Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

Content hidden. There was some on-topic content, but Bolder-dash won't be around to respond, so I've hidden the entire message. --AdminEdited by Admin, : Hide content.

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.

Just hold on a minute there mobilogirl. Your post is just a bit too pretentious and downright hypocritical to let it stand.Where do YOU get off deciding that YOU get to translate Shapiro's words, but its not ok for shadow to do the same? Since that is NOT what he said why are you trying to say that is what he said?And irregardless, even if it is Shapiro's OPINION that ONE DAY we can find a natural explanation for this phenomenon that doesn't appear to be random and Darwinian in nature, that doesn't mean that he is correct in his forecasting of what the data will later reveal.Shadow has as much right as you do to separate Shapiro's data from Shapiro's opinion.Shapiro doesn't like Behe quoting him? Too fucking bad. Frankly, why should we or anyone care if Shapiro doesn't like the fact that Behe and others have used his own data to draw conclusions he is not comfortable with? Shapiro doesn't own the right (nor do you) to declare what this data means to the theory of evolution. If it appears contrary to random mutations and natural selection to those who view it-then so be it. If Shapiro still wishes to cling to naturalism without the means to explain why it is naturalism, than this is his problem, not ours.Evolutionists love to be able to control all debate about what THEIR theory 'really" means. They started with RM/NS and now that this is not panning out so well, they feel they are the ones who get to continue to modify the theory in anyway they so choose, without being accountable for showing how this is supposed to play out in practical terms within that theory."Well, we have added new mechanisms that really are nothing at all like the theory predicts, but don't worry about it-because we will figure it all out later and in the meantime we are still right."Well, BS to that. Your theory said that it was random, unguided, extremely slow slight variations which have this phenomenal ability to accumulate over time. Now that it doesn't look at all like that, we don't have to wait around for you to come up with your next about-face to your theory. We can make our own conclusions. Too bad if this upsets Shapiro's and your worldview. Shapiro simply found the data. He doesn't get to control it's implications. The truth is the truth, none of you own it. Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

Well, that's your opinion.I suggest statements from him such as this say otherwise: Furthermore Shapiro has a large list of what he calls "natural genetic engineering" but what someone else might just as easily label adaptive intelligent responses. (responses to qurom pheromones, dna damage, antibiotics, oxidative stress, opines, growth phases, heat shock, Extracyto-plasmic
stress, genome reductions, sex phermones, aerobic starvation..etc..and these are just the ones we know of, imagine how many we don't).Where Shapiro gets off claiming that this are all natural and completely unguided is anyones guess.And where does he feel these adaptive mechanisms originated? If evolution is controlled by these complex series of adaptive responses to environmental stimuli, then what brought about these adaptive responses---other adaptive responses?? Random mutations and natural selection? We give up?Yours and or Shapiro's opinion that complex adaptive systems can somehow arise from complete random processes and then take over the evolutionary process and replace it with a new now non-random way (which we must surely figure out later) is simply yours and Shapiro's opinion. Not really of much argumentative weight.Are non-guided, completely random processes, being replaced (magically?) by intelligent adaptive systems which create their own evolution, all part of the rubber theory of evolution?Wow your religion really really requires an EXTRAORDINARY amount of faith. Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

Does Shapiro know if all evolution is caused by cells rearranging, or by some other way?Does he have evidence to prove whether all mutations are random or non-random?Does Shapiro know the exact limits of intelligence of a cell?If he is really capable of answering these questions then I guess your questions to him would be worthwhile.If he is not capable of answering this, perhaps you could just ask him a more simple question: Does Darwinian evolution (i.e Rm/NS) account for the diversity of life on earth as we see it?And maybe a second question.:Do you have any evidence at all to show that "natural genetic engineering" arose through Darwinian evolution?If there is no such evidence, wouldn't that make it very disingenuous to simply call this another aspect of Darwinian evolution? In what way is this Darwinian?And if it is not Darwinian in nature, don't you need a new theory? I don't see how tacking the word "Neo" on to the front of Darwinian solves the problem of figuring out how the theory is supposed to work. Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

You have made a lot of claims over the past few posts so I will only address a few:Please show how Behe has distorted or treated anything Shapiro has said unfairly? What does this even mean? What is an evolutionary process? No one is arguing that things aren't changing (evolving) the question is how. To simply call the "how" an evolutionary process makes no sense.I have read his papers. I have also read his response to Dembski's question about how these non-random systems could have arisen in the first place, and I have read Shapiro's reply: "Where they come from in the first place is not a question we can realistically answer now, any more than we can explain the origin of the first cells."In light of this, Shapiro really doesn't have much to offer about the "naturalism" of such mechanisms, now does he?Furthermore he has said: As such I don't need someone else, or even Shapiro to interpret that for me.In fact, if anyone, including Behe says that this information supports ID, even if Shapiro himself says it doesn't support ID, based on the fact that Shapiro has already stated that he has no idea where these systems arose, any further opinion Shapiro has on the roots of intelligence of these systems is meaningless. Shapiro has no idea how they arose, so how can he say it doesn't support ID?AND, the most pertinent point, is that this is what ID proponents have been suggesting and predicting all along! Long before this information ever came to light, people like me and many others have been telling you until we are blue that your one mutation, then wait awhile, then another mutation then wait awhile scenario is a load of crap. In fact I have hypothesized about this extensively not only here but other places for years, that there is SOME mechanism, as yet not fully known, that does exactly what Shapiro is now calling natural genetic engineering. That cells don't wait for a fortuitous mutation, but rather they create their own adaptive success. Prediction, research, confirm prediction. That is science. Gee imagine that, dumb creationists can't even read a biology book, and yet somehow it is turning out exactly like we predicted.So do I feel like I have the right to claim the intellectual high-ground now? The answer is, hell yes. And it is only going to continue to get more and more obvious. "Lucky mutation, wait awhile, another lucky mutation, wait a while more, and a million years later, something might happen" Yea Bullshit. Go read another biology book, and get one for Dr. A.

