Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?

Pigliucci cannot use those terms because he is an Atheist dedicated to the BELIEF not scientific fact that evolution cannot be planned.

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. ... 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.

Dr Adequate writes:You would think wrong, since obviously HGT is part of "current genomic modeling" --- which is how you know about it. Epigenetics is also part of current biological thinking, which is, again, the reason that you've heard of it.
________________________
Quote from me..."Well too bad your evo researchers agree with me and not you. So much so they have had to invent another lot of convoluted models to address HGT in their models.A Fast and Accurate Heuristic for
Reconstructing Horizontal Gene Transfer
As a result, detecting and reconstructing HGT events
in groups of organisms has become a major endeavor in biology. The problem of
detecting HGT events based on incongruence between a species tree and a gene
tree is computationally very hard (NP-hard). Efficient algorithms exist for solving
restricted cases of the problem.
http://www.phylo.org/pdf_docs/41_(82)Wang_NRW.pdf"
____________________________As molbiogirl pointed out, a quick search turns up thirty-nine thousand papers on epigenetics and evolution. And yet somehow now creationists hope that if they shout "epigenetics!" loud enough it'll "confound" biologists "into a meltdown"?Like shadow, you seem to be under the curious impression that well-established pillars of current scientific thought are somehow in conflict with current scientific thought. How could this be the case? Boy, that was confused.* Darwinian and Lamarkian are two styles of evolution, not inheritance.
* Mendelian genetics and population genetics are two different things.
* As Darwin believed in the existence of Lamarkian mechanisms, proof that he is right would not make him "outdated" but a century before his time. Evidence for Darwinian evolution and Lamarkian evolution and evolution by HGT cannot be explained, parsimoniously or otherwise, by a dogma the essence of which is to deny evolution.You seem to be making the same strange mistake as shadow. The fact that modern scientists know more about biology than scientists did in the 1930s is not a crisis in modern biology; it's one of its achievements. It is certainly not a sign that we should scrap all the knowledge carefully accumulated over the last couple of centuries and return to the superstitions of the Dark Ages.

Coyote writes: 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."

Nuggin writes: LL of science is based on one great assumption: "Reality is real"In order to adopt Creationism, you must void that assumption.Doing so completely undoes EVERYTHING that science has ever done. Every experiment, every observation, every discovery, every tool, every measurement, every invention, every deduction. All of it - gone.

Wounded King writes: Yawwwn, indeed as we have all agreed from the start because the MS is a series of mathematical formulations describing population genetics almost a century old. Could you stop repeating the same thing over and over again?

If natural selection is planned, if random mutation for fitness is not correct, would the evoution theory be abandoned by science, or would the theory be changed to accept this fact?

Granny Magda writes: The idea that humans evolved to a certain point, only for A&E to have souls inserted into them like so much jelly in a doughnut, is not only palpably stupid, it is in contradiction of known facts about human evolution. If there had been such a pairing, they would show up in our genomes.

molbiogirl writes: .You cite an expert and then reject that expert's findings.
You don't get to pick and choose the bits of the paper you like, shadow.
The guy said, and I quote: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. ... 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.

He doubts it, but cannot absoutley refute a dramatic change in the way we understand evolution.

Why would the fact that evolution is planned by a Creator invalidate date all of the evolutionary scientific findings?

I think this runs into a definitional issue of what exactly everyone means by macroevolution.

I have previously provided research that suggests epigentics plays a bigger role than thought and is a major player in inheritance.

I have provided research that speaks to HGT being a confounding factor in phylogenic trees. From the look of what your researchers had to invent to address HGT it looks like a meltdown to me.

It is as solid as saying chimp-human variation is 1% then altering to 6% MtDNA SNPs....what they choose to count, don't count, miss and misrepresent is as clear as mud...

Like any desperately needed item that has no alternative, other than creation, TOE will be patched, fixed and modified for eternity rather than letting it die a graceful death, as I and other creationists would recommend.

A theory in continual evolution itself with little if any predictive ability, that is also unfalsifiable, will continue to reinvent itself without any assistance from creationists.