Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?

And if you think that happens by a cellular mechanism, you are wrong; but if you think it happens as a result of natural selection, you are right.When you clarify your statement, I fear it'll turn out that you're trying to be wrong.

Shapiro does not equate the terms "natural" selection and "purfying" selection as he told me in his e-mail reply:
I asked him;
"Do you have an opinion whether natural selection per the modern Darwinian Theory is a primary means of evolution today?"He answered:"The neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis could not account for the evolution of antibiotic resistance in the latter 20th Century. It also does not explain much in the genome sequence record"Then I asked him:Can genetic change come aboult other than by means of random mutation and natural selection?"He answered:"The genome sequence databases are full of examples, and I cite many of them in my papers."In regards to selection he stated:"Selection is unavoidable, but in my view it is a purifying rather than a creative process."

I think we are on different wave lengths. I understand Shapiro as stating macro and micro evolution are 2 differenct entities and that maco is driven by directed mutations. Another paper is a:How Development Directs Evolution Epigenetics & Generative Ddynamics" Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
http://www.energysustainability.nl/mae-wan.pdfHere are some exerpts. and later in the paper: and part of conclusion: Thus do Shapiro and HO see the future of evolution and both scientists do state a need for:The OP in this thread "Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?"the answer that "micro evolution" may not direct mutations, but rather keeps organisms as they are and "macro evolution" directs the changes per Shapiro and Ho's theories.

Selection has always been a purifying process. That is its function; to weed out (purify) the most egregious genomes from the population.I also note that Shapiro's response clearly distances himself from your "creative" bent. I suspect the tone of your communication with him let him know you are a creationist/IDist and he is running away as fast as he can. And we can cite a number of vectors of genetic change here, like viral insertion, gene flow, etc. to which I suspect Shapiro refers. No one here ever said random mutation is the only vector of change in the genome. How is he defining "neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis"? If he is referring to the 1930's version, which is the usual definition of that term, then he is correct. A whole lot of evolutionary and genetic knowledge has accumulated into the Theory of Evolution over the last 70-80 years.I think Shapiro saw you coming. He probably gets a lot of this from creationists/IDists and I suspect he is being very careful in avoiding direct explanatory answers. Why, I could not say.But here, again, shadow, you see the words and misinterpret the meanings to fit your preconceptions. "Purifying" vs "creative" selection should have been a big clue that Shapiro was not saying what you had hoped he would have said.

Shadow71, your response does not address the question at all. Let's explore this answer a bit. Shapiro's response addresses the modern synthesis and covers two things you asked in combination, namely natural selection and modern Darwinian theory. We see in Shaprio's paper that his primary objection is to random mutation, so what is his opinion on natural selection alone?I believe Shapiro addresses that unabiguously.In the statement I quoted, Shapiro says that competition for resources eliminates the novel structures that are non functional in the new ecology.Isn't that a description of natural selection? If your answer is no, I'd sure like to hear your interpretation as supported by Shapiro's own words. This is even more clearly a response to a combined question that addresses random mutation and natural selection. I'm not disputing that Shapiro discusses non-random mutation, although I do disagree with you about what non-random means.All that's necessary here is that Shapiro disagree with either the roles for natural selection or random mutation. I maintain that he does not dispute natural selection's role. Incidentally, modern theory does include mechanisms that do not include selection (e.g. genetic drift). In fact, I don't believe that the modern synthesis included genetic drift. Which means what exactly? How does Shapiro's view not agree with the standard view of selection? Does anyone think natural selection is a creative process? In fact, isn't Shapiro saying that selection does not occur within the cell during creation?In my opinion, Shapiro's words address an impression implicit in your questions that natural selection is a source of variation. That is not the case.

OK, Mae-Wan Ho I do know. Her warnings on the dangers of DNA tinkering with our present lack of knowledge are to be given much weight. A lot of respect for that lady.On epigenetics her data was a bit sketchy and still needs a lot of verification and refinement, and she and her fellow geneticists may be on to something. But it is not "intelligently directed evolution" as I hear you mean. It is Lamarckian with some modern epigenetic twists.Epigenetics is well known in evolution through cell differentiation, developmental plasticity, homoplasy, all that Evo-Devo stuff, so nothing new or spooky there.Her view that macro evolutionary change is epigenetic-driven with some yet unknown mechanism that will encode this change into the genome needs a considerable amount of work and evidence and may yet be shown deficient. If not, then just like Punctuated Equilibrium, it will be appended to the body of the Theory of Evolution, not replace it. Not at all what either of these folks said. Re-read and re-think, shadow. When there is a considerable body of evidence that some specific mechanisms impact the Theory of Evolution then they will be incorporated. You are looking, I think, to totally overturn the Theory of Evolution. There is nothing on the horizon that looks promising in that regard. You certainly haven't found it in here anywhere.Edited by AZPaul3, : spln errer

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?

... er ... Ho, ho, ho. That's good.No, Mae-Wan is not suggesting signals from space. "Quantum Jazz" is her analogy for the complex inter-relationships among all the processes, sub-atomic, molecular, intra-cellular, inter-cellular and on thru to environment (which includes th Universe) that she sees as shaping all life and evolution. A "Life Symphony" if you will. She's a jazz fan.Though she does have a bit of the "woo" side to some of her more aggressive holistic views, I will grant you that.I can respect the lady's science and intellect, if not all of her views. She is one smart cookie if a little "sideways" sometimes.Edited by AZPaul3, : clarification

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.

Nor will she. She's retired now and has that other gig dissing Genetic Modified anything. She makes a lot of good points there, but seems to get politically strident, which, IMHO, detracts from her base message which in essence is ... we have to be extra careful here because we do not yet understand the full relationships we are screwing with.But this is off topic and I've already crossed the Moose once this week. Bye.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : proofread then submit. proofread then submit. proofread then submit.

I can't speak for him but I am pretty sure he is directing his comments to the theory as it is today. I would suggest you e-mail Shaprio and ask him these questions. He was very hospitable with both my self and molbiogirl in answering our e-mails to him.
I am sure he will answer or inform you of his position on purifying
selection et. al.

I would suggest you e-mail Shapiro and ask him what you want. He was very prompt in answering my e-mail and molbiogirls e-mails. He, I am sure, would answer any questions you have.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do see some "direction", but not "determinism" in her paper. I think both her and Shapiro advocate for the position that "micro" evolution stabilizes and continues the progression of the organism, and those are genetically driven, while "macro" in a non Darwinian sense determines the evolution of organisms for major changes and those changes are not random and natural selection, but mostly enviromentally driven.

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