Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?

First, Cairns et al refuted directed mutation. Emphasis added. Source.Second, you misunderstood Zheng. Just admit it.He said the evidence for directed mutation is weak.

Cairns' "challenge" to Luria & Delbeck WAS directed mutation. Source.The title of his paper that followed his 1988 Origins of Mutants in 1992 is THE MECHANISMS OF DIRECTED MUTATION.Unfortunately for Cairns, a bunch of labs jumped on his directed mutation idea and tried to replicate it. And guess what? Source.And then guess what happened?
Cairns had to walk back his directed mutation bullshit.
Hence the quote I provided earlier. You continue to misunderstand null hypothesis.Would legalese help? Would you say that when the null hypothesis is confirmed by a jury it has been proven?Look at it this way.
The goal is to DISPROVE the null hypothesis (that the accused is innocent).
If you do not DISPROVE the null hypothesis (convince the jury that the accused is guilty) then the null hypothesis (that the accused is innocent) is PROVEN.
Zheng did not DISPROVE the null hypothesis; therefore, random mutation is PROVEN.Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

One more thought on your difficulty understanding the null hypothesis.Would it help if Zheng used the word "proven"? Cause he did. Emphasis added. Source.FYI, Lenski was challenging Cairns' directed mutation bullshit.
And it was mathematically proven.

Given that you've chosen to ignore nearly my entire post, I will restate my objections.Here is your original claim. When I pointed out that Cairns backpedalled his "challenge" as fast as he could, you resorted to backpedalling too. What, praytell, was Cairns' "challenge" to random mutation if not directed mutation?When you first mentioned Zheng, you said: When it was pointed out that you misunderstood "null hypothesis", you repeatedly stated: Do you, or do you not understand, that if the null hypothesis is NOT DISPROVEN the null hypothesis is considered, for all intents and purposes, PROVEN?Zheng is a mathematician. In the paper I presume you read, Mathematical Issues Arising From the Directed Mutation Controversy, Zheng set out to untangle the math used by Cairns. Zheng is offering ALTERNATIVE explanations to directed mutation. NOT supporting directed mutation.Here's the bottom line.
You misunderstood Zheng as supporting directed mutation. He didn't.
You picked a REALLY bad paper by Cairns to support your claim of directed mutation. Even Cairns doesn't support directed mutation these days (after getting his ass handed to him by other labs).Can you cite any papers that support directed mutation?

Let's look at what Wright says. Hm. Sounds an awful lot like random mutation.Let's look further. OK. Same old, same old. Transcription rates go up, mutation rates go up. Notice that careful wording? NOT RANDOM IN THE SENSE THAT.
In other words, non random in ONLY ONE WAY (the location).
Which base will mutate? At what position in the gene? In a coding or noncoding section?Huh. Still sounds random with respect to fitness.Let's keep looking. Now look at that.
Completely random, undirected mutation is responsible for the evolution of higher organisms.Golly gee.
Looks like this paper doesn't say what you want it to say.You think directed mutation means a tailor made genetic solution for an environmental problem. (That's not how Wright understands it, btw. Only you.)
Can you cite a paper that shows directed mutation as you understand it?
Let me get real specific for you.
"Directed mutation" in something OTHER than a bacteria or a yeast?

She's talking about "microorganisms, from phage to fungi".
I was quoting her passage on "higher organisms".
See? In the passage you quoted? You do understand that there are 2 million species on this planet, only 9000 of which are microorganisms, right?
Wright claims that for 99.5% of the extant species on earth, mutation is completely random and undirected.
Care to dispute Dr. Wright's findings?Cite a paper that supports directed mutation in something other than a microorganism.I see Wounded King is handling your continued misunderstanding of "directed" but I would like to repeat: Notice that careful wording? NOT RANDOM IN THE SENSE THAT.
In other words, non random in ONLY ONE WAY (the location).
Which base will mutate? At what position in the gene? In a coding or noncoding section?Do you, or do you not, understand what is being directed? THE LOCATION ONLY.
Don't ignore my question this time. Since, as you insist, there's an abundance of creo research, let's see some.
In fact, why don't you dig up a creo paper on directed mutation in something other than a microorganism?Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

Yes.Now. Since Wright contends that 99.5% of all mutations are random and undirected, let's see you cite a paper that supports directed mutation in something other than a microorganism.And, once again, don't ignore the question. Just provide a cite. Here's a definition of directed. Source. However, that's not what happens.Neutral mutations accumulate. Source.Deleterious mutations accumulate too. Source.In the words of an author who collaborates with Cairns. FAILED. Source.Guess what it's called when beneficial, neutral and deleterious mutations accumulate and are sorted out by natural selection?Random mutation! (Just in case it needs to be said again, random with respect to fitness.)You know who claimed that only beneficial mutations accumulate?Cairns!And you know in which paper?The one he had to refute in a later paper!Remember? Source.Tell you what.How about you provide a cite for directed mutation in a microorganism in which only beneficial mutations are produced?And make it after 2004. After Cairns tucked his tail in between his legs and admitted he had failed.Hey. Here's a thought. Show me where in Wright's paper she claims that only beneficial mutations were produced!

You can't find an example of directed mutation in something other than a microorganism, so you change the subject?Fabulous.
You cite Cairns.
Cairns refuted his paper.
You cite Zheng.
You get his findings exactly backwards.
You cite Wright.
Wright claims mutation is random and undirected in 99.5% of all extant species.And now you're trying to cite that nutbag Ho.
Antivaxer Ho. Source.
Homeopathy Ho. Source.
Miracle water Ho. Source.
Quantum medicine Ho. Source.And to top it off, you "cite" an opinion piece she wrote for an interest group she founded!Get real.Cite a paper in the research literature that supports your contention of directed evolution in higher organisms.Directed evolution.
Got it?
That's your claim.
Back it up.Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

I have a hard time with scientists who buy into woo and try to support it with "research".Here's what I mean: Source.Ho is getting signals from outer space!Agree to disagree, AZ?

The very least shadow can do, then, is cite her work, not her loony tune musings on ISIS.I looked, btw, and she hasn't published anything on directed evolution or directed mutation.

Ho has written one paper on epigenetics.
In 1978.How about discussing the paper and not her wackadoo crap from ISIS?

I am discussing Ho.
Ho is a nutbag.Provide evidence of directed evolution in higher organisms.
Or admit defeat.

Here's a pubmed search of Mae-wan Ho.Care to show me the "many" papers on epigenetics?

Papers published in the research literature I hope.
I provided a pubmed search in my prior post in case you need a little help finding them. I read plenty of this woman's addled rambling yesterday. Here's a taste: Ooooooooo!

We're talking Rupert Sheldrake levels of delusion here. Morphogenic fields, biophotons, etc. Take a look at the talk she gave for the Radionic Association.Just a taste. What's "radionics"? So glad you asked. The woo is strong with this one.