Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?

This is typical of the approach to evolution that creationists take: they latch on to any point they can stretch enough to make it appear that 1) science may be wrong, or 2) that this poor little stretched-out point supports creationism.Creationists seem to think that if a particular point within the broad theory of evolution is revised that they come out ahead. Unfortunately for them, this is incorrect. The more the theory of evolution is poked and prodded and corrected the stronger the theory becomes! That is exactly the opposite of what they want, but they still think that by grabbing at little threads and shaking them like a terrier does a rat that they are getting somewhere.Secondly, by stretching ideas or facts beyond all recognition (and the similar technique of making things up) they just show that they are deliberately distorting what everyone else knows to be accurate. Good examples are placing Noah's flood at 4,350 years ago and at the k-t boundary and at the Cambrian. Another is using the flood at 4,350 years ago to recalibrate radiocarbon dates to come out the way they want. Still another is claiming that residual C14 in dinosaur bones shows they are young. All incorrect, but each of these examples is widely believed by some subset of creationists. They can't even agree among themselves!Given all of this, any modifications or corrections to the theory of evolution won't be coming from the efforts of creationists. Their only chance to get everyone to believe the same way is for one of those subgroups to establish a religious dictatorship and reestablish the Inquisition.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

When will you fundies ever learn to cite your sources???!!Given the lack of a source I googled the "Research Interests" of this author. They are as follows:

​

Ca2+ is a key element in cell signaling mechanism. As an ion, it contributes to the cell membrane potential. As a messenger, it interacts with tens of intracellular effector proteins, including many enzymes, and regulates diversified cellular functions: contraction, secretion, motility, gene expression, proliferation, differentiation, and apoptosis etc.

​

Resting intracellular free calcium level ([Ca2+]i) is usually low (100 nM), considered as a zero / silent state. Upon stimulations, [Ca2+]i can be raised up either by Ca2+ influx across the plasma-membrane or by Ca2+ release from intracellular store (the ER and related organelles) through variety of calcium channels. For example, store-operated Ca2+ channels (SOC) exist in numerous cell types, serving as the main source for Ca2+ entry in most non-excitable cells. Regulated activity of SOC channels is essential to the immune response and may play an important role in the cardiovascular system.

​

I am interested in the Ca2+ signaling transduction network. My goal is to discover and understand the missing pieces of this big puzzle, using techniques of molecular biology, biochemistry, and genetics. Currently I am focusing on the structures and functions of two newly identified protein components of SOC channels: Stim1 (the ER Ca2+ sensor for SOC activation) and Orai1 (the pore-forming subunit of SOC channels), which are both potential drug targets to treat autoimmune disorders and prevent organ transplant rejection.

Where in all of this do you see support for creationism or ID? I suspect the author would be aghast at the uses to which creationists are putting his research.

So are you hoping that the "radical modification" will help creationists?That's not the way to bet. Every time some theory in science is modified, or even occasionally replaced, the resulting body of theory tends toward increased accuracy. And for several hundred years that has meant away from superstition, scripture, dogma, and wishful thinking.I should think that the last thing creationists would want is for scientific theories to become more accurate!

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Sorry, I don't see it that way.Science can't start out with all the answers. Things must be learned from the ground up, with mistakes along the way. But science is coming closer and closer to the correct answers all the time. This is in direct contrast to religions, which start out with the "answers" and manipulate or misrepresent the data (or flat-out ignore it) when it fails to conform to their beliefs. No amount of data will change belief for many theists.But nowhere in this is there any evidence that evolution or any other parts of nature are "information driven" (whatever that means).The fact that science takes a while, or even a long while, to get to the core of a problem says a lot more about science, and the limits of both technology and scientists, than it does about the nature of the real world.But in any case this does not provide evidence for ID or creationism.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I think that you are viewing this paper through rose colored glasses.There is nothing in what you cited that suggests the supernatural or ID (actually one and the same) even exist, let alone that they are an explanation for some natural phenomena.What is being discussed is fine-tuning the theory of evolution. Changing our understanding of some of the details, and hence making the theory more accurate, does nothing to advance the creationists' dogma and belief.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You have just described a feedback mechanism. Nothing very unusual about that.Example: plants follow the sun. I think to call this "information driven" is to exaggerate what is actually happening to try to drag in the latest great hope of creationists, their unique interpretation of "information."

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Unless you can come up with evidence you have nothing.And from what we've seen, you have to misrepresent the various articles you're pushing, so that they say something far different from what the authors had actually said. Examples have been provided upthread.So where is the evidence that there is any such thing as "supernatural" and that there are various deities out there?Evidence, not ancient tribal myths.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I see too many creationists trying to sneak their religious beliefs into science in various ways under the guise of "information." This is after previous Trojan horses were shot down by the courts.There has yet to be convincing evidence that this is correct. I suppose you could stretch things a lot and claim that natural selection was based on "information" but I see that as a mere feedback mechanism. Certainly mutations are random in most respects.But there is no evidence that "information" causes directed evolution as the creationists are trying to get us to believe.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.