How can you demonstrate that Shapiro's findings don't suggest intelligent design. Because of Shapiro's opinion? That's just his opinion, why should that be the final word. One thing we do know for sure is that he doesn't feel Darwinism is sufficient to explain it, so what is left?And do you even have any wordings from Behe to have a contention with anyhow?What many evolutionists fail to want to grasp is that without Darwinian evolution, you have nowhere to go other than a direction. With Darwinian concepts you could argue for completely unguided randomness, and this is what has given people like Dawkins and Granny such solace (and oh how they have loved this comfort). As long as you had that, you could claim it is all just lucky chaos. Some of course won't want to let that lucky chaos go (deny deny deny, a tried and true defense) so they will try to drag Darwin as far down the road as they can. But there isn't much left there to drag. Ha, no I would say you are the one confusing natural with unguided. What Shapiro is describing is decidedly not random. If you don't think so, you better go read him so more. He is describing purposeful mechanisms. The obvious question that needs to be answered is WHERE DID THEY GET THEIR PURPOSE?You can't just sweep that under the rug and expect to have any credibility about any claims for a random world.No these are not random mutations. But if you want to try natural selection without your needed randomness--good luck. Nope, you better do some more reading. He is saying that is nothing lucky about it at all. The cell is smart so it doesn't need luck. Sorry to interrupt your worldview.On your final point about IDsts wanting to create a God where knowledge doesn't exist I just don't buy that argument. You have a choice of two: randomness or guidance (unless you can somehow come up with a third choice).As the needle swings back and forth between our two options, the further it strays from randomness the closer it edges towards guidance. That's just the nature of the two choice world. Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

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.

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.

Until you understand what random means, you are going to continue to struggle with grasping the new evolutionary discoveries.Shapiro doesn't call these natural genetic engineering systems random (because they are not) I have explained to you exactly how a stress input is directly related to a specific adaptive response (so that's not random), the only thing random here is your definition of the word random. Somehow you think it is connected to a species fitness level-bizarre.In other words, these actives aren't happening just because they just so happened to occur at the same time that the stress entered their environment. One is causing the other. Furthermore, before you continue to think you are somehow giving me some lesson about evolutionary processes, you need to start reading up a bit more. Shapiro says cells are sentient beings. The latest discoveries in epigentics are telling us that the genome is gathering data throughout its lifetime in a flexible manner, and passing that knowledge on to its offspring genetically through a complicate series of information storage, meanwhile you are still trying to cling on to this crazy notion of get a lucky error, wait a million years, get another one wait...without the slightest evidence to show this is possible, and with scientists now coming out right and left saying it in fact is not possible.So please save your lectures about trying to educate me, and save your lectures about manners on this forum until you do something about the one who instigates the crap. You allow Dr A to say any meaningless, snarky crap he wants ad nauseum then you say I am not following the guidelines. What's worse is that he doesn't even have the ability to formulate an interesting insult; calling people silly little men all day long? I am sure your audience must love his comedic banter. Are the guidelines as flexible as your use of the word random?This is exactly why I told you anyone with an opposing viewpoint will quickly get tired of posting here. You don't do anything to encourage a level exchange of ideas, you simply want to win your arguments at all cost, and somehow you think allowing Dr. A to just make a mockery out of civil discourse helps your side look like it must be winning.Well, it doesn't!

Good now we are getting somewhere, the engineering systems are not random.Now since you are struggling with the definition of random, let's use the Definition of Random: Adjective. proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern.A popular synonym for random is accidental.Some popular antonyms for random are non-random, guided, organized, methodical, precise.Now hopefully we are making some headway, so let us continue. Could a system that is organized, methodical, precise intricate and with a definable pattern arise from randomness (or from an accident if you will)?Well, I suppose it COULD. We can't say definitively that this is impossible beyond a shadow of a doubt. Sure, theoretically almost anything is possible. But that would be an extraordinary event of unseen proportions. An event such as that, a methodical, precise, organized system arising by accident, well that would be so incredible that at the very least you would need implacable, undeniable evidence to ever believe such an unheard of event. Such an extraordinary claim would surely require a mountain of proof.So in lieu of such extraordinary evidence for the incredibly unlikely, we can pretty much rest assured that an organized, methodical, intricate system didn't arise by accident.And so the needle swings.

Why not just ask him the crux of the matter:Can you explain how an organized system of intelligent cells directing their own evolutionary pathways could have arisen accidentally?Or more simply, why doesn't an intelligent cell suggest an intelligent design?

Well as I said, theoretically it could. But that would be quite extraordinary, so you would at least need some proof to make such a claim. Surely you would at least need some evidence of this in order to teach this as the only theory to an entire nation of science students.A much more logical and honest approach must certainly be to say that there is intelligence within the nature of a cell that we are unable to account for at this present time. Please study the problem, as all good inquisitive minds should do and keep an open mind as to how this could be.

If the results of these adaptive genetic engineerings where random, and were just as likely to cause a deleterious mutational effect as a positive one (and in fact would be more likely to be deleterious since statistically most mutations are) how in the heck could such a system persevere?That's completely illogical.

Yep, read it. Now please answer the question.