Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

If your intention is to exhaust and frustrate everyone by not understanding anything, you're doing a great job. Here we see yet another message responded to with no substance, no discussion, no examination, no indication that you've even read the message, just yet another question. How wonderful for you that you can respond in seconds to what took real time and effort to compose.The point is that you're making ID arguments, whether you acknowledge it or not. You don't understand what Shapiro is saying, so you interpret terms like non-random and sentient in a way that matches what you already believe, which is that life could not have come about through natural processes. I said I would tell you when you began engaging the discussion, something you have yet to do. You should be more considerate of the efforts of others and give their messages the attention and careful well thought-out responses they deserve. Your messages are short, and if you ignore the text that is actually quotes of other people then they're very short. The few statements you do make that contain any information are all just reformulations of other people's writings. And when you attempt to be original we get some real howlers, such as quoting yourself back to Molbiogirl as if it were something she wrote, and then responding to your own statement as "something you could live with."You know, you could look "creationist" up over at Wikipedia. It will instead bring up the article on "creationism," but the first paragraph will give you a pretty clear idea of the range and breadth of creationist belief.--Percy

I do agree with the confidence with which Molbiogirl makes this statement. I don't know her exact scientific background, but it appears to be similar to mine. Once you understand the nitty-gritty of how DNA replication, regulation, transcription, etc. works you might have a better handle on why we state such things with confidence.The probability that mutations are actually non-random and deterministic is on par with the probability that the theory of relativity is completely wrong. Yes, science is tentative. Yes, it is possible, no matter how improbable, that every theory in science is wrong. However, when mountains of evidence are piled on one side and almost zero evidence is piled on the other side you have to tip your hat to the winning theory and move on. You don't seem to want to move on.Perhaps it is morbid curiosity or an unhealthy detachment from normal human emotion, but I find your tenacity to be intriguing. For me personally, I would be embarrassed to tenaciously hold on to an idea that is shown to be wrong time after time after time. Not so for you. No matter how many times we show evidence for random mutations (with respect to fitness) you still hold on to the idea that they are really non-random no matter what the evidence shows. You even take it up a notch by accusing us of being closed minded for following the evidence where it leads instead of accepting ideas that stand in stark contrast to the evidence. My brain doesn't work that way, so it interests me to find a brain that does if for no other reason than to find out why it does that.

You continue to insist that evolution is non-deterministic.
This is important to you for some reason.
In fact, it seems awful darn important to a lot of you evos, (despite the discovery of more and more complexity of systems, which appear to be interrelated, symbiotic, necessary to exist as whole, rather than assembled piece by piece, sentient in some form, self regulating in some ways, reactionary to adaptive needs, highly sophisticated and most importantly displaying the characteristics of orderly biological determinism).EXPLAIN THAT TO ME, WHY IT IS SO IMPORTANT TO YOU THAT ALL DISCOVERIES OF EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES BE NON-DETERMINISTIC?You certainly have no way of proving that these complex systems arose from chaos, so I wonder why it is so important for you to simply believe something you can't prove.Usually when we observe instances of highly organized, highly sophisticated, highly reactive systems, which use intelligent means of creating improvements to their existing systems, we begin with the assumption that there must be a plan in place. Why in this instance alone do you feel it is so important when observing these organized complexities, to conclude that they are in fact not organized at all?

BTW, you ignoring that you have no evidence for the origin of these complex sytems, doesn't make the fact that you have no evidence for the origin of these systems go away.BTW, you saying that Shapiro knows that these gentically engineered systems arose naturally doesn't make it so (you all do have a worldview let's not forget).BTW, you ignoring that you have ZERO evidence to prove your conclusion that complex systems were created by random mutations doesn't make the fact that you have ZERO evidence to prove these complex systems arose randomly go away.BTW, do you have MANY examples of complex, highly organized, highly self improving systems, that progress from extremely simple to extremely dependent on multiple layers of coordinated sophisticated networks, that you know for a fact arose from nothing?BTW, the fact that you are condescending without the appropriately corresponding superior viewpoint, close minded, extremely biased in all conclusions you draw, and seemingly not scientifically honest, doesn't make the fact that you are condescending without the appropriately corresponding superior viewpoint , close minded, extremely biased in all conclusions you draw, and seemingly not scientifically honest, go away!

We keep presenting evidence that mutations are non-deterministic. You keep ignoring it. Why is that? Again, we are saying that the processes that produce mutations are non-deterministic. We say this because that is what the evidence indicates. We have this crazy idea that we should follow the evidence where it leads. We also have this crazy idea that those who willfully ignore the evidence in the name of their religious beliefs are no friends of science. We also have this absolutely crazily insane idea that science is important for the progress of our species and just as a human endeavor that seeks new knowledge.So why shouldn't we say that mutations are random with respect to fitness when this is what all of the evidence indicates? Can you please explain?

