Summations Only

Another prime example of pigeon chess."Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

Yes, CRISPRS are an example of non-random mutations. A perfect example, in fact. I have said as much in other threads/posts. They aren't excluded by scientists or evolutionary theorists. In fact, it is those very people who discovered them and wrote about them.What you are missing is that the CRISPR system is extremely limited. It is only found in a limited number of prokaryotes, and it only involves a very limited number of genes in the prokaryotes that have this system. CRISPR represents an extremely limited mutational mechanism that is not responsible for the overall evolution of any species. The fact that random mutations do not act like the CRISPR system supports our conclusions, not yours.So what is the mechanism of genetic change that makes up the vast, vast majority of evolutionary change? Random mutations with respect to fitness. You have not presented ANYTHING that says otherwise. In fact, I even started a thread discussing a paper from an author that you suggested. You abandoned that thread when it became apparent that your argument had been refuted. The CRISPR system is largely irrelevant to the evolutionary history to all but a handful of organisms, and even in the organisms that carry the CRISPR system the evolutionary effect is limited to a tiny portion of the genome. So why are you making such a big deal of the CRISPR system? That is the real question. Even more, why did you abandon the thread where I spent a lot of my time dissecting the Wright paper?To bring this back towards the topic, the reason we have a creationist shortage is that their sacred cows are slaughtered quite quickly. I put the CRISPR issue to bed quite a while ago, and yet here it is again, back from the dead. Creationists think that if they wait long enough we will forget that their arguments were refuted. Sorry, not going to happen.

If you take all prokaryotes and add up the mutations over the last 10 years in all of those prokaryotes, how many of those mutations occurred as a result of the CRISPR system? If that number turns out to be 0.000000000000000000000000000000001% can you really blame us for rounding up and saying "all mutations are random with respect to fitness"?

Shapiro has never claimed, in black and white, that mutations are not random with respect to fitness. In your questions to him he skirts the issue time after time by using evasive language. We explained that to you multiple times.

The answer to this is quite simple. The evidence is not on the side of creationists. When creationists are systematically forced to base their arguments on evidence they have no argument. What is their reaction? Often, it's not very mature. In order to deflect their utter failure in the scientific arena they play the martyr card. "Oh, look at all these mean people saying mean things about me, whaaaaaaa!!!!". In fact, ID supporters produced an entire feature film that was nothing but whining. By doing this, they never have to face up to the intellectual bankruptcy of creationist/ID. After it becomes apparent that they will be forced to muster evidence to back their claims I think creationists just simply have nothing to post.

Fine then. Challenge accepted. I am hereby challenging you to a one on one debate where I will offer evidence in support of evolution, and you will in turn offer evidence of creationism. Are you up for this or not? Notice how you have already deflected attention away from the lack of evidence for creationism. How predictable.

It would be great if you would start a thread explaining how fits and starts in the very incomplete fossil record evidences a supernatural natural deity changing DNA. If you start a thread on this subject or include it in our 1-on-1 debate I will show that you are very wrong about this.

Too bad that you refuse to focus on the science.Overall, I think most scientists are willing to let Shapiro say what he wants to say out of respect. No. He is putting on a Barnum and Bailey's act. He is trying to sell his ideas through showmanship, and you know what PT Barnum said about suckers . . .

The problem arises when the "more to reality" is actually a set of beliefs that runs contrary to the physical evidence. What to do then?Should we not teach heliocentrism because some believe that heliocentrism indicates that there is no God? Should we teach that diseases are caused by germs instead of evil spirits as some believe? Should we not teach anything in science that might contradict a religious belief either held now, in the past, or possibly in the future? Can science teach anything without being accused of attacking someone's beliefs in the supernatural?What you are pushing for is the protection of dogmatic religious beliefs against the things we discover in reality. I think you are fighting a losing battle.

I think this paragraph illustrates the problem. Not once do you reference the EVIDENCE. The phrase, "We who hold to the accuracy of . . ." is nonsensical. One does not hold to accuracy. One DEMONSTRATES accuracy through EVIDENCE.We view the world through different philosophies. You think the world should conform to your beliefs. We believe that we should conform our beliefs to what we find in the world.

marc9000,If an airline pilot says that they, as pilots, would benefit the human race by pushing people away from religion would you conclude that aerodynamics is anti-God? If not, then why conclude that what a scientist says is somehow evidence that science is anti-God?The fact of the matter is that conversions from fundamentalist christian to atheism is driven by people requiring an absolute rejection of reason, knowledge, and fact in order to be a christian. It is not as if scientists fudge data so as to counter what christians believe. Instead, scientists report the facts. It is christians who require their followers to hold beliefs that stand in direct contrast to reality. Is it really any wonder that those people, when faced with fact and reality, reject christianity? Buzzsaw inadvertantly spoke the truth when he said, "What true god would inspire a manual full of falsehoods for it's intelligent created beings to live by? ". Indeed. The evidence demonstrates that creationism is false, so how could a literal Genesis come from a true God? That is conclusion that creationism pushes people towards. It is not the fault of science that the facts are what they are. It is the fault of creationism that they expect people to believe stories that are directly contradicted by the facts.

This is false. One of the fundamental principles of the modern synthesis is the independence of mutation and selection. This is expressed by the idea that mutations are random with respect to fitness. One of the posters here was citing Shapiro and Wright as supporters of the notion that mutations were not truly random with respect to fitness. So what happened? I took the time to read and understand an article written by Wright that dealt with this very issue. I spent the time going through each of the figures and tables and discussed both the methods and results in a way that was understandable to the layperson. I discussed how the evidence failed to show a non-random relationship beetween mutagenesis and fitness. You can find the thread here:EvC Forum: Wright et al. on the Process of MutationOf your two posts in the thread both were deemed off-topic, and they clearly were. Neither of your posts discussed the Wright paper at all which was the topic of discussion. I would be happy to start another thread on the peer reviewed primary paper of your choice (no review papers please, they are just too long and cover too much ground for a focused discussion).Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

The focus of the thread was centered around whether or not the data in the Wright paper demonstrated non-random mutations. Bringing up redefinitions of the modern synthesis was completely off topic. You never commented on any of the data from the paper which was the topic. I started that thread so we could end those endless debates on what so and so meant. I thought it was more important to talk about about what the evidence actually indicated. Then I urge you to go to that topic and demonstrate that mutations are non-random with respect to fitness, and use the data in the Wright paper to support your argument. Here is the link again:EvC Forum: Wright et al. on the Process of Mutation

I discuss those definitions in the thread with reference to the actual data. Again, I urge you to participate in that thread.