Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

Percy writes; When I submit a quote I am relying on the expertise of the scientist who wrote the paper and that that quote is what my opinon is based upon.Seems like your ducking the question. Tell me what you mean by Creationist. I think that is a fair request, so I can answer whenever I am called a Creationist on this board.

To the extent that not all types and loci of mutation are equally probable, yes. They may but if they are there is a staggering shortage of evidence which reflects this in terms of any bias towards beneficial mutations. We could certainly imagine that a single nucleotide substitution is generally less likely to have a major effect than a single nucleotide deletion or insertion as those are prone to producing frame shifts in coding regions. But we still know that single nucleotide substitutions are quite capable of totally removing a gene's function.So we still aren't building up a model which has any form of 'directed' mutation, just one where both mutation and fitness effects are probabilistic phenomena with complex distributions, which indeed is what we observe.It is also important to realise that except in the case of severely deleterious and lethal mutations fitness effects can be very context sensitive.TTFN,WK Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

As I said, this way of responding gives no indication whether you understand what anyone is saying or not, and it forces people to repeat the same explanations over and over again. This discussion cannot progress until you begin engaging what people say. For example, in my Message 875 I wrote over 800 words of explanation and interpretation of the Shapiro presentation, and you responded in Message 885 with 42 words asking three questions that you've asked over and over and over again in this thread with nary a hint that you understand anything that is being said. So when you say this: Start discussing the topic instead of torturing people with the same questions over and over and over again as if they were witnesses on the stand instead of partners in discussion. When you start doing that I'll tell you what I mean by the term creationist, which by the way does not set the standard for what creationist means "on this board." I don't have that kind of power.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Improved wording.

You're kidding, right? We're almost up to 900 posts in this thread, people have over and over and over again answered this question that you keep repeating in various forms, and I just finished quoting Shapiro himself to you about science seeking natural answers.Once again, evolution is a combination of random mutation with regard to fitness followed by natural selection, which is very much non-random with regard to fitness. The actual details are great and varied, but at its core that's how evolution works. Everything we see in life has come about primarily through this process of random mutation and natural selection. This is another question you keep repeating. Why do you keep asking it? Do you think the answer will change? Why?I agree with whatever the evidence indicates. There is at present no evidence for directed evolution with regard to fitness. No one can exclude what might be discovered in the future, but up until now as far as directed evolution goes there is no evidence.--Percy

Just what did you think Shapiro was referring to when he used the phrase "highly non-deterministic?" He did use the phrase, you know, so it must fit in somewhere. Have you considered the possibility that Shapiro might have meant that the non-random processes that drive TE insertion might have highly non-deterministic outcomes with regard to both the precise loci and fitness? He did, you know. He was actually pretty explicit about it. Give it some thought. Allow me to quote the Wikipedia article on mutations: If you scan through the references for that article you'll probably find some that are helpful.--Percy

I think you may have missed that. Take another look.I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO INVOKE THE SUPERNATURAL.That's a quote.Let me repeat that for you.I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO INVOKE THE SUPERNATURAL.Got it?

I have already answered this question multiple times. If my previous replies were not satisfactory I doubt another reply will be. I have already done this as well. Just for kicks, here are the two experiments that laid the foundation for our understanding of random mutations with repsect to fitness:Page not found – UF ICBRhttp://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/BB/A/B/F/J/_/bbabfj.pdf

Transposons do not repair DNA. Nowhere in any of Shapiro's papers did I read anything that would indicate that transposable elements are part of DNA repair. If anything, they have a penchant for doing away with the function of a gene once they insert.

You really need to work on reading comprehension. We believe that the complexity of the cell is the result of evolution which is a non-random stochastic process due to the non-random mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations. Would you say that Zeus creates lightning bolts, or is the naturalistic explanation satisfactory?

The problem we seem to be having is that you don't understand what the scientists are saying, and through this misunderstanding you project your own biases. You see "non-random" somewhere in a sentence and you automatically assume that the use of this word indicates that mutations are non-random with respect to fitness. You even use quotes that are related to gene expression and then claim that it is talking about mutations.When your opinion is based on something other than your ignorance of the subject at hand we can actually start to discuss the science.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Decided to poke around the intertubes and look for other creos misappropriating Shapiro's work and look what I found:The Raytractors - Ray Comfort's Detractors: James Shapiro Shadow, since you seem to have a little trouble interpreting Shapiro, let me highlight something for you.QUESTIONING THE ADEQUACY OF DARWINIAN THEORY IS SOMETHING QUITE DIFFERENT FROM CHALLENGING THE EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION.And this.OUR BEST DEFENSE AGAINST CREATIONISM IS A VITAL SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES USING THE MOST COMPLETE MOLECULAR AND BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION WE CAN OBTAIN.(I'm really tempted to make a "Can you hear me now?" joke.)First, Shapiro took away your "natural selection doesn't work" argument (in his e mail response to you). Then Shapiro took away your "deterministic" argument (in his e mail response to me).Look, Shapiro has stated, repeatedly, that creationism/IDiocy is not the answer. When are you going to listen to him?

Oh come on, what a bunch of bunk, mobiogirl.Shapiro is "loose with his language, sensationalistic, uses random inappropriately, or according to Taq just plain wrong about some of his conclusions, but now suddenly if he proclaims (a personal belief!) that one should never look for a supernatural answer in science, well, then by golly, Shapiro is the word of God (or god as you like).This is exactly the kind of arguments that make you appear to be so disingenuous and blindly biased.Shapiro has no way of knowing whether or not the supernatural could be involved in life, nor does he have anyway of knowing if all of the systems and adaptive measures seen in organisms could have arisen through purely natural, unguided means. This is beyond the scope of his evidence. Why should you suddenly put so much faith in his opinion about this one thing, when you are so quick to point out all the other perceived faults in his conclusions? Can't you even try to be honest?Shapiro doesn't like ID'st using his work. So what? can he prove their conclusions wrong, based on his work? If not, what does his opinion or worldview matter, if it is not evidenced by hard science?Instead of cherry picking the words of Shapiros that you choose to believe, and the ones you choose to crticize, why don't you show where in his work there is evidence to show that all of the conclusions could only be arrived at naturally. Or even are more likely to be natural. Or that show even the slightest preference to being naturally random, unguided, accidental systems.Its very simple, the reason you DON"T show where his evidence makes these conclusions, is because you can't. There is nothing there which proves this. Its just his opinion. The one of his which you finally share.Your pompous capital letters do not change the fact that its one man's opinion and nothing more; based on his own preference.

The point is that Intelligent Design has NEVER been able to show any evidence that there is design or any model of how some imagined designer can intervene.There is nothing in any of Shapiro's works that support Intelligent Design and making claims that it does is simply dishonest misrepresentation.

---

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

When you pop in only once a week it's easy to lose track of the argument trail. Shadow is trying to argue that Shapiro's research indicates that evolution is non-random and directed in a way that can't be natural, and so it is important to point out to Shadow that Shapiro definitely does not interpret his own research in this way.--Percy

The point that we have made in multiple threads is that no evidence can falsify ID because ID is not science. Once again we have and ID supporter playing the Argument from Ignorance card in support of an unfalsifiable belief. But we can show that the work he cites demonstrates that mutations are random with respect to fitness, which you and shadow seem to ignore.Even more, since you and shadow want to cite Shapiro's work as evidence for ID it is incumbent on you to demonstrate how Shapiro's work evidences ID. Still waiting for that. Earlier in this thread Shapiro's authority on the subject was cited by shadow as support for his argument. I now see that the tune has changed once Shapiro says something the ID crowd disagrees with.