Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?

The last sentence in this quote from Wrights paper on p.7 seem to be saying that these mutations that are non-random would surely be beneficial and therefor selected. I read that as saying that the mutations would be SELECTED, mutations that are non-random and beneficial.
Am I wrong?

I am not a scientist, how can I present data? I can only read the papers of the scientist who have presented the data in their papers. Shapiro presents the data, I present his findings from the data per his papers.
Using your procedure, only scientists could post on this board.There have to be positions presented from the data outside the mere mechanical physical and chemical data.The scientists on this board must be open to causation that flows from the data.

Are you agreeing that these are non-random mutations that are beneficial for fitness?

What other kind of data are you going to present to us??? I cant wait too see.You should look up the word data. Data Definition & Meaning - Merriam-WebsterI anxiously await your data.

And non-random mutations that are not beneficial for fitness.Sorry charlie but the two things are totally separate.Fitness is only determined AFTER the fact.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

The paper below which can be accessed atThe ‘root-brain’ hypothesis of Charles and Francis Darwin - PMCseem to be going in the same direction as Shapiro et. al in re communciation properties, even in plants.The ‘root-brain’ hypothesis of Charles and Francis Darwin
Revival after more than 125 years
Frantiek Baluka,1 Stefano Mancuso,2 Dieter Volkmann,1 and Peter W Barlow3
1IZMB; University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
2LINV; Department of Horticulture; University of Firenze, Sesto Fiorentino (FI), Italy
3School of Biological Sciences; University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Corresponding author.
Correspondence to: Frantiek Baluka; Email: baluska@uni-bonn.deReceived November 9, 2009; Accepted November 10, 2009. Other Sections▼
AbstractIntroductionCharles and Francis Darwin and their Revolutionary BiologyThe Darwins’ ‘Root-Brain’ HypothesisRecent Support for the Darwins’ ‘Root-Brain’ HypothesisRoot Tropisms: From Sensory Systems to Motoric SystemsEscape Tropism of Illuminated Roots: Stress Situation for the Whole SeedlingNeurobiological View of the Plant Body Solves the Recently Introduced ‘Schizophrenic’ Apical-Basal DichotomyBose’s Unity of Life and Ockham’s Razor UpdatedOutlook: Complex Social Life of Plant RootsReferencesAbstractThis year celebrates the 200th aniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, best known for his theory of evolution summarized in On the Origin of Species. Less well known is that, in the second half of his life, Darwin’s major scientific focus turned towards plants. He wrote several books on plants, the next-to-last of which, The Power of Movement of Plants, published together with his son Francis, opened plants to a new view. Here we amplify the final sentence of this book in which the Darwins proposed that: It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the tip of the radicle thus endowed [with sensitivity] and having the power of directing the movements of the adjoining parts, acts like the brain of one of the lower animals; the brain being seated within the anterior end of the body, receiving impressions from the sense-organs, and directing the several movements. This sentence conveys two important messages: first, that the root apex may be considered to be a ‘brain-like’ organ endowed with a sensitivity which controls its navigation through soil; second, that the root apex represents the anterior end of the plant body. In this article, we discuss both these statements.Key words: auxin, cognition, plant neurobiology, plant tropisms, roots, sensory biology, signaling Other Sections▼
AbstractIntroductionCharles and Francis Darwin and their Revolutionary BiologyThe Darwins’ ‘Root-Brain’ HypothesisRecent Support for the Darwins’ ‘Root-Brain’ HypothesisRoot Tropisms: From Sensory Systems to Motoric SystemsEscape Tropism of Illuminated Roots: Stress Situation for the Whole SeedlingNeurobiological View of the Plant Body Solves the Recently Introduced ‘Schizophrenic’ Apical-Basal DichotomyBose’s Unity of Life and Ockham’s Razor UpdatedOutlook: Complex Social Life of Plant RootsReferencesIntroductionRecent advances in plant molecular biology, cellular biology, electrophysiology and ecology, unmask plants as sensory and communicative organisms, characterized by active, problem-solving behavior.1—6 This new view of plants is considered controversial by several plant scientists.7 At the heart of this problem is a failure to appreciate different living time-scales: plants generally do not move from the spot where they first became rooted, whereas animals are constantly changing their location. Nevertheless, both animals and plants show movements of their organs; but, as mentioned, these take place at greatly different rates. Present day results,8—13 however, are increasingly coming to show that, in contrast with the classical view, plants are definitely not passive automatic organisms. On the contrary, review they possess a sensory-based cognition which leads to behavior, decisions and even displays of prototypic intelligence.4,12 Other Sections▼
AbstractIntroductionCharles and Francis Darwin and their Revolutionary BiologyThe Darwins’ ‘Root-Brain’ HypothesisRecent Support for the Darwins’ ‘Root-Brain’ HypothesisRoot Tropisms: From Sensory Systems to Motoric SystemsEscape Tropism of Illuminated Roots: Stress Situation for the Whole SeedlingNeurobiological View of the Plant Body Solves the Recently Introduced ‘Schizophrenic’ Apical-Basal DichotomyBose’s Unity of Life and Ockham’s Razor UpdatedOutlook: Complex Social Life of Plant RootsReferencesCharles and Francis Darwin

