Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

erial linguistic communication and social intelligence
Eshel Ben Jacob1, , Israela Becker1, 2, Yoash Shapira1 and Herbert Levine31School of Physics and Astronomy, The Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, IsraelCenter for Theoretical Biological Physics, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0319, USAAvailable online 1 July 2004.Abstract
Bacteria have developed intricate communication capabilities (e.g. quorum-sensing, chemotactic signaling and plasmid exchange) to cooperatively self-organize into highly structured colonies with elevated environmental adaptability. We propose that bacteria use their intracellular flexibility, involving signal transduction networks and genomic plasticity, to collectively maintain linguistic communication: self and shared interpretations of chemical cues, exchange of chemical messages (semantic) and dialogues (pragmatic). Meaning-based communication permits colonial identity, intentional behavior (e.g. pheromone-based courtship for mating), purposeful alteration of colony structure (e.g. formation of fruiting bodies), decision-making (e.g. to sporulate) and the recognition and identification of other colonies — features we might begin to associate with a bacterial social intelligence. Such a social intelligence, should it exist, would require going beyond communication to encompass unknown additional intracellular processes to generate inheritable colonial memory and commonly shared genomic context.

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

would you agree that this peer reviewed paper, if correct, describes non-random functions including those of fitness?

What we have in mind is a bacterial version of genome cybernetics, by which we mean the ability of the genome to perform information processing and alter itself accordingly.

The new picture of the genome as an adaptive cybernetic unit with self-awareness is presented in Sections 6-8.

I have to say I think you have put it a bit too nicely (you are perhaps more tolerant than me).

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?

shadow71 writes:would you agree that this peer reviewed paper, if correct, describes non-random functions including those of fitness?

You really can pick em, shadow.To support this notion, the authors cite this:Bacterial wisdom, Gdel's theorem and creative genomic webs, Physica A: Statistical and Theoretical Physics Volume 248, Issues 1-2, 1 January 1998, Pages 57-76.

shadow71 writes:taq writes; Would you at least agree that Shapiro's papers are suggestive of non-random mutations that lead to loci placement, and possibly non-random fitness in future research?
Do you rule out the possibilty of non-random fitness changes in the future?

Would you at least agree that Shapiro's papers are suggestive of non-random mutations that lead to loci placement, and possibly non-random fitness in future research?

Do you rule out the possibilty of non-random fitness changes in the future?

and cites papers that lead to the suggestion that this may be directed . . .

Look. You want to endorse wackadoo junk you find in some journal, help yourself.