Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?

Theodoric writes: If so could you please summarize it in your own words. I, for one. do not fully understand what they are trying to actually say. Please in layman's terms explain the point they are trying to make and how it supports your idea that evolution is directed.
ABEDo you think non-random = directed?

To me this demonstrates some qualifed scientists do accept Ho as revelant and not a "nutbag".

shadow71 writes:I was citing the paper by Perez to contradict miobiogirl's assertion that what Ho writes is bs. This paper is actually citing the paper written by Ho. To me this demonstrates some qualifed scientists do accept Ho as revelant and not a "nutbag".As far as epilgenetics goes, I do not fully understand it, but in the papers I have been reading the authors are saying "epigenetics" and other means of organismatic change may well be beyond the current theory, and there is a need for a new theory.I think non-random may be directed, but in what way I cannot say.

As far as epilgenetics goes, I do not fully understand it...

...but in the papers I have been reading the authors are saying "epigenetics" and other means of organismatic change may well be beyond the current theory, and there is a need for a new theory.

Looking through the journal’s contents is certainly er.. interesting, even Rupert Sheldrake makes an appearance! And look who’s on the advisory board.. Mae Wan Ho a well known crack pot. eg see here: Water, Water, Everywhere, Part 3 - The Strangeness of Water & Homeopathic 'Memory'

In case anyone's interested: There were four names on the Discovery Institute's list of Darwin skeptics and on the list of HIV/AIDS doubters: Robert W. Bass, Bruce D Evans, Mae-Wan Ho, and Jonathan Wells.

Mae Wan Ho is another crank who believes that living organisms are able to violate the Second Law of thermodynamics.

In the third chapter she even presumes, in a sure sign of crankitude, to rewrite the Second Law to fit with her idiosyncratic ideas ... If that weren't bad enough, she even claims that living organisms can violate the First Law.

NoNukes writes:If you could explain to me why read write memory system implies a deterministic mutation process I'd sure appreciate it. The quoted paragraph merely says that cells access stored information.I'm familiar with the information systems Shapiro refers to in his analogy, but there is no reason to believe that mutations or errors in those system ought to occur deterministically. Where does Shapiro suggest anything more than non-random mutations?Uh.. Never mind. I see some of the answers to my questions in the paper.

Taq writes:What is not random? Chromatin binding? DNA binding complexes? Protein-DNA interactions? DNA methylation? What specifically is not random?

Dr Adequate writes:No it won't. One more actual known physical mechanism contributing to evolution would not be a reason to put more credence in imaginary supernatural mechanisms.

papers by Massimo Pigliucci do indicate that the modern synthesis does need a radical modification.

shadow71 writes:papers by Massimo Pigliucci

papers by Massimo Pigliucci do indicate that the modern synthesis does need a radical modification.

Massimo Pigliucci writes:Despite most talks at this year's evolution meetings being about normal science, there were also hints here and there that some major change may be on the horizon. A few researchers devoted their time to rather exotic-sounding evolutionary mechanisms, such as genetic assimilation and epigenetic inheritance. While this is not the place to get into a detailed discussion of technical issues, these mechanisms have the potential of significantly augmenting the theoretical arsenal of evolutionary biological theory, adding so far unsuspected sources of variation and complexity to our understanding of the biological world. Epigenetic inheritance, for instance, is a phenomenon by which non-genetic material (e.g., methyl groups attached to the DNA, used by the cell as switches to signal which genes to activate or keep silent) can be replicated and passed from one generation to another. The phenomenon has been suspected for decades, and solid empirical evidence in favor of its existence is now fast accumulating. We still don't know how widespread epigenetic inheritance is, and we don't have a detailed theoretical framework to include it into standard evolutionary theory, but one gets the feeling that once such requirements will be fulfilled, the current paradigm in the field will be significantly altered. Do these new potential developments represent the possibility of what Kuhn called a paradigm shift, that is a dramatic change in the way we understand evolution? I doubt it. In fact, biology is a clear example of a science that has proceeded at least since 1859 (the year of the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species) without any such shift. The fundamental Darwinian insights that all life on earth share a common descent, and that natural selection is a major mechanism of diversification of biological forms, are still valid and at the core of evolutionary theory. Yes, much has been added by modern population genetics, molecular biology, paleontology, and developmental biology — both empirically and conceptually. But none of these additions have in any way undermined the foundations of the Darwinian edifice. This is different from what happened in geology before and after continental drift was recognized, or in physics when Newtonian mechanics was superseded by Einstenian relativity. In fact, the last paradigm shift in biology — ironically enough — occurred when Darwin convincingly rejected William Paley's arguments for intelligent design as an explanation of biological diversity. That is why the modern intelligent design movement promises not an advancement of science, but a regress to a previous, scientifically unproductive, paradigm.