Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

Thanks. It seems good in my tests (I previewed, but didn't post).

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Just a note before I get to googling all of your unattributed Shapiro quotes.It is common courtesy to provide cites and links to your sources.For example, when I google your assertion that Shapiro thinks "Mobile DNA movements rather than replication errors serve as the primary engines of protein evolution.", I find this: shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro.2010.MobileDNA.pdfIn the future, please provide your cites.That said.What is with the laundry list? Reverse transcription? Ribozymes? DNA repair? Shapiro says in the introduction that he is going to review: That's all that is, shadow. A list of a some mechanisms.And then we come to your summary of what Shapiro means: That's where you go off the rails.NOWHERE does Shapiro assert the above.In fact, here's Shapiro addressing that question directly:The following text was published in The New York Times, November 10, 1996. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/...e/design/shapiro_behe.htmlTake a close look at that last sentence:Scientists have the task of exploring how far the operation of natural genetic engineering systems can provide novel ways to account for biological adaptations not explained by random mutation and selection.Let me translate that for you:There are lots of things that we can explain with random mutation and selection. However, if there is something that we can't explain, I bet we will find the answer in natural genetic engineering.As a reminder. Shapiro's definition of natural genetic engineering (aka nonrandom changes): www.shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/...evisitingCentral%20Dogma.pdfAnd from the ISCID chat: Is that clear, shadow?And when Shapiro says: He is absolutely NOT saying we CANNOT know but that we DO NOT know. For now.Remember? Let me translate that for you:"ID and irreducible complexity are bullshit. We will figure it out."

miolbiogirl writes, My, My are we getting defensive. When I quoted Shapiro in the past I was told, tell us what he meant, we don't want his quotes. I have cited all of his papers on this board.Now in regards to your above quoted post.Here is a DIRECT QUOTE from "Mobile DNA and evolution in the 21st century." James A. Shapiro"Mobile DNA movements, rather than replications errors, serve as the primary engines of protein evolution." page 3 bottom right column.What did you find different? That I forgot the comma's?
If you want cites of all the quotes I will give them to you. I am in the process of reviewing your reply and it is full of nonsense.I will provide a full answer as time permits.But there is no question Shapiro is of the opinion that the modern theory is not acceptable.Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

percy writes, Where did I say in my post "human intelligence"?

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

shadow, you pulled quotes word for word out of Shapiro's Mobile DNA paper without citing him. That's a no no. It's called plagiarism.As best as I can tell, you pulled the subheadings from pages 7 & 8 of his Central Dogma paper for your laundry list. The majority of the quotes that follow are from his Mobile DNA paper. However, a couple seem to have come from his Third Way paper.So yes, a comprehensive list of the papers you failed to cite would be appreciated.And just a couple of side notes.I think it's remarkable that Behe, Dembski, and Comfort continue to quote mine Shapiro in order to support ID while at the same time acknowledging that Shapiro doesn't agree with them.For example. Behe is rather fond of this quote: (It's from National Review 16 September 1996 apparently. I can't track it down.)And yet Behe admits that Shapiro "hopes that they (the biochemical pathways) will be explained by some other non-intelligent mechanism".The Famous Concession by BeheShapiro must get awfully tired of that.And finally. Let's say, for the sake of argument, Shapiro thinks that "the modern theory isn't acceptable".So what?Stephen Jay Gould didn't think that the modern theory was "acceptable" -- so he proposed punctuated equilibrium.But when punctuated equilibrium or natural genetic engineering (or any other new idea) gains acceptance, it doesn't:...mean that the theory of evolution by natural selection is wrong....mean that the central conclusion of evolutionary theory no longer holds....negate previous work on how evolution by natural selection works....imply that evolution only happens in rapid bursts or thru natural genetic engineering.

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.

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

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.

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

shadow, I've given this some thought.Let's try another tack.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.Does this sound about right?Because, once we've agreed on the language, I'm going to e mail Dr. Shapiro and ask if this is a fair assessment of his work.

So are these movements random with respect to fitness? Does every single movement of a DNA element result in higher fitness, or do these movements also result in neutral and detrimental mutations?

We all get to translate Shapiro's words. What we are complaining about is the the quality of the translation. If you translate something so that it means the opposite of what the author intended then it is a poor translation, wouldn't you agree? Shapiro doesn't like being quote mined. He doesn't like having his statements pulled out of context so that they mean something different than he intended. Or are you saying that Shapiro should be OK with Behe distorting his own words? All of the mechanisms that you and shadow have referenced are natural mechanisms. Increased transposon insertion as a response to environmental stress is a natural mechanism. It is fully within naturalism. What Shapiro is arguing for are additional natural mechanisms which produce the variation needed for the process of evolution.

Can you please explain how the lac repressor is an intelligent being? Can you explain how the actions of the Lac repressor are not natural? Since the evidence points towards evolutionary processes I think Shapiro is well grounded in his conclusions. Why don't you read his papers and tell us. You are the one claiming that his papers support ID, so surely you have those quotes handy. Then why would Behe cite Shapiro as supporting ID if Shapiro's opinion opposes ID? No, it requires research, something that the ID crowd avoids.

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.