Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

Shadow wrote: Granny Magda writes; Granny I was referring to Razd in one of his prior posts, not you.Will get back to you later in reply to your complete post.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.Yes, the quote I provided is a summary of Shapiro's position by someone other than Shapiro.And yes. There is someone on talkrational who agrees with you, shadow.However. It is clear from both the article and the presentation that Shapiro is using the term "intelligent" as it is used in information science.He states that explicitly in the conclusion of his 1997 Boston Review article, A Third Way (Alternatives to Creationism and Darwinism)!http://www.shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/...view1997.ThirdWay.pdf Emphasis added.In addition, the title of Shapiro's presentation is A signal-responsive (cognitive) systems view of the genome.Cognitive systems view of the genome, shadow. Not "intelligently designed genome".ABE:Here's another .pdf (from a 2006 talk Shapiro gave) where Shapiro uses "intelligence", "cognition" and "sentience" to refer to sophisticated mechanisms for intercellular communication:http://www.shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/2006.ExeterMeeting.pdfFrom the introduction: Emphasis added.From the last paragraph: Emphasis again added.Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

All of the DNA sequence changes discussed here are random with respect to fitness just as neo-Darwinism states. The DNA changes elicited by environmental stress are neutral, beneficial, and detrimental with respect to fitness. No, it is not. What would run contra to what I am saying is if specific environmental stresses caused only specific mutations that only resulted in an increase in fitness. This is not what we see. What we see is an increase in transposon integration all over the genome, some of which are beneficial and are selected for.

Sure it is. The problem is that the evidence just isn't there, or it is overplayed as in the case of both Shapiro and Koonin. Based on what evidence?

You have things backwards. What evidence convinced you that Shapiro is right?

Thank you molbiogirl, long time no see. Anything new in molecular self replication? Curiously, that was exactly my impression. DNA has, over 3+ billion years, accumulated a lot of information* that it uses that during the non-random replication processes (the parts not affected by mutation, and therefore being most of the process/es). That can certainly be called an intelligent use of information, because it is non-random, but that does not make it an intentionally planned or mystically directed process.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)

Hi Taq, Or more to the point, that his (shadow71) interpretation of Shapiro is right.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)

Hi shadow71, btw, I used the term undereducated. In terms of levels of education I am undereducated compared to people like molbiogirl and Taq, and I learn from them. This does not mean uneducated (having zero knowledge on the subject). Agreed, however he also clearly does not say that "changes are the result of planned, engineered functions" as you have. To go from one to the other requires a "leap-of-faith" rather than a logical conclusion ... or confirmation bias based of beliefs rather than information. Yes, because I still cannot get from "possible intelligent cellular action in evolution" to "changes are the result of planned, engineered functions.Intelligence covers a broad spectrum. Computers are intelligent in their ability to store, process and use information, but idiots at creating novel concepts - the term idiot savant comes to mind. You may not think of a light switch as being intelligent, however a computer is little more than a vast number of switches programed to respond in certain ways to certain stimuli. The software in computers have accumulated ways to process information in repeatable ways, and this is what gives them the ability to arrive at "intelligent" solutions.Like computers DNA has accumulated the results of billions of years of trial and error tests of billions and billions of various attempts at finding valid responses to ecological conditions and their changes. That does not mean that it can predict changes or intelligently morph in a certain direction as would be expected of "planned, engineered functions."As Taq points out (mid=601461), the increased rate of mutation caused by "possible intelligent cellular action in evolution" is non-directional, with some beneficial, some neutral and some deleterious results. It is the increased rate of mutations that allows the beneficial mutations that do arise to be selected during crisis. If it were "planned, engineered functions" then there would be many beneficial and no deleterious mutations, and as this is not the case we can consider your concept of "planned, engineered functions" falsified.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)

James A. Shapiro wrote; Razd writes When he says Molecular compuation network demonstrating biologically useful properties OF SELF-AWARENESS AND DECSION MAKING (emphasis mine) does that not speak of some sort of ability to make decisions based upon what the circumstances present?How do you interpret the statement that "...that cells have molecular computing networks which process information about internal operations and about the external enviroment to make DECISIONS controlling growth, movent, and differentiation...This clearly speaks of decision making processes .

tag writes; His education, experience, studies, research and reputation in the field. He would truly qualify as an "EXPERT" in the legal field and would be able to testify at any trial on these issues.

tag writes; His 30 plus years of research in the field. Plus his eucation, etc.

I didn't ask for his CV. I asked for the evidence that convinced you. What is it?BTW, my username is Taq (with a Q). It's short for Thermus aquaticus which is the bacterial species famous for it's temperature tolerant DNA polymerase used in PCR (in case you were curious).Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Mutations are still observed to be random with respect to fitness which is the whole point. The cell does not sense antibiotics in the environment and then specifically mutate a specific gene to produce antibiotic resistance, as one example. Instead, random mutations produce the resistance which is then selected for.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

I think it may be more productive if we start with the data. Once we all agree on what the data says we can better discuss what Shapiro is really saying.

miobiogirl writes inter alia; Cognitive--cognition "The mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and undrstanding through thought , experience, and the senses."
Concise OXFORD AMERICAN Dictionary.that sounds like intelligence as per Dr. Shapiro. He wrote that article for a lay audience and I don't think he was careless in the use of his words.
But we will probalbly agree to disagree on this.