That is what scientific research is for, finding answers to questions. Why is it that you need to point to ignorance in order to support your arguments? No one is claiming that these systems arose through a completely random process. Evolution is not a random process. We have explained this several times now. Do you really have to misrepresent our arguments in order to have one of your own? No one is claiming that they arose from nothing. So says the poster who has to ignore the evidence and misrepresent other peoples' positions in order to make an argument.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

You talk a lot about evidence, as if there really is a lot of evidence. But the fact is when you are asked to provide evidence, not just of some examples of random mutations, which no one is really denying can happen, but instead of these random mutations linking up one after another to form these incredible chain of such complex networks that we are not even close to understanding.When the human genome project began, virtually ALL scientists believed that they would find there to be multitudes more gense in humans, than in simple life forms like worms, or simple plants. But you were all spectacularly wrong. It turns out that yeast have more genes than humans! How could you have been so wrong, about a theory that you are so confident in.You also once believed that it was simple point mutations that caused all the changes we see in the diversity in life. We now know that you were very wrong about this.Scientists also believed for more than 100 years that all evolutionary processes must be gradual, and almost imperceptibly slow. You were wrong again.Scientists for many decades have believed that they would eventually find most of the intermediary species that formed in between the species we know of existing today. So far you are very wrong about this.In fact the list of things that get discovered all the time about biology, that completely surprise scientists is so great that you could spend your whole lifetime listing out the surprising results and still not list them all. From surprising animal behaviors that appear to be contradictory to causing the most prolific reproductions , to epigenetic regulators which can change entire body plans and completely alter species personalities with the flip of one switch, so much of these things are nothing at all what you theory predicted from the beginning.But with each new wrong prediction, you simply chalk it up to a "new" synthesis theory, still without being able to show how this could arise non-deterministically.So I always wonder, how you can be wrong so often, and still be so convinced you are right.

I know that evolutionists always like to use the ruse that your evolutionary theory is not a random process, simply because you point to one aspect of the entire process which you claim is not random.It goes back to your lottery example. You can throw a thousand numbers in a jar and choose one randomly, and then you can claim that it is not a random drawing of numbers, because someone had to actually draw out a number. Its a complete misrepresentation of a concept. The drawing is a random drawing. The fact that one or two aspects of it can be said to be non-random doesn't ake away the fact that in its entirety, the process is random.I don't think you would quarrel with the idea that evolution is non-deterministic. However, when the word non-deterministic is replaced by random, you evos all try to hide under the rug, and say no no, don't say that. I understand why you do it, because it makes your theory easier to swallow when you try to mellow the random aspect of it, because most people find it a bit incredulous to believe that all they see around them is simply the result of lucky happenstance. But the bottom line is that THIS IS INDEED what your theory claims. EVERYTHING we see around us must have arisen by accident. Let us not try to fool people semantically by occasionally trying to blur your meaning by saying it is not random when it suits you, and random when it doesn't.All of life came about by accident or not by accident-which is it Taq? I think your side tries to take both sides of the fence unfairly.

The discussion is about whether or not mutations are random with respect to fitness. Do you agree or disagree that the evidence points to random mutation with respect to fitness? I don't remember stating anything about the theory of how many genes a human or yeast should have prior to the advent of genome sequencing. The theory of evolution was never used to predict how many genes were in the genome. They never stated that evolutionary processes MUST BE gradual. Again, another distortion from you. The theory predicts that random mutations are filtered through natural selection resulting in an increase of fitness within a population. Nothing you have stated falsifies this theory. Again, you construct strawmen to make arguments.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

We can demonstrate that evolution is non-random with respect to fitness. For example, bacteria with mutations conferring resistance to antibiotics have a much better chance of reproducing in an environment that contains antibiotics. This is a non-random process of selection, and demonstrably so. You need to include a fitness function in your analogy for it to be applicable. Let's say that there are 100 antibiotic mutants in a population of 3 trillion bacteria. After placing the population in broth containing antibiotic all of the descendants were from those 100 bacteria that had the mutation conferring antibiotic resistance. The odds of this happening by accident are astronomical, and yet this is the result of the experiment each and every time. Obviously, evolution works by something other than accident.It seems that the only card you have left is distortion. Rather sad, isn't it?

And in a million zillion generations, you are still left with bacteria. interesting isn't it?Now, to you wish to confront the challenge of presenting any evidence whatsoever to show that this little form of antibiotic resistance can somehow also be used to develop a gigantic, multi-layer of complex systems and body plans which make up our universe?Since your brain can't fathom how anyone can think other than you, how about showing us with evidence all the fantastic claims of building up layer upon layer of intermingled complexity, with the same little random mutation which you claim causes bacteria resistance.Remember, it is you who claims you have so much evidence for this, I wonder why you are so shy about sharing it. Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

Having looked through the paper, A Biochemical Mechanism for Nonrandom Mutations and Evolution, there is no suggestion that the mutations are non-random with respect to fitness.What Wright describes is simply that certain genes have their expression upregulated by particular forms of stress. Coupled with this it is a recognised phenomenon that genes that are being expressed are more susceptible to mutation due to their open chromatin state and transient single strandedness during transription.Therefore while a cell is responding to a certain stress by upregulating response genes those genes are more susceptible to mutation.Therefore the exact transcriptional landscape of a cell under stress may shift the balance of probabilities such that mutations in the specific stress response become more likely due to their increased transcription.Wright suggests that this targetting is likely to produce more beneficial mutations than a genome wide increase in mutation rates because they are targetted to metabolic genes relevant to the particular stress the cell is being exposed to. There is no suggestion that the ratios of beneficial/neutral/deleterious are in any way affected as they occur in those genes.TTFN,WK Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

Evolutionists being right is in itself about as interesting as the sun rising in the east. Well, that's obvious. Clearly enough changes to a genome will change it to any other given genome.---Your turn. Please explain the processes by which God does magic. Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

'Cos so far it appears to be true.If someone finds one that isn't, that'll be interesting too. But they haven't.I'm not sure, though, that it is possible to explain to you why truth is so important to evolutionists. Just look on it as one of our little quirks. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

I feel this thread has run its course.Current participants can post one summary of their position concerning Message 1 or the reopening question Message 61.Do not respond to summaries.This thread will be closed permanently on Saturday. That should be enough time for current participants to post their summations.Thanks for participating. Please do not respond to this post.AdminPD