Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

Give me the statements you want cites to and I will give you the cites.Are you suggesting any of those statements are changed from what Shapiro said?Do you think I am making them up?

Let's leave aside RM & NS for a moment. Yes. And? The Significance of Cellular Activity in Genome Reorganization = Formatting and reformatting the genome for computation and expShapiro sees an evolutionary explanation for these systems.

This butchered mess, shadow. And this. Most of those are unattributed word for word swipes from Shapiro.Plagiarism: submitting material that in part or whole is not entirely one's own work without attributing those same portions to their correct source.Page Not Found: Office of the Provost - Northwestern University

Message 648 of 648 (602361)
01-27-2011 5:10 PM Reply to: Message 646 by shadow71
01-27-2011 5:01 PM
________________________________________
Cites
_________________________
molbiogirl writes;
_______________ The cell is a multilevel information processing entity and the genome is only part of the entire interactive complex. (Mobile DNA and evolution in the 21st century) James A. ShapiroMobile DNA movements rather than replication errors serve as the primary engines of protein evolution. (Mobile DNA and evolution in the 21st century) James A. ShapiroHorizontal DNA transfer between species and between the 3 high kingdoms of living cells may be a major driver of evolutionary novelty. (Mobile DNA and evolution in the 21st century) James A. Shapiro, not a quote, but summary.Genomic data documents the fundamental importance of horizontal transfer in the evolution of bacterial and archaeal genomes. (Mobile DNA and evolution in the 21st century) James A. Shapiro, not a quote, but a summary.There is growing evidence for intercellular and interkingdom horizontal transfer events in the evolution of eukaryotic genomes. (Mobile DNA and evolution in the 21st century) James A. Shapiro, not a quote but a summary.Genome sequencing introduced a major process of rapid and multicharacter change into the established evolutionary record which has been largely ignored by the neo-Darwinian followers. (Mobile DNA and evolution in the 21st Century) James A. Shapiro, not a quote but a summary.Whole genome doublings is another evolutionary process out side the Darwinian perspective that occurs suddenly, within a single generation, and simultaneously affects multiple phenotypic character. (Mobile DNA and evolution in the 21 century) James A. Shapiro, summary not a quote.Synthetic speciation takes place rapidly after hybridization rather than slowly following repeated selections, as predicted by conventional theory. (Mobile DNA and evolution in thje 21st century) James A. Shapiro partial quote.Hybridization in the Darwin’s finches in the Galapagos Islands, long a paradigm of gradualist evolution, leads to abrupt, unpredictable changes in beak shape. (Mobile DNA and evolution in the 21 st century) James A. Shapiro, not a quote but a summary.The virtual infinite dimensions of possible genome configurations has too low a probability of success via the Darwinian gradualism which is too slow and indeterminate a process to account for natural adaptations even allowing for long periods of random mutation and selection. (Mobile DNA and evolution in the 21 st century) James A. Shapiro, not a quote but a summary.Evolutionary change by natural genetic engineering employs a combinatorial search process based upon DNA modules that already possess functionality. (Mobile DNA and evolution in the 21st century) James A.Shapiro, not a quote but a summary.Hereditary variation arises from the non-random action of built-in biochemical systems that mobilize DNA and carry out natural genetic engineering. ( Mobile DNA and evolution in the 21st century) James A. Shapiro, a quote.And this.
That Random mutation and selection have a low probability of success and that the molecular findings above are the major mechanisms for the evolutionary process.My summary from Shapiro's writings.That gradualism is not a major factor in evolutionary change, but rather the novel adaptations that require changes at multiple locations in the genome can arise within a single generation and can produce progeny expressing all the changes at once. (Mobile DNA and evolution in the 21st century) James. A. Shapiro, a quote as noted.As to natural selection, I beleve he finds it not as important as natural genetic engineering selection.
My summary.
.
Here are you cititations Molbiogirl, now I would like to know if you really believe that Shapiro belives that random mutation and natural selection are the prime movers of evolution?

Both the RM & the NS questions have been answered.You won't listen to me and you won't listen to Taq.
So let's ask Shapiro.
Yes?

molbiogirl writes; Yes I'm sure you would love to leave RM & NS aside for awhile, but those are the major components that Shapiro and others are saying do not hold up.Have you read Dr. Guenther Wizanty? Schaack, Gilbert, and Feschotte? Adam S. Wilkins?I won't bother you with quotes, because I know How much they bother you.Edited by shadow71, : spelling

molbiogirl writes; Thats fine with me. Let's ask him if he believes random mutation and natural selection are the major aspects of evolution ok?

At this point I would just be repeating myself and reposting Shapiro quotes.But you'd take Dr. Shapiro's word on what he does or does not think about RM & NS, wouldn't you?jsha@midway.uchicago.edu

Let's agree on some wording.I proposed this earlier:Let's you and I try to put together your take on Shapiro's view.1. All mutation is nonrandom.
2. Natural selection works so poorly that essentially it doesn't work at all.
3. All evolution occurs due to cells rearranging their own genomes (aka NGE).
4. Cells are intelligent.

OKFor Extracyto-plasmic stress the response will be an F plasmid Transfer(Lau-Wong, I.C. et al. 2007. Activation
of the Cpx regulon destabilizes the F
plasmid transfer activator, TraJ, via
the HslVU protease in Escherichia coli.
Mol. Microbiol. 67: 516—527.)For Plant phenolics the response will be T-DNA transfer to
plant cell in a A. tumefaciens bacteria(Gelvin, S.B. 2006. Agrobacterium
virulence gene induction. Methods
Mol. Biol. 343: 77—84.)In E.Coli aerobic starvation will cause a Mu prophage activation.Should I go on?Two choices for the explanation of life in the world, Percy, random or non-random.You let me know when you can come up with a third choice.

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

No, apparently there is a third option. You could gibber out dishonest equivocations on the word "random", and we could laugh at you.You silly little man.

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

Percy, there is nothing random at all about the engineering that the cells are doing to counter specific environmental stresses.I am not sure why you feel the need to figure out Shapiro's use of the word random? I don't know how Shapiro's uses the word, nor do I particularly care. I will do you the service of using another word, say "random~shap" to refer to a version of random that has something to do with his take on the word if I ever use it. In the meantime, when I say random, you can safely assume that I just mean the word random, and not "random~shap".Now, the processes which control these genetic changes are NOT random!Question: Is it painful for you to watch the needle slowly drifting towards a guided world?Clearly it is for Dr. A. He is clenching his butt cheeks so hard that he is seeing everyone as little men. You better watch out for him, I am afraid he will have an anal anyeurism soon.

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