occur during cell replication are random with regard to fitness, and they're also fairly random with regard to location and type.This means that bold claims like this are wrong: Some processes, like selection and DNA replication, are not random. Some processes, like mutation type and their effect on fitness, *are* random. These random components are why you're unable to describe any specific genetic changes improving fitness that would be caused by your list of processes. They're why evolution isn't guided. It's stuff like this that causes moderators to ignore your complaints about ill treatment. You might try perusing rule 10 of the Forum Guidelines and leave the personal stuff out of your posts.--Percy

Explaining "how a stress input is directly related to a specific adaptive response" is precisely what you failed to do. What you said in Message 655 was: There is no "specific adaptive response" anywhere in your answer. That's because none exists for you to explain. You can't explain something that has no reality. There is no avenue by which microbiological processes could know in advance what genomic changes would improve fitness. All they can do is randomly produce mutations from which natural selection can choose winners. You are apparently blind to the high snark level in your own posts (your opening sentence, for example: "Until you understand what random means, you are going to continue to struggle with grasping the new evolutionary discoveries."). Dr Adequate is one of the most frequently suspended EvC members, and your continued participation in the same style will draw the same level of moderator attention.The place to brings problems you're experiencing in discussion to the attention of moderators is Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0, something you've never done despite the many times I've pointed you to that thread.--Percy

Hi Shadow,I think you should ask questions that would more directly shed light on whether or not you're really misunderstanding what Shapiro is saying. We already know that Shapiro uses terms like intelligent and sentient and nonrandom in ways that are open to broad misinterpretation, and your questions will only draw answers that use those terms in the same easy-to-misinterpret way.The question you want to ask Shapiro is whether his views about nonrandom change and intelligent sentient cells mean that evolution is guided.--Percy

Notice that you used the word "sometimes." You asked if the nonrandom changes could *sometimes* have a beneficial effect. It's the "sometimes" part that is the random component.If a waiter sometimes brought you what you ordered and sometimes didn't and you never knew whether what the waiter brought next would be right or wrong, then you would say that he *sometimes* brought the right order. That means that whether or not be brings the right order is random. There is no way to predict in advance, except stochastically, which means you could only say something like, "There's a 34% probability that the waiter will bring the right dish."Shapiro provides a specific example in that quote of what he means by non-random: So lets consider a mobile element with a predilection for insertion near the start sites of transcription, and let's say that that's exactly what it does, it inserts near the start site of transcription of a specific gene. What will be the effect of that insertion?The answer is that you can't know ahead of time. The effect of the insertion will be random. This random mutation was more likely to take place at the beginning of a transcription site because of the predilection of the mobile element responsible for it, but its effect upon the organism might be beneficial, it might be deleterious, it might be neutral, you don't know. And the organism's cells don't know either. Even if I agreed with Shapiro when he calls cells intelligent, that doesn't mean they're clairvoyant.The only way to discover the effect of the insertion is to see if the resulting organism has improved, reduced or no change in fitness. And the only way to discover that is to let the organism and its descendants play out their lives and see what happens to that insertion mutation. If it propagates throughout the population then it must have been a pretty good mutation. If it disappears in a single generation (e.g., the organism dies without producing any offspring that inherit the mutation) then it probably wasn't so good. If the organism dies quickly after birth or is stillborn or spontaneously aborted then the mutation was probably pretty bad.There's is no way to know in advance what the impact on fitness will be of the genomic change caused by Shapiro's so-called nonrandom mechanisms.--Percy