It seems you've missed my point. I didn't care to discuss whether or not plants have sentient properties, I was using that as an example to expose the flawed reasoning in your other arguments. How so? What does it say that goes in the same direction?

I really don't base by religious ideas on biologists. I have had my religious beliefs for many years and they have continually gotten stronger as my life and experiences have unfolded.What I am saying in this thread is that Shapiro and those in the school of communicative cell discoveries, are reinforcing my religious beliefs.
If I am wrong about these biologists, it won't change my religious beliefs. I understand what Shapiro is saying in "natural genetic engineering" but he nor any scientist is the last word on the cause or initiator of these discoveries.In the end for this subject it all comes down to the Orgin of Life.

I'm glad you enjoy them. Perhaps you will also learn something from them.

I have, that you have no idea what science is or how to approach a problem scientifically.You still seem to think the goal is to try to find (or manufacture, or pretend to find) information that supports your position.That is clear.It is also why you are doomed to fail.Science and reality are not like the Law, not related to finding support for a position, but rather looking, searching, spending all possible effort to disprove your position.You have a desired outcome. Thus you have already failed.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

No because, as my subsequent post pointed out, I was making it up as I went along. I was trying to devise some hypothetical mechanism that would work in metazoa, specifically mammals, equivalent to the one Wright was describing in bacteria.So since these were my own hypothetical mutations I could make them non-random, to the extent that their transcriptional state made them more likely targets for mutation. As for their beneficial or deleterious state, as Jar suggests it could go either way. Wright's argument was that by increasing the proportion of mutations in genes involved in a particular response you were more likely to generate relevant beneficial mutations, her hypothesis does not suggest that you don't generate a similarly enhanced rate of deleterious mutations but those are selected against so they are not included in the analysis.In my case I was trying to identify a scenario where there could be a similar tight association between transcription, mutation and selective pressure. The only points I could think of were very early embryonic development and possibly in germ cell maturation and development.TTFN,WK

Do species with longer life-spans become extinct more often than those with shorter life-spans?I mean become 'evolutionary dead-ends' rather than just that the species disappears.Edited by Peter, : No reason given.

I'm not sure what distinction you are trying to make here. A species that disappears surely is an evolutionary dead end, or do you mean that they evolved into other distinct species, speciation isn't usually considered extinction. Obviously any species that hasn't disappeared isn't yet an evolutionary dead end.Can you give some examples of each class?TTFN,WK

e.g. Some dinosaur species are referred to as extinct, but considered ancestral to modern birds and therefore not dead-ends.My question is: are there more dead-ends amongst species with long life-spans rather than short?Edited by Peter, : I can't spell.

How can you reach scientific conclusions without data? Then present the data found in those papers and demonstrate how that data supports your interpretation of the authors' conclusions. You also present your misinterpretation of Shapiro's findings. What I want to see is how the data in those papers supports YOUR interpretations.If we were going to compare this to a court of law, you are only presenting the opinions of the forensic scientists without ever presenting the forensic evidence itself. Anyone with access to the papers can use my procedure, scientist and non-scientist alike. Then we are no longer talking about science. What we should not be open to is misinterpretations of the data, which is exactly what you have been presenting.