Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

taq writes; No he doesn't, but I don't think he rules it out. So in the future that may well be what is discovered.taq writes; I am saying that Shapiro does not believe his work supports ID and he clearly states science does not consider the supernatural.
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.

Molbiogirl writes; 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.And she writes; 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.I am also. I asked Percy for his definition of Creationist and he still has not given it to me.

Jar writes; My question is: May the mutations be non-random and in fact deterministic in regards to fitness?

Thanks again Taq. I have downloaded both papers and am in the process of trying to understand them.

Taq writes; I apologize, I meant the term mobile DNA elements, as cited by Shapiro in his paper "Mobile DNA and evolution in the 21st century."

Jar writes; That is the understanding of science, my question goes to the possibility as to whether fitness is in fact determined by the non-random mutation itself.
Thereby questioning when in fact fitness is determined.

Taq writes; I am reading some papers now that seem to suggest that some non-random mutations may be such in re fitness.
One is by Barbara E. Wright in the Journal of Bacteriology, June 200, p.293-301, Vol. 182, No 11.
But right now I am not prepared to state that is what she means.
I will post what I think she means when I have reread it about 25 more times.Taq writes about my reply that I believe ID supporters would find Shapiro's work supportive to a degree of ID. .As I understand ID. They state that because of findings such as complexity etc. that there had to a Designer.
I would think Shapiro's talk of Natural Genetic Engineering, sentience in cells etc. that this would lead to a Designer. Just speculation on my part. I cannot speak for ID.

molbiogirl writes; NGE does not, I repeat does not equal DESIGNER. I was giving my opinion that perhaps the ID supporters would pick up on the "Engineering" part of the theory and that means to many design. If something is Engineered wouldn't you agree it is probably not random?In re "Highly nondeterministic." I guess the statement that there is no possible chance it could be determinsitic would be more final. But who would be able to say that with certainity, except for...?

DBlevins writes; That ability may have been given to the bacteria as part of its makeup. Is there something aboult nylon that makes it unique?Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

Shadow wrote; Molbiogirl wrote; I assume that your position is that mutations have no effect on fitness is a closed case. Do no more research, Molbiogirl has closed out that option?

Molbiogirl writes inter alia; So what is your point?

Shadow writes; Taq writes; My point exactly. There are papers out there, and I will be citing them in the future, that appear to raise the possibility that non-random mutations are deterministic as to fitness .I think at this point we don't know that and cannot say, as Molbiogirl states, that there is no way that non-random mutations can be deterministic as regards to fitness.

jar writes; Yes.

SummationThe purpose of a summation in a civil law trial is to discuss the facts ,what or where they lead to , so the Jury can make a decsion if the Plaintiff' case or theory is consistent with the evidence and is more probalbly true that not true.Darwin's theory has been modified substantially because of new discoveries in science.Darwin's theory is basically descent with modification, the origin or herediatry variation, and natural selection.It is my opinion that the theory will be falsified in regards to "random mutations with regard to fitness", and Natural selection as an unguided process.The discoveries of the cell's ability to repair and restructure their genomes and the non-randomness of biochemical systems that moblize DNA and carry out what Shapiro calls Natural Genetic Engineering will in the future show that herediatary variation is not random but planned and that natural selection is a planned process.One call look at the complexity described in the scientific investigations of all aspects of biology and must come to realization that this could not happen randomly. It was once theroized that this so called random variation could not happen again and was basically a one shot phenomen. I believe this has been disproven by scientific discoveries.The biggest factor in disproving the theory as it is stated today is the Origin of Life. How could all of this information and decision making in the cell have originated without guidance?Most scientists on this board will reply that the Origin of Life is not an evolutionary theory component so it is irrevelant to Darwin's theory.How can how life started and began to evolve not be a part of the therory of evolution?Just as the Big Bang theory requires a beginning, so does the Darwin theory need a beginning. That beginning is planned and directed thereby falsifying the random mutation of fitness and "natural" slection.