Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

Dr. Adequate writes; Perhaps before you reply to a post you should read it. Molbiogirl was not using the work "preferentially" the authors of the paper cited in the post were.
So I was not "pretending" that I did not understand molbiogirl, I was stating that to me the authors of the paper did not state that the TEs were random, but in a sense determstic per shapiro. I also was not twisting words of Molbiogirl, because they were not her words.Pay attention, before posting your arrogrant replys.

Let's try the lottery analogy again.Is a lottery "in a sense deterministic" because it uses the same PROCESS -- a machine that spits out one of a bunch of ping pong balls -- to determine the outcome every week?An SOS response is a process.
A TE that preferentially targets introns and exons is a process.They aren't the outcome.
The outcome is random.
Capiche?

I did read your post.You wrote: You now point out that you misattributed the quotation. So you did, but this hardly excuses you from misinterpreting it.This is particularly inexcusable: Did you not blush when you wrote that?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Percy writes; Percy I did not say Shapiro wrote that, I said it came from the paper Molbiogirl and I were discussing.Percy writes; Once again, I was not saying that Molbiogirl said anything about preferential, the paper said that, and I was saying that did not look random to me. ie. the word preferential in the paper. And I was not quoting Shapiro, but rather the paper we were discussing.The problem is that I have a hard time applying the meaning of Random in real life, to meaning it has in evolution.It appears to me that Shapiro is saying that evoution is not random since it is " highly probable" in the examples he cites in his papers.So perhaps I can live with the term random in evolution, if I understand it to mean mathematically probable to whatever degree.I still think Shapiro is correct in his interpretion that the modern Darwinian synthesis is not the correct theory of evolution today, but rather Natural Genetic Engineering is a better explanation of the theory of evolutionary change.Although the term "Natural" in Genetic Engineering has to be interpretered as per the sentience of the cells.Hope this helps.Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

Here's another paper.Insertion site preferences of the P transposable element in Drosophila melanogaster, PNAS March 28, 2000 vol. 97 no. 7 3347-3351From the conclusion: Sounds good so far, right?Why is there nonrandom insertion? OK. So the physical structure of the DNA is important. Uh oh. It depends on the physical structure of the DNA. Not the primary sequence.Primary sequence = the gene. The insertion doesn't have anything to do with the gene.Does this help, shadow?

I wrote molbiogirl posts, which means molbiogirl posted the quotation from the paper we were discussing. I did not attribute the quotation to her but to the paper.
Enough said about this.

Molbiogirl writes; I believe I now have an understanding.However wouldn't the number of different TEs that target a location make them more or less determistic, and thus possibly more or less random?Now if each different TE has a unique effect on the location it targets, then it would be less random to any change in that location.

What do you mean the number of TEs? The different types of TEs? A whole horde of TEs? I don't understand your question. Most TEs are neutral. From Message 735.Transposable elements as sources of variation in animals and plants, PNAS July 22, 1997 vol. 94 no. 15 7704-7711. Remember. In the paper you cited ONLY ONE PERCENT of the SINES landed in an exon. And I think you need to be reminded that these are the ACCUMULATED mutations throughout the entire evolutionary history of that genome.One percent.And the majority of that one percent were NULL. No effect.

Assuming you're not an expert archer, let's say you're shooting arrows at a target from 30 yards. Your target is the bullseye. How often are you going to hit the bullseye? I guess you could say that it's more or less random depending upon how good a shot you are, but a more mathematical approach would capture the distribution of shots as measured by distance from the center of the bullseye. Maybe you'd end up with something like this: You targeted the bullseye, but ended up with arrows all over the place, though they all hit the target somewhere (we'll assume). This is better than completely random since none of the arrows hit your house or car, but there were far more misses than hits. However, many more arrows hit the target than would have been the case had you worn a blindfold.Shapiro's random process is like someone shooting arrows at a target while wearing a blindfold. His non-random process is like taking off the blindfold.Continuing the analogy, let's say that hitting the bulleye corresponds to an insertion happening at the beginning of a gene, but since you don't know what effect that genetic change will have it would be like an archery contest where you don't know whether you'll get a good prize or a bad prize when you hit the bullseye, but you're far more likely to get a prize hitting the bullseye than anywhere else on the target.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Hi molbiogirl;I am still trying to come to grips with random mutation and it's meaning in evolution. This is a cut & paste from Shapiro's paper "mobile DNA and evolution in the 21st century."My question concerns McClintocks findings that ;
"...maize had the ability to detect broken ends, bring them together and fuse them to generate novel chromosome structures, including deletions, inversions, translocations, and rings."Do you accept McCllintocks findings and if so are these random mutations? Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

Things can't be "more or less deterministic". Either the future state is determined by the present state or it isn't. In this case, it isn't.

