Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

Read the paper, Bolder.

Yep, read it. Now please answer the question.

Shapiro appears to be misusing "non-random" (though that's not a big problem, since he explains what he means). He seems to actually mean "not uniformly distributed." At least in usage within probability theory, random does not imply uniformly distributed.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

What would be extraordinary about it?The only examples of intelligence that we see are natural. Our attempts to create intelligence (as in Artificial Intelligence) have not been a spectacular success.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Because such systems offer a Hail Mary pass, to use an analogy. In stressful environments accumulating some slightly deleterious mutations in order to get the beneficial mutation to survive the stress is preferable to going extinct.

Which paper?

Shadow doesn't want those questions asked. Like most on his side of the spectrum they do not care about facts or reality. He wants to ask Shapiro questions so he can attempt to get Shapiro in a gotcha.To Shadow, Bolder and their ilk it is not important want Shapiro meant. What matters is how the can manipulate the language of what he said to meet their needs. Honesty and integrity means nothing.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Precisely. This is why I keep asking for the context for the randomness of the system. Using the lottery example, the lottery is not random with respect to time since it occurs at the same time on the same days each week. The lottery is not random with respect to all numbers since the results fall within a set of numbers, not all numbers from 1 to infinity. However, the lottery is random with respect to the tickets sold. That is, the results are random with respect to the winner just like random mutations.And to carry on with the lottery example, during times of stress the cell responds by buying more tickets. This increases the number of losing tickets, but it also increases the chances of getting that lucky winner. Therefore, the rate at which the cell buys tickets is not random. It is environmentally guided. However, the tickets themselves are random with respect to the "winning number". The cell that hits that winning number is then selected for, the role that NS plays in this whole process.

Only if you left out natural selection, which you did in the previous post. We can at least observe the mechanisms that are being put forward for the evolution of these systems. This can not be said for intelligent design. I agree. The next step is designing a research program to find these answers. Evolution offers a way of designing experiments to figure these answers out. ID does not. With evolution we can use phylogenies to tease out the basal systems and look for modifications in different lineages. A similar thing has been done with homeobox genes by comparing homologs in simpler eukaryotes such as cniderians and sponges to homeobox genes in more complex animals like us. What they found is that duplication and subsequent divergence of homeobox genes allowed for more complex developmental pathways. What research has ID done along this same vein? None.

I'm sorry, but even if he does explain himself, Shapiro is still an idiot for using the term "non-random" in this context. But then, BD has made it quite clear that he only wants to use idiot-speak, so probably best if you don't mention big words like "distribution" and "probability" as they will only upset him.

Dr. ShapiroIn your writings you have expressed the following;genetic change can be massive and non-random. And you also wrote;We have progressed from the Constant Genome, subject only to random localized changes at a more or less constant mutation rate, to the Fluid genome, subject to episodic, massive and non-random reorganizations capable of producing new functional architectures.Do you have an opinion whether random mutations are the primary means of evolution today?Do you have an opinion whether natural selection is a primary means of evolution today?Can genetic change come about other than by means of random mutation and natural selection?Molbiogirl, what do you think of these questions?

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

Hi Taq;Taq has posted; In your opinion,Does this view change the importance of random mutation and natural selection as expressed in past evolutionary views?Edited by shadow71, : add sentence

HI Percy,Percy wrote; I think that is a a litttle narrow, because he may be of the opinion that evolution is not guided, but that random mutation and natural selection may not be as important in evolution as the prior theories of evolution express.It is not as important to me that evolution is guided , rather that the concepts of random mutation and/or natural selection, may not be as important because of Shapiro's natural genetic engineering theory. That the cells may have some type of intelligence, natural or unnatural, components in their information system.Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.