Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

taq writes; I am not trying to be cute here, but what causes the E. coli to upregulate the expressin of DinB?
Is this in some way a sentient process?Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

taq writes; .How do you interpret this guidance? Is it in some way directed or is it random?

molbiogirl posts; Molbiogirl, I think you are doing what you accused me of doing. Interpreting his words as per your thinking.He says; I don't interpret that as being "learn by trial and error." He is stating that they do this but does not say by trial and error, but by these sensory systems.. He is not saying that NGE mechanisms simply respond he is saying as of now he does not know how cell computation works, and we should devote expermential trials in this area.So he is saying cell processing works, but as of yet we do not know how it works.
the answer is what I am looking for.

Sensory systems can be as simple as a molecule docking in a sensor.Sensory transduction in Escherichia coli: two complementary pathways of information processing that involve methylated proteins, PNAS August 1, 1977 vol. 74 no. 8 3312-3316 That's hardly guidance, shadow. I was quoting you to Shapiro, shadow. You said cells "learn by trial and error".

It is directed to breaks in DNA and it is non-random with respect to DNA damage. However, it is not directed to create specific mutations in response to specific stimuli and it is random with respect to fitness.

Wiki has a nice description here:SOS response - WikipediaThe skinny is that single stranded DNA activates RecA which then interacts with the gene repressor LexA. The interaction of activated RecA with LexA removes the LexA from the DNA it is bound to. Once LexA is gone from the promoter regions of the SOS genes they are expressed at higher levels.I would call it an automated response in the same way that pushing the handle on the toilet causes the toilet to flush. If you think the SOS response is a sentient process then your toilet is likewise sentient for deciding to empty the bowl when the handle is pushed.

Since Shadow seems so enamored of Shapiro, maybe we should just accommodate ourselves to Shapiro's terminology for this thread. We could say, "Okay, fine, mutations are non-random, but their effect on fitness is highly non-deterministic."--Percy

molbiogirl writes; Or as complicated as this. This could be guidance Molbiogirl.
Shapiro had a quote in his video cited in my reply something to the effect that in my obtaining a B.S. in English, no one told me what NOT TO THINK.I find on this board a very determinative oppostion to anything that may go against the Darwinain theory.
Thats not the way science should work. Be open to new idea's, don't ridicule, investigate.Found this in Ernst Mayr's book "What Evolution is", p. 87."This makes it quite clear why Darwinian evolution, being a population phenomenon, must always be gradual(see Chapter 4"Do you agree this is true today?.You have to know when to holdem and when to foldem. Be objective and agreeable to change if it is proven.
More to come on Natual Genetic Engineering.

Percy wrote; Maybe you should say "mutations are non-random, but their effect on fitness are not yet known and may well be deterministic.

I'm not sure where this is coming from. Is this what you think Shapiro is saying?We're all in favor of keeping an open mind and following the evidence where it leads, but the available evidence (and there's a lot of it) says that mutations are random with regard to fitness. Shapiro prefers the term non-random for mutations resulting from cellular machinery as opposed to random accident, but he still calls their effect on fitness highly non-deterministic.If someone is doing science if they avoid drawing conclusions until they have evidence, what do you call what they are doing when they still avoid drawing conclusions after they have evidence, or even worse, draw conclusions that ignore the evidence.--Percy

I find on this board a very determinative oppostion to anything that may go against the theory that pigs don't have wings.
Thats not the way science should work. Be open to new idea's, don't ridicule, investigate.We have, so far, seen little evidence for any general Lamarckian evolutionary mechanism or for winged pigs. If and when we do, we shall become Lamarckists or porcovolantists --- but at present, the evidence is against it.

Why should we say that?

We have yet to see evidence that goes against the theory.We are against the idea that we should throw out the theory because it goes against people's religious beliefs. Science is also about throwing out ideas that are not supported by the evidence. Deterministic mutations are one of those ideas that is not supported by the evidence. How have we not been objective in our rejection of deterministic mutations? I have cited many studies where these genetic engineering systems produce non-deterministic mutations. How many studies have you cited showing the opposite? None. So who is the one not being open minded and objective?

That's exactly it, shadow.
Shapiro said "highly nondeterministic" and you say "may well be deterministic".
Shapiro said "not intelligently designed" and you say "intelligently designed".You are using Shapiro's work to justify your beliefs.You have no interest in understanding his work. None at all. You just want someone with authority to make you feel better about your IDist beliefs.

I have to say I think you have put it a bit too nicely (you are perhaps more tolerant than me).What you really have on this board is a bunch of people who on one hand CLAIM to have a love of science, but on the other are in fact zealot preachers for their own brand of a worldview that they want everyone to believe. I mentioned earlier they even have discussions about the best strategies to spread their message to convince all the "fence sitters" out there who happen to be reading this forum. They have long talks about what is the most effective means to spin their ideology. They do not want open inquiry, they do not want all evidence put on the table, they do not want anything that questions the validity of the theory taught in any schools, they do not want other ideas considered.They wish to continue to propagate the lie that their is bundles and bundles of evidence for a combination of random mutations & natural selection which can account for EVERYTHING living in this world. When asked to provide this bundle of evidence, they simply say it exists, or proclaim that they have made their case. The evidence they proclaim to exist is even more elusive than the definition of the modern synthesis of evolution.You see this is their final defense as their theory of RM/NS has started to severely unravel-just say change to calling it the modern synthesis. What is included in the modern synthesis? Well, we can't say, but it is everything. Whatever is causing things to evolve, then that's the modern synthesis. Its horizontal gene transfers, or genetics, or mobile genetic elements, or or..it really doesn't matter-the important thing is that ultimately whatever these mechanisms are-they are random, somehow someway-because guidance is the most unacceptable, taboo, unthinkable, unspeakable possibility there is.So get used to it, it gets worse. They aren't just close mined by accident. They are fervently working towards a cause. DO NOT EVER EVER LET ANY OTHER IDEAS BE CONSIDERED OR GAIN TRACTION. It is an absolute unacceptable threat to their worldview, plain and simple. Just take a look at all the name calling, insulting, ad homiem attacks, and condescension on display, and ask yourself why.Or just ask them to show you some of their concrete evidence for how RM/NS and a few of their other "completely unguided" mechanisms can account for all the diversity of life as we see it. Ask for evidence, real evidence, and see where that gets you. Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.