Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,628 Year: 4,885/9,624 Month: 233/427 Week: 43/103 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution
shadow71
Member (Idle past 3018 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 887 of 968 (604773)
02-14-2011 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 873 by Percy
02-12-2011 3:50 PM


Re: Shapiro's reply
Percy writes;
Tell you what, I'll make you a deal. I'll tell you what the creationist label means to me if you begin responding to the detailed explanations being offered in the messages to you instead of responding with yet more Shapiro quotes that give no indication whether you understood the explanations or not, thereby causing people to have to repeat them over and over again. Deal?
--Percy
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 873 by Percy, posted 02-12-2011 3:50 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 889 by Percy, posted 02-15-2011 9:11 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 896 by Taq, posted 02-15-2011 11:14 AM shadow71 has not replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 117 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 888 of 968 (604816)
02-15-2011 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 886 by shadow71
02-14-2011 7:45 PM


Distribution of fitness effects
So it is your position that mutations may be non-random correct?
To the extent that not all types and loci of mutation are equally probable, yes.
May mutations also be non-random with regards to fitness in that there are probabilities that certain types of mutatons are more likely than not to effect fitness changes?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 886 by shadow71, posted 02-14-2011 7:45 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 906 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 1:27 PM Wounded King has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22614
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 889 of 968 (604821)
02-15-2011 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 887 by shadow71
02-14-2011 7:50 PM


Re: Shapiro's reply
shadow71 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.
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:
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.
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.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Improved wording.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 887 by shadow71, posted 02-14-2011 7:50 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22614
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 890 of 968 (604822)
02-15-2011 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 885 by shadow71
02-14-2011 7:41 PM


Re: Just stop it
shadow71 writes:
I take it that you believe that the complexity of such a single cell came about by random accident?
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.
Would you agree that it also may have come about by a directed plan?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 885 by shadow71, posted 02-14-2011 7:41 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22614
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 891 of 968 (604823)
02-15-2011 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 883 by shadow71
02-14-2011 7:35 PM


Re: Simplified Explanation of Shapiro's Views
shadow71 writes:
I am defining non-random as deterministic in re a TE that lodges in a loci in a gene in distress to repair that cite. that is what I believe molecuar studies have shown.
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.
shadow71 writes:
You state that all mutations are random in re fitness, as I asked Taq in my last reply, are their actual studies that confirm that, and if so please give me a cite to a paper.
Allow me to quote the Wikipedia article on mutations:
Wikipedia writes:
Mutation can result in several different types of change in DNA sequences; these can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning properly or completely. Studies in the fly Drosophila melanogaster suggest that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, this will probably be harmful, with about 70 percent of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial. Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on genes, organisms have mechanisms such as DNA repair to remove mutations.
If you scan through the references for that article you'll probably find some that are helpful.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 883 by shadow71, posted 02-14-2011 7:35 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2726 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 892 of 968 (604825)
02-15-2011 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 870 by shadow71
02-12-2011 1:57 PM


Re: Just stop it
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.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 870 by shadow71, posted 02-12-2011 1:57 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 903 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 12:53 PM molbiogirl has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 893 of 968 (604827)
02-15-2011 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 882 by shadow71
02-14-2011 7:29 PM


Re: Simplified Explanation of Shapiro's Views
My question is has it been demonstrated by experments that all mutations are random with respect to fitness?
I have already answered this question multiple times. If my previous replies were not satisfactory I doubt another reply will be.
If so would you please cite me to paper so I can read and understand the proces or logic behind the statement that all mutations are random with respect to fitness.
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 ICBR
http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/BB/A/B/F/J/_/bbabfj.pdf

This message is a reply to:
 Message 882 by shadow71, posted 02-14-2011 7:29 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 924 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 2:41 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 894 of 968 (604828)
02-15-2011 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 883 by shadow71
02-14-2011 7:35 PM


Re: Simplified Explanation of Shapiro's Views
I am defining non-random as deterministic in re a TE that lodges in a loci in a gene in distress to repair that cite.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 883 by shadow71, posted 02-14-2011 7:35 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 926 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 2:53 PM Taq has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 895 of 968 (604829)
02-15-2011 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 885 by shadow71
02-14-2011 7:41 PM


Re: Just stop it
I take it that you believe that the complexity of such a single cell came about by random accident?
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 agree that it also may have come about by a directed plan?
Would you say that Zeus creates lightning bolts, or is the naturalistic explanation satisfactory?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 885 by shadow71, posted 02-14-2011 7:41 PM shadow71 has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 896 of 968 (604830)
02-15-2011 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 887 by shadow71
02-14-2011 7:50 PM


Re: Shapiro's reply
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 887 by shadow71, posted 02-14-2011 7:50 PM shadow71 has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2726 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 897 of 968 (604856)
02-15-2011 2:45 PM


Ray Comfort takes Shapiro out of context too
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
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 Shapiro
James A. Shapiro
Professor of Microbiology
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Gordon Center for Integrative Science
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?

Replies to this message:
 Message 898 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-16-2011 8:00 AM molbiogirl has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3714 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


(1)
Message 898 of 968 (604924)
02-16-2011 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 897 by molbiogirl
02-15-2011 2:45 PM


Re: Ray Comfort takes Shapiro out of context too
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 897 by molbiogirl, posted 02-15-2011 2:45 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 899 by jar, posted 02-16-2011 9:10 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 900 by Percy, posted 02-16-2011 9:16 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 901 by Taq, posted 02-16-2011 11:38 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34059
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 899 of 968 (604930)
02-16-2011 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 898 by Bolder-dash
02-16-2011 8:00 AM


Re: Ray Comfort takes Shapiro out of context too
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 898 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-16-2011 8:00 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22614
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 900 of 968 (604932)
02-16-2011 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 898 by Bolder-dash
02-16-2011 8:00 AM


Re: Ray Comfort takes Shapiro out of context too
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 898 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-16-2011 8:00 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 901 of 968 (604947)
02-16-2011 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 898 by Bolder-dash
02-16-2011 8:00 AM


Re: Ray Comfort takes Shapiro out of context too
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?
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.
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.
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.
Your pompous capital letters do not change the fact that its one man's opinion and nothing more; based on his own preference.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 898 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-16-2011 8:00 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 902 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 12:22 PM Taq has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024