Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9174 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,614 Year: 4,871/9,624 Month: 219/427 Week: 29/103 Day: 9/9 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution
shadow71
Member (Idle past 3017 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 902 of 968 (604957)
02-16-2011 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 901 by Taq
02-16-2011 11:38 AM


Re: Ray Comfort takes Shapiro out of context too
taq writes;
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.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 901 by Taq, posted 02-16-2011 11:38 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 908 by Taq, posted 02-16-2011 1:37 PM shadow71 has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3017 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 903 of 968 (604968)
02-16-2011 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 892 by molbiogirl
02-15-2011 10:53 AM


Re: Just stop it
Molbiogirl posted;
.
Let me repeat that for you.
I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO INVOKE THE SUPERNATURAL.
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.
Shapiro wrote;
.
Has NATURAL GENETIC ENGINEERING changed the modern Darwinian theory of evolution as we know it today?
Of course. Going from random accidents to regulated biochemical systems as the source of genetic variation is a fundamental change. It allows us to understand how outside events can trigger change (see table in my 2006 "Genome Informatics" article), makes it clear how combinatorial change can occur using established adaptive components (e.g. protein domains, regulatory modules), and provides a way to investigate what kind of heuristic guidance may be operating in genome change.
Look what he wrote about mutations and randomness.
Do you have an opinion whether mutations are random with respect to fitness per the modern Darwinian Theory?
I gave examples in my 2010 article (e.g. biasing retrovirus insertion upstream of coding regions) where certain changes are non-random with respect to their potential biological utility.
Look what he wrote about gnetic change.
.
Can genetic change come about other than by means of random mutation and natural selection?
The genome sequence databases are full of examples, and I cite many of them in my papers.
Look what he wrote about "non random."
When you use the term non-random do you mean evolution can be non random in regards to fitness?
Evolution is a process that produces adaptive inventions with a spontaneous probability of occurrence that is vanishingly small. How can that be anything other than non-random? Remember, non-random and strictly deterministic are not synonymous. There can be tremendous variability within non-random processes, such as the generation of distinct antibody specificities.
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.
When you use the term sentient do you mean that the cells are capable of making decisions that affect their evolution?
Yes, such as when they activate mobile elements in response to DNA damage, starvation or interspecific hybridization
.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 892 by molbiogirl, posted 02-15-2011 10:53 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 904 by molbiogirl, posted 02-16-2011 1:04 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 905 by Percy, posted 02-16-2011 1:08 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 916 by Taq, posted 02-16-2011 2:06 PM shadow71 has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2724 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 904 of 968 (604973)
02-16-2011 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 903 by shadow71
02-16-2011 12:53 PM


Re: Just stop it
Why would he use the work STRICTILY, when determistic was used?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 903 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 12:53 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 907 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 1:33 PM molbiogirl has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22611
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 905 of 968 (604975)
02-16-2011 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 903 by shadow71
02-16-2011 12:53 PM


Re: Just stop it
shadow71 writes:
Look what he wrote about "non random."
When you use the term non-random do you mean evolution can be non random in regards to fitness?
Evolution is a process that produces adaptive inventions with a spontaneous probability of occurrence that is vanishingly small. How can that be anything other than non-random? Remember, non-random and strictly deterministic are not synonymous. There can be tremendous variability within non-random processes, such as the generation of distinct antibody specificities.
He does not rule out non random changes in fitness. Why would he use the work STRICTILY, when determistic was used?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 903 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 12:53 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 911 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 1:42 PM Percy has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3017 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 906 of 968 (604985)
02-16-2011 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 888 by Wounded King
02-15-2011 8:07 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 888 by Wounded King, posted 02-15-2011 8:07 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 910 by molbiogirl, posted 02-16-2011 1:40 PM shadow71 has not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3017 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 907 of 968 (604986)
02-16-2011 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 904 by molbiogirl
02-16-2011 1:04 PM


Re: Just stop it
molbiogirl indelicately writes;
Why do you creos have such a hard on for Shapiro?
.
I don't. I think his work is outstanding and in the fore front of scientific investigation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 904 by molbiogirl, posted 02-16-2011 1:04 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 909 by molbiogirl, posted 02-16-2011 1:37 PM shadow71 has replied

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


Message 908 of 968 (604989)
02-16-2011 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 902 by shadow71
02-16-2011 12:22 PM


Re: Ray Comfort takes Shapiro out of context too
I cited Shapiro's work for what it is, that there is some sort of intelligence, engineering, or planning in he cells processes.
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.
That in my opinion will lead to what I beleive, that evolution is in fact a created phenemon.
Created by what?
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)
Are you saying that Shapiro's work does not support ID, or is at least unrelated to the claims made by ID supporters?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 902 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 12:22 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 914 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 1:58 PM Taq has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2724 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 909 of 968 (604990)
02-16-2011 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 907 by shadow71
02-16-2011 1:33 PM


Re: Just stop it
I don't. I think his work is outstanding and in the fore front of scientific investigation.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 907 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 1:33 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 912 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 1:47 PM molbiogirl has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2724 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 910 of 968 (604991)
02-16-2011 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 906 by shadow71
02-16-2011 1:27 PM


Re: Distribution of fitness effects
I believe that this does correlate with what Shapiro is thinking when he uses the term not Strictily determinsitic.
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".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 906 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 1:27 PM shadow71 has not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3017 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 911 of 968 (604992)
02-16-2011 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 905 by Percy
02-16-2011 1:08 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 905 by Percy, posted 02-16-2011 1:08 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 928 by Percy, posted 02-16-2011 3:03 PM shadow71 has not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3017 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 912 of 968 (604994)
02-16-2011 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 909 by molbiogirl
02-16-2011 1:37 PM


Re: Just stop it
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 909 by molbiogirl, posted 02-16-2011 1:37 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 913 by molbiogirl, posted 02-16-2011 1:53 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 922 by Taq, posted 02-16-2011 2:23 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2724 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 913 of 968 (604997)
02-16-2011 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 912 by shadow71
02-16-2011 1:47 PM


Re: Just stop it
Well. Let's just take a look at some of your prior posts, shall we?
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 912 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 1:47 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 917 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 2:06 PM molbiogirl has replied
 Message 949 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-17-2011 1:00 AM molbiogirl has not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3017 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 914 of 968 (604999)
02-16-2011 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 908 by Taq
02-16-2011 1:37 PM


Re: Ray Comfort takes Shapiro out of context too
taq writes;
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.
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;
Are you saying that Shapiro's work does not support ID, or is at least unrelated to the claims made by ID supporters?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 908 by Taq, posted 02-16-2011 1:37 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 915 by molbiogirl, posted 02-16-2011 2:00 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 919 by Taq, posted 02-16-2011 2:12 PM shadow71 has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2724 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 915 of 968 (605001)
02-16-2011 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 914 by shadow71
02-16-2011 1:58 PM


Re: Ray Comfort takes Shapiro out of context too
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 914 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 1:58 PM shadow71 has not replied

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


Message 916 of 968 (605002)
02-16-2011 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 903 by shadow71
02-16-2011 12:53 PM


Re: Just stop it
Look what [Shapiro] wrote about mutations and randomness:
Shadow: Do you have an opinion whether mutations are random with respect to fitness per the modern Darwinian Theory?
Shapiro: I gave examples in my 2010 article (e.g. biasing retrovirus insertion upstream of coding regions) where certain changes are non-random with respect to their potential biological utility.
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.
He does not rule out non random changes in fitness.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 903 by shadow71, posted 02-16-2011 12:53 PM shadow71 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024