I think you need to go post your ignorant criticisms at the Discovery Institute.

It should be exceedingly easy to determine random from intelligent genetics. The two could not be more different and we get dozens of mutations with each generation.

Try letting your 2-year old randomly slap at buttons on the keyboard on your next message rather than intelligently editing it and see the results. Basically it is chaotic, useless mess versus functional order.

Well over 99% of mutations fit the form, function and context of the individual. The VERY rare dysfunctional (harmful) genetic changes are easily explained by radiation or mutagenic chemical interferfence.

Genetic changes are not random. They are as intelligently controlled as all other aspects of all life. Why would they have been any different than all other molecules in living organsims?

In many ways he is correct in this, because selection can’t bring forth novel traits. Selection creates nothing, but what Shapiro is saying is that it winnows out the less favored, leaving in the remainder more prevalently favorable traits.

I see his point, from the standpoint of discussing selection with a Darwinist in a way they may understand, but technically, selection is not a force. All of the force of change (evolving) is within the organism.

Gradualism? Wrong.

Random changes? Wrong.

Selection as a cause? Wrong!

Nice statue of him at his shrine, though.

Why would we be surprised that environmental stresses would increase the rate of error in a biological process? Given that random mutations that are severe enough to make individuals non-viable take them out of the population, why would we be surprised that in some cases the viable organisms end up with a mutation that assists them in some way?

We’re basically increasing the rate of the dice rolls, and then attributing the fact that the set of players who don’t lose all their money & go home are having success because they somehow control the dice. And not, y’know, because they are by definition the ones left at the table.

Shapiro gathers page after page of studies in which people got a grant to – in my mind – prove little more than confirmation bias.

As I commented on HuffPo, Shapiro’s stance fails for me because it fails to explain the fact that most mutations don’t help any organism do anything, most species go extinct and therefore his Invisible Hand of Nature guiding mutations seems to be really, really terrible at what he claims it’s doing on purpose.

Uh-huh…

Shapiro repeatedly states that also that two organisms classified as different species can’t breed. I should think the average farmer could refute that let alone science faculty…

This is clearly not a site with any interest nor with the ability to determine science vs hooey. I assume they think of Shapiro’s credentials as a nice bonus. Prior to stumbling across this exchange I’d largely ignored the site; recently poking around through it it appears that a general New Age “there’s more going on in the world than we can understand” editorial line is the order of the day. Yuck.