Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

taq writes; Where have I stated that I cited Shapiro's work as evidence for ID?
I cited Shapiro's work for what it is, that there is some sort of intelligence, engineering, or planning in he cells processes.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.Would you really beleive that I think Shapiro supports ID when the name he gives to his 21st Century is NATURAL genetic engineering? (emphasis mine)

Molbiogirl posted;
. Where did I ever say Shapiro invoked the Superntural? The name he has given to his 21st Century theory of evolution is NATURAL genetic engineering. (Emphasis mine)However Molbiogirl I believe you are interpreting Shapiro in a way that supports your bias when you say I am interpreting Shapiro incorrectly.Look at what he posted in his reply to my e-mail, where I explained my postion to him and then asked him questons. Look what he wrote about mutations and randomness. Look what he wrote about gnetic change.
. Look what he wrote about "non random." He does not rule out non random changes in fitness. Why would he use the work STRICTILY, when determistic was used?Look what he said about the cell and sentience. .You have to live with those words Molbiogirl.He thinks I understand his position pretty well, maybe you don't, or don't want to.Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

HIGHLY NON DETERMINISTIC.Why don't you explain to me the difference between "random" and "highly non deterministic"?Look. I don't have any problems with Shapiro's work. The scientific community doesn't have any problems with Shapiro's work.Why do you creos have such a hard on for Shapiro?

Explaining this to you once again, you asked whether evolution was non-random regarding fitness.You did not ask whether mutations were non-random regarding fitness.Everyone here agrees that evolution is non-random regarding fitness, and this is because of natural selection. If evolution were random regarding fitness then there could be no adaptation, but exquisite adaptation is exhibited by all life throughout nature, so of course evolution must be non-random. It is this non-random adaptation that Darwin was attempting to explain when he originally developed his theory.--Percy

wounded King writes; Thanks Wounded King. I believe that this does correlate with what Shapiro is thinking when he uses the term not Strictily determinsitic.

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

You keep making the mistake of extrapolating these processes beyond what Shapiro actually states. Shapiro argues that the timing of mutagenesis is engineered, but he does not extrapolate this to mean that the mutations themselves are deterministic. Created by what? Are you saying that Shapiro's work does not support ID, or is at least unrelated to the claims made by ID supporters?

You see something in Shapiro's work that supports your IDiocy.
I'd just like to know what.
What in Shapiro's work gives you such comfort?

In your e mail he said "not strictly deterministic".
In mine, "highly non deterministic".
Still waiting on your definition of "highly non deterministic" v. "random".

I asked if mutations could be non-random in re fitness. Am I reading Wounded King wrong in re random mutations and fitness?Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

All of his work. He inspires me by his directness and honesty and self confidence. Look I don't belive he supports ID but I think his work is a compendium
of what is new and exciting in cellular biology.

Well. Let's just take a look at some of your prior posts, shall we? You continue to insist that evolution is deterministic.
This is important to you for some reason.
In fact, it seems awful darn important to a lotta you creos.
Explain that to me.Still waiting on that definition, btw.Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

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.

How does Shapiro's work support ID? That's what Taq asked. That's what I asked.

This is a perfect example of what I have been referring to. Shapiro argues that these natural engineering systems use exon shuffling instead of point mutations to find novel functions which produces a higher probability of finding beneficial adaptations compared to just point mutations. This is what Shapiro means when he states "certain changes are non-random with respect to their potential biological utility." He does NOT say that mutations are non-random with respect to fitness. He says that processes like exon shuffling make the chances of finding biological utility (aka beneficial adaptation) more probable.However, the process of mutation involved in exon shuffling is still random with respect to fitness.

quote:

---

Perhaps the most important aspect of evolutionary change by natural genetic engineering is that it employs a combinatorial search process based upon DNA modules that already possess functionality. . . Mixing functional domains in new combinations is far more likely to produce a protein with novel activities than is the modification of one amino acid at a time.
Mobile DNA and evolution in the 21st century - PMC
(Shapiro 2010 Mobile DNA paper)

---

Notice that he calls exon shuffling a "search process". This is neo-Darwinism 101. This is how evolutionists have always described random mutation (with respect to fitness) coupled with natural selection.Non-random mutations (with respect to fitness) would not need to search for anything. The precise mutations needed to overcome a specific challenge would be pre-programmed into the engineering systems, and only those mutations needed to overcome the challenge would be produced. It all depends on the context of non-random. Again, you keep changing the context and pretending that non-random applies to all contexts. It doesn't.Did you read those two experiments I cited for you? I think it would be really helpful to discuss those experiments if you have time.