Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

What do you think this means with respect to adaptation? Do you think this means that the cell is able to specifically mutate a specific gene, and that gene only, to overcome specific environmental stresses? You first need to ask what Shapiro means by "random".Also, it is the combined mechanisms of mutation and natural selection that add up to evolution. You might as well ask whether uplift of the Colorado plateau or water erosion were the primary means for creating the Grand Canyon. As it turns out, they are different mechanisms but both were required for producing the Grand Canyon. That's like asking if rain can come about other than by means of moisture falling out of the sky. Mutation is, by definition, genetic change. They are one in the same.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Notice that you used the word "sometimes." You asked if the nonrandom changes could *sometimes* have a beneficial effect. It's the "sometimes" part that is the random component.If a waiter sometimes brought you what you ordered and sometimes didn't and you never knew whether what the waiter brought next would be right or wrong, then you would say that he *sometimes* brought the right order. That means that whether or not be brings the right order is random. There is no way to predict in advance, except stochastically, which means you could only say something like, "There's a 34% probability that the waiter will bring the right dish."Shapiro provides a specific example in that quote of what he means by non-random: So lets consider a mobile element with a predilection for insertion near the start sites of transcription, and let's say that that's exactly what it does, it inserts near the start site of transcription of a specific gene. What will be the effect of that insertion?The answer is that you can't know ahead of time. The effect of the insertion will be random. This random mutation was more likely to take place at the beginning of a transcription site because of the predilection of the mobile element responsible for it, but its effect upon the organism might be beneficial, it might be deleterious, it might be neutral, you don't know. And the organism's cells don't know either. Even if I agreed with Shapiro when he calls cells intelligent, that doesn't mean they're clairvoyant.The only way to discover the effect of the insertion is to see if the resulting organism has improved, reduced or no change in fitness. And the only way to discover that is to let the organism and its descendants play out their lives and see what happens to that insertion mutation. If it propagates throughout the population then it must have been a pretty good mutation. If it disappears in a single generation (e.g., the organism dies without producing any offspring that inherit the mutation) then it probably wasn't so good. If the organism dies quickly after birth or is stillborn or spontaneously aborted then the mutation was probably pretty bad.There's is no way to know in advance what the impact on fitness will be of the genomic change caused by Shapiro's so-called nonrandom mechanisms.--Percy

Okay, let's leave aside for now whether Shapiro believes evolution is guided or not.So you want to ask Shapiro whether he believes that random mutation and natural selection are not as important as previously thought. I don't see the need for asking him this question because he's already quite clearly on record as stating exactly that. You shouldn't have any problem getting him to repeat this. And he will be misusing the terms nonrandom, intelligent and sentient in just the same ways as all the other quotes that have been provided in this thread.By "nonrandom" Shapiro does not mean with regard to fitness.By "intelligent" and "sentient" Shapiro does not mean that cells are conscious thinking entities like you and me. His use of the word "intelligence" applies to the kind of thing I just focused on in my previous post. To Shapiro, a mobile element with a predilection for insertion near the transcription start site is "intelligent," and a cell using such mechanisms he deems "sentient." That's all he means by "intelligent" and "sentient," nothing more.--Percy

Well. It's a start.I would begin with an introduction. Tell him who you are and why you'd like to ask him a question. Maybe give him a link to this discussion.Then I would skip the quotes. You're not arguing with him. Dr. Shapiro knows what he's written.And I would ask really specific questions.For example, offer your definition of nonrandom, then ask about his. Or offer your ideas about RM & NS then ask about his.

It only shifts the importance of where the random mutations occur, such as in gene regulators or in transcription factors. Natural selection is unaffected.

molbiogirl writes;-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You want me to ask Shapiro? Why would he answer an old retired trial lawyer?I thought we would agree on the questions and that a qualified scientist on this board would tell Shapiro that some non-qualified biologists layman wants to know the answer to what we have already told him.Why would Shapiro answer my e-mail?

taq writes; I guesss I really do not understand biolgists, scientists.Is there such a discrepancy in evolutional biology, that a molecular biologist at the University of Chicago, would not know what random means in evolution?I have taken many deopsitions of Neuro Surgeons & othropaedic Surgeons at the U of C. to know that these are really qualified people.Sharpiro would laugh at me if I asked him what he meant by random as it relates to evolution.The more I read on this board about what you scientists on this board think about Shapiro leads me to belive you all think he is unqualifed to give an opinion about evolution.I am truly in a quandry now.Help me out, give me questions you think I should ask him.

