Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?

Shadow 71 writes:Do you agree that plants have sensitivity, the power of directing the movements of their adjoinging parts, and that the brain receives impressions from the sense organs and directs their movements is consistent with the current theory?

Dr Adequate writes:Yes, of course. That is why I have said so very emphatically.The question is, do you deny it?If not, then you must agree that these obvious facts, well known to Darwin himself as well as to all "neo-Darwinists", do not constitute a challenge to orthodoxy but a wholehearted agreement with it.

shadow71 writes: I was under the impression that Darwin and the "neo-Darwinists" and the current modern theories did not recognize that evolution is sensitive, that cells directed movements of their parts, that the plant cells contains "brains".

Where did I say QI Zheng supported Creationism? He is saying, in re the debated about, random, directed, adapative mutations, that there is no proof that random mutation is true.

This all complies with Shapiro papers i.e.sentience in the cells, non random mutations for fitness etc. and the biocommunciative, information schools, that are moving away from the random mutation accidential evolultion hypothesis.

Am I wrong in taking from his paper that the random mutation hypothesis is not proven?

Zheng writes:This article does not attempt to refute the directed mutation hypothesis. However, from a mathematical point of view, this article suggests that some of the evidence accumulated to date to support the directed mutation hypothesis is weaker than was originally thought and may be invalid.

shadow71 writes: By this definition would you agree that the hypothesis of random mutation is neither true or false. ie. not proven.
I didn't spend $45 for the paper. I have in my trial career met and worked with many experts in all fields of medicine, so I have access to many papers.

shadow71 writes:That random mutation for fitness is not a proven hypothesis. That directed and adapative mutations do occur.
That this is admitted is exciting to me.

I was under the impression that Darwin and the "neo-Darwinists" and the current modern theories did not recognize that evolution is sensitive, that cells directed movements of their parts, that the plant cells contains "brains".

This all complies with Shapiro papers i.e.sentience in the cells, non random mutations for fitness etc. and the biocommunciative, information schools, that are moving away from the random mutation accidential evolultion hypothesis.

I know Cairns and others have challenged the Luria & Delbuck experiment...

Fairly early on in our studies, Cairns and I ELIMINATED the hypothesis that mutations were directed toward a useful goal.

The second piece of evidence AGAINST directed mutation was obtained by putting a second revertible allele, a +1 frameshift in the tetA gene, close to the Lac− allele in FC40.

I was under the impression that Darwin and the "neo-Darwinists" and the current modern theories did not recognize that evolution is sensitive, that cells directed movements of their parts, that the plant cells contains "brains".

By this definition would you agree that the hypothesis of random mutation is neither true or false. ie. not proven.

shadow71 writes:Read his paper "The Origin of mutants"

Tanypterykx writes: Good Grief, shadow!No wonder everyone thinks you don't know what you are talking about. Darwin's theory was Natural Selection not mutation, random or non-random. He knew there was variation in populations but he did not know what caused it or how it was passed on

Shapiro writes: Since Darwin, three issues have been seen as central to formulating a coherent theory of evolutionary change:(i) descent with modification (that is the inheritance of novel characters),(ii) the origins of hereditary variation, and(iii) the operation of natural selection.All evolutionists accept descent with modification as fundamental to the evolutionary process, but views towards issues (ii) and (iii) have depended on the existing state of biological knowledge in each historical period.In the 19th century, Darwin based his thinking on the observations of animal breeders and naturalists. Lacking detailed studies of inheritance, he postulated that change arose randomly as 'numerous, successive, slight variations' [2]. Applying the uniformitarian principle he learned from Charles Lyell, his professor of geology [3], Darwin extrapolated that these small changes would accumulate over long periods of time, under the guidance of natural selection, to produce major adaptive characters, such as the eye, and eventually would lead to the branching off of new species. Thus, classical Darwinism was characterized by its gradualist view of change and ascribed the major role in adaptive innovation to the positive action of natural selection in sequentially favouring ever fitter variants.

Shapiro writes: In the 20th century, evolutionists were confronted by an apparent contradiction between Darwinian gradualism and the abrupt changes in individual traits that were observed to undergo Mendelian segregations in genetic crosses. This contradiction was resolved at mid-century by the neo-Darwinian 'modern synthesis' that integrated Darwinian gradualism with mathematical population genetics [4,5]. Like Darwin, his neo-Darwinian followers postulated that the mutational process, which generated allelic variants of individual genes, has to be random in nature. In opposition to Lamarckian ideas, any possibility that organismal history could influence hereditary variation was excluded. The primary role in determining evolutionary novelty remained with natural selection.

Shadow 71 writes:My question was "Has NATURAL GENETIC ENGINERING changed the modern Darwinian theory of evolution as we know it today?

Shapiro writes: "Of course. Going from random accidents to regulated biochemical systems as the source of genetic variation is a fundamental change. It allows us to understand how outside events can trigger change (see table in my 2006 "Genome informatics" article), makes it clear how combinatorial change can occur using established adaptive components (e.g. protein domains, regulatory modules), and provides a way to investigate what kind of heuristic guidance may be operating in genome change."

Shadow71 writes: "Do you have an opinion whether mutations are random with respect to fitness per the modern Darwinian Theory?"

Shapiro writes: I gave examples in my 2010 article (e.g. biasing retrovirus insertion upstream of coding regions) where certain changes are non-random with respect to their potential biological utility.

Taq writes: He said the exact opposite. He said that random mutations should be considered the null hypothesis. Do you understand what the null hypothesis is?

Taq writes: Shapiro never demonstrated that mutations were non-random with respect to fitness.

Shapiro writes: I gave examples in my 2010 article (e.g. biasing retrovirus insertion upstream of coding regions) where certain changes are non-random with respect to their potential biological utility.