Well, there are two essential points to grasp.The first is that we cannot predict what mutation will take place in a given cell. We can say that some are more likely than others (as in my example of transitions and transversions) but we can't say: "and in the next generation, at this locus, A will change to G". Mutations are non-deterministic. (Compare this to, for example, the motion of a planet, where we can with great confidence say: "if it is now here and moving with this velocity then an hour hence it will be there moving with that velocity".)Second, there is no general mechanism whereby a cell can react to its environment and selectively produce those mutations which would be good for the next generation.---One important point often overlooked by creationists in their construction of really dumb arguments on this subject is that the random nature of mutations is an obstacle overcome by natural selection, not a prerequisite of evolution. The theory of evolution explains how evolution works despite randomness, not because of it. The reason evolutionists are so adamant that there is no mechanism as described in the previous paragraph is not that the absence of such a mechanism is in any way essential to an evolutionary perspective on biology but because there is, in fact, no such mechanism. We looked.

I'm getting the feeling that you will continue asking the same question until you finally get an answer you want. We could be here a long time.Were the chromosomes broken by some deterministic process?No.Was the recombining of the chromosome pieces performed by some deterministic process?No.Could anyone have ever predicted in advance how the chromosomes would break and then be recombined?No.Could anyone predict what the effect on fitness would be of the recombined chromosomes?No.At best all anyone could do is provide a list of the likely ways in which chromosome ends might break, and then list the likely ways in which they might recombine. And predicting the effect on fitness would be a hopeless task.--Percy

Well, see there you go. You asked if these mechanisms demonstate the appearance of determinism and of non-random actions, and both Dr. A and Percy are here to tell you that, no they are not deterministic, ok?They have found out because they have looked! If you are going to keep fussing with what scientific studies are showing, or use your own knowledge of the written word to make conclusions, you are going to get yourself all messed up.I mean, what does a guy like Shapiro know, compared to the turbo-charged cutting edge mind of a guy like Dr.A? He has just told you that it can't be deterministic, because he has looked! That guy knows a lot of shit about everything, just ask him. Haven't you ever performed the ritualistic masochism of reading an entire one of his posts? Bondage, rope burned ass-whopping never looked so appealing.I really think you should get past the fact that people like Percy and Dr. A have explicitly stated that they need a good strategy to convince all the fence sitters on their site of the validity of evolution, that their side is the right one. Put that completely out of your mind, and simply except that when THEY interrupt data to mean it is random, its random! What more do you need to know.I know what your thinking, that perhaps there is much more information about biological systems that we have not even begun to understand, and that just because we see some evidence (ok, sure LOTS of evidence) of organisms performing amazing feats of constructed adaptive means-in the end you can rest assured that when Dr. A, and Percy and Mobilogirl tell you that its just a mirage, and that its really just your ignorant creationist tendencies fooling you, that YOU are the unelightened one, not them. Stop reading the information for what it says! Accept that they are there to lead you to the promised land of unguided, TOTALLY random (except when its not random, but nevermind, its relative) chaotic lucky lifeless molecules, which just got into a spiral of accidental motion.Alla alla akbalaka...just believe, and you will be free! Natural selection is omnipotent-we don't need no fucking proof!!!

As we've said many times, evolution is not random. It is mutations effect on fitness that is random. While Molbiogirl and Dr Adequate and myself all find Shapiro's use of the term non-random to be highly misleading, we agree with Shapiro in his response to Shadow's question about evolution and fitness. Note that the question is about evolution and fitness, not mutations and fitness: By the way, note the distinction he draws between non-random and deterministic. This same distinction applies when he talks about the non-random nature of some types of mutations.--Percy