Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

I assume you are referring to Barbara McClintock, who for 20 years would not publish because of the abuse and ridicule she endured by the world's "greatest scientists" for her discovery of Tanspositon.

If you beleive this complexity seen in the lowest bacteria is a result of some natural phenomena, then I have a bridge I would like to sell you.

The paper sets out findings ...

He states his postion is between modern Darwinism and Intelligent Design..

Shapiro writes:To the Editor: I find myself quoted in Michael J. Behe's Op-Ed article questioning Darwinian explanations for cellular evolution (Oct. 29), leaving the impression that I share his call for a return to religious explanations. This is not my position.Darwinism and creationism are not the only ways to think about sources of biological function and diversity. The virtue of science is its ability to evolve concepts that render ''miraculous'' aspects of the world comprehensible.Molecular biology has uncovered complexity in genome structure and cellular function. It has also revealed biochemical systems that cells use to restructure DNA molecules in ways that resemble our own genetic engineering. These systems introduce potentials for rapid genome reorganization and biological feedback into the evolutionary process.Scientists have the task of exploring how far the operation of natural genetic engineering systems can provide novel ways to account for biological adaptations not explained by random mutation and selection.James A. Shapiro
Professor of Microbiology
at the University of Chicago.
Chicago, Nov. 5, 1996

Shapiro writes:This is the point that the intelligent design people have been chipping away at, saying Darwin doesn't explain this. I think the critique is right, I don't agree with the solution. I don't think we need to invoke the supernatural.

If Ray quotes somebody still alive you can actually ask them...
So I wrote an email to Shapiro (something like: There's an idiot quoting you and even if this is completely irrelevant, I'd like to hear if you have an opinion about it.)
I didn't really expect an answer. If every professor would answer to each irrelevant email they got, they wouldn't do anything else...He answered within less than half an hour and I really hope for him that he's not in his usual time zone at the moment, because otherwise he answered me at a 4:45 AM.This is it:I looked and the quote is accurate. At least Ray got that one right even if he DID use it out of context. Questioning the adequacy of Darwinian theory is something quite different from challenging the evidence for evolution. 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 attach a paper I published on this a number of years ago. You can find other, more technical papers on my web site.Jim ShapiroJames A. Shapiro
Professor of Microbiology
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Gordon Center for Integrative Science

Why would he use the work STRICTILY, when determistic was used?

I don't. I think his work is outstanding and in the fore front of scientific investigation.

I believe that this does correlate with what Shapiro is thinking when he uses the term not Strictily determinsitic.

My interpretation is that Shapiro is saying Natural Genetic Engineering is not totally deterministic, but is determnistic to a degree.

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

I believe ID supporters would find that his work is supportative to a degree of their position. But that is my opinion, I am not speaking for ID.

I could live with this statement. "mutations are non-random, but their effect on fitness are not yet fully known and may well be deterministic.

It would lend support to my positon on creation. That God, the Roman Catholic God created the Universe and all life in some way and that creation is Creatio Continium.

This is further enhanced in high-performance computer architectures that incorporate circuits with pipelines and caches, which have highly non-deterministic effects. Even a small change on a position sensor can have an apparently chaotic impact on certain derived values.

I would think Shapiro's talk of Natural Genetic Engineering, sentience in cells etc. that this would lead to a Designer.

That the scientists on this board should keep an open mind and be prepared to accept that evolution may not be non-random, even in regards to fitness. I am not saying evolution has not and is not happening, but that it may in fact be directed.

I take it that you believe that the complexity of such a single cell came about by random accident? Would you agree that it also may have come about by a directed plan?

That in my opinion will lead to what I beleive, that evolution is in fact a created phenemon. I reallly don't care if ID is recognized as a science or not, to me it is irrevelant.

Intelligent design is the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

It is neo-creationism, a form of creationism restated in non-religious terms.

I assume that your position is that mutations have no effect on fitness is a closed case.