Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Confusing preferred theory with empirical evidence

Expand Messages
  • Charles Palm
    James A Shapiro: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/jerry-coyne-fails-to-unde_b_1411144.html Jerry Coyne Fails to Understand Yet Again. This is yet
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 23, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      James A Shapiro:
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/jerry-coyne-fails-to-unde_b_1411144.html
      Jerry Coyne Fails to Understand Yet Again. This is yet another
      example of
      Jerry confusing his preferred theory with empirical evidence. (He repeats
      this unsubstantiated assertion later in his critique.)

      James A Shapiro:
      http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/ExtraRefs.NaturalGeneticEngineeringPartNormalLifeCycle.shtml
      Here again, Jerry fails to recognize that variations in *contingency
      loci*
      are not in any way random mutations. Instead, they involve well-defined
      natural genetic engineering systems: 1) targeted homologous recombination
      of coding cassettes (in eukaryotic trypanosomes as well as in bacteria); 2)
      site-specific recombination within protein coding sequences (*shufflons*);
      3) insertion and excision of DNA transposons; and 4) mutation-prone reverse
      transcription and cDNA reinsertion to diversify specific variable regions
      of phage and bacterial coding sequences (*diversity-generating
      retroelements*). These examples simply reinforce the message of my two
      immune system blogs, namely that cells of all kinds are fully competent to
      engineer their genomes in well-defined (i.e., non-random) ways.

      James A Shapiro: Although Jerry claims near the end of his diatribe that
      *all the facts are on my side* (always a dangerous position to hold), I
      think his omissions and theory-observation conflations argue differently.
      Jerry, I think you need to do better next time. Please address my real
      arguments, not your own mischaracterizations.

      *******************************************************************************
      James A Shapiro: The cognitive, informatic view of how living cells
      operate and utilize their genomes is radically different from the genetic
      determinism perspective articulated most succinctly, in the last century,
      by Francis Crick’s famous “Central Dogma of Molecular Biology.†So it
      is appropriate to direct our attention to evaluating the validity of
      Crick’s formulation in light of 21st Century knowledge.

      James A Shapiro: The cognitive, informatic view of how living cells
      operate and utilize their genomes is radically different from the genetic
      determinism perspective articulated most succinctly, in the last century,
      by Francis Crick*s famous *Central Dogma of Molecular Biology.* So it is
      appropriate to direct our attention to evaluating the validity of Crick*s
      formulation in light of 21st Century knowledge.

      Charles P: http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/30046 I
      forgot to use the asterisk in place of the apostrophe and quotation marks
      above. The major point here is that the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology
      is the old idea of using the preferred theory to replace empirical and
      verifiable evidence. Now that biology is recognized as being an
      information science, it is imperative that the debates between creationists
      and evolutionist cease here on Origins Talk.

      Charles P: The evidence is open to scrutiny to everyone. It is OK to have
      different interpretations of that evidence. However, it is NOT OK to
      debate that theory should be substituted for empirical evidence in
      discussions. Real arguments, not mischaracterizations should be used in
      discussions. Creationists and non-creationists should be respected.

      Geological Society of America:
      http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position1.htm Science teachers should
      not advocate any religions interpretations of nature and should be
      nonjudgmental about the personal beliefs of students.

      ********************************************************************************
      Charles P:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WThPGrioA4o&feature=em-uploademail What is
      the empirical and verifiable evidence for the age of the Earth?

      1 The empirical and verifiable evidence is the same for everyone and is
      open to scrutiny.

      2 It is OK to have a different interpretation of the evidence.

      3 It is OK to agree to disagree.

      4 It is NOT OK to debate that theory should be substituted for empirical
      evidence in discussions.

      Charles P: Please do not try to pin the label of *creationist* on me. I
      have reached the conclusion to disagree with BOTH sides of this debate.
      The *deep time* debates are irrelevant. If deep time is correct,
      evolution occurred more slowly than what the creationists believe. If deep
      time is not correct, evolution occurred more quickly than what the
      evolutionists believe. The age of the Earth does not change the empirical
      and verifiable evidence for natural genetic engineering.

      ********************************************************************************
      Stewart: Brilliant non-answer! Thanks for making my point.

      Charles P: You are welcome. After you have read the book, Evolution: A
      View From The 21st Century, we can discuss it here on Origins Talk.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.