Percy writes; How do you know what Shapiro means?Do I tell him, Dr. Shapiro, I have been reading your papers and I have come to the conclusion that your are misusing the terms nonrandom, intellilgent, and sentient and I have been told by members of this board that you should clarify these statements to comport with what the scientists on this board think?He is going to say to me. Who the hell are you to tell me what I mean. Read the GD papers, I am clear on what I mean.I really don't think Dr. Shaprio is naive. I believe he used these words knowing exactly what they mean in Science, and he used them knowing thatSo if he is on record as saying what he means by random etc. perhaps that is what he means, and perhaps he is correct.I am back where I started. I believe Shapiro is writing what he believes and that random mutation and natural selection are not what they are made to be by modern evolutionists.So Percy, molbiogirl, Taq, et.al. I think you should tell him what you think and ask him to clarify his postions.
Not trying to be difficult, but put yourself in my shoes.

We don't have to be in your shoes, we can look at the whole spectrum of what scientists say and see Shapiro in context.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

So you're just going to ignore all the explanations, throw up your hands, and express certainty in your original position? Interesting. If you can respond more specifically to anything I or anyone else said then we can try to make things more clear for you.--Percy

How about asking him what Molbiogirl proposed? Does he agree with your interpretation of his writings? Or are you afraid to ask him?

---

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

Hi Shadow - you tell me this - is there such a discrepancy in the criminal justice courts, that lawyers and judges would not understand statistics as it relates to probability of guilt?One would think that such knowledge would be essential in the courts - so essential that without it gulity men would walk free and innocent men would languish in jail... how many examples would you like me to bring to the table of blatent miscarriages of justice because of the complete ignroance of statistics shown by defense, prosecution, judge, and jury? Can we start with the "probabilities" discussed in OJ's trial?In answer to your question - does Shapiro understand "random" in the context of evolution? No, not sufficiently. Surely you can see the care with terminology that is being brought here? We talk of "random with respect to", we talk of uniform and non-uniform probability distributions. And you can see the contrast with Shapiro's cavalier, naive, and blatently incorrect use of "random" and "non-random". Non-random can only mean "no random component" and thus "determined". But this is not what he means.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

What a fucking stupid post. You want to try criminal cases based on math probabilities? You want to bring your slide rule to jury duty?Maybe this would be easier for you to understand, since you struggle so much with linguistic meanings:2xpi`.9-98 x (6 M -T) = > 0 VTThis seems to be the only way you are able to express even the most basic of concepts.The word random is not a mathematical concept, its a philosophical one- an area of thought which I fully realize you are incapable of delving into.It means an atmosphere (again, not a mathematical concept so be careful here) in which there is not cause, and no direction for events (again, not math). Where things don't happen because of rules or order. Chaos (not math!)The opposite of this environment is a non-random atmosphere. This, if you can follow along, means an environment in which there is organization, or structure, or predictability (again we are using words here, so go slow). What Shapiro is describing is an environment in which there is organization, in which there is some predictability, in which there is a cause and a repeatable expected outcome. A world in which when X happens, Y results (does that help?). In other words, NOT RANDOM!You feel that Shapiro is too stupid to understand that when he says these processes aren't happening by some fluke roll of the dice that can change at any moment he doesn't know what he is talking about? You do realize he has a BA in English from Harvard University don't you?Oh wait, let me translate that for you:1 B.A. English + H. U. + 1 Magna Cum laude + 1 Professor of Microbiology U.o C. = > your intelligence x 100.I think he can tell you a thing or two about what random means; but of course he would probably say it in words, not numbers, so there is no guaranteeing you will realize it. Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

No, I want to ensure that criminal cases are not misjudged on the basis of bad probability put forward by the defense/prosecution. I'm sorry, you are otherwise too stupid to respond to, other than to express the contents of this post.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Random is most certainly a mathematical concept. For example, probability distributions such as this one taken from Wikipedia are used to represent the probability of a random value falling within a given range: Randomness is everywhere throughout nature and must therefore be accounted for within science, and within biology the concept of random is therefore ubiquitous. We talk about the probability of a random mutation, of the probability of a random mutation being beneficial or deleterious, of the probability of an allele fixating in a population, and so forth. The entire science of population genetics deals with the random behavior of alleles, genes and organisms in an almost entirely mathematical manner. It isn't that Shapiro is too stupid. It is perhaps that he is too free with the English language (perhaps this tendency harkens back to his English degree), feeling like Humpty Dumpty that his words mean precisely what he means them to mean. The vocabulary he uses to express his ideas has garnered him a lot of attention, which is I suppose what he wants and likes.--Percy