Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?

Scientists and geneticists have proven that all humans have one common ancestor. The bible in the Genesis ch.1 account clearly says that Adam and Eve were the first humans on earth and we are their offspring. Even scientists today debate amongst themselves about the theory of humans evolving from apes but if you believe in God's Word which is the Truth then all other explanations of how humans came to existance would be null and void.

Scientists and geneticists have proven that all humans have one common ancestor. The bible in the Genesis ch.1 account clearly says that Adam and Eve were the first humans on earth and we are their offspring.

Even scientists today debate amongst themselves about the theory of humans evolving from apes

Still have not seen any positive proof that we are evolving though?

shadow71 writes: I think Shapiro is saying Macro evolution cannot take place as per the current evolutionary theory. that Macro changes are a result of Natural Genetic Engineering processes that cause change in a relatively short period of time. Then micro evolution takes over.

If a mutations beneficial and deleterious are directed to a specific locus, and then purifying selection deletes the deleterious mutations, isn't that a process which selects beneficial mutations that were directed to that locus?

shadow71 writes:I understand that the beneficial mutations are being directed to a locus only, along with deleterious mutations, and purfyilng selection eliminates the deleterious mutations, thereby allowing only the beneficial mutations to proceded. that appears to be directed for fittnes to me.

OliverChant writes:Still have not seen any positive proof that we are evolving though?

NoNukes writes: Okay. That's a pretty clear statement.Can you support your interpretation as expressed above with quotes from Shapiro's paper?

Shapiro from "Mobile DNA and evolution in the 21st century" writes: Although there remain many gaps in our knowledge, we are now in a position to outline a distinctively 21st century scenario for evolutionary change. The scenario includes the following elements:(1) hereditary variation arises from the non-random action of built-in biochemical systems that mobilize DNA and carry out natural genetic engineering;(2) major disruptions of an organism's ecology trigger cell and genome restructuring. The ecological disruptions can act directly, through stress on individuals, or indirectly, through changes in the biota that favour unusual interactions between individuals (cell fusions, interspecific hybridizations). Triggering events continue until a new ecology has emerged that is filled with organisms capable of utilizing the available resources;(3) ecologically-triggered cell and genome restructurings produce organisms which, at some frequency, will possess novel adaptive features that suit the altered environment. Novel adaptive features can be complex from the beginning because they result from processes that operate on pre-existing functional systems, whose components can be amplified and rearranged in new combinations. Competition for resources (purifying selection) serves to eliminate those novel system architectures that are not functional in the new ecology;(4) once ecological stability has been achieved, natural genetic engineering functions are silenced, the tempo of innovation abates, and microevolution can occur to fine-tune recent evolutionary inventions through successions of minor changes.This 21st century scenario assumes a major role for the kind of cellular sensitivities and genomic responses emphasized by McClintock in her 1984 Nobel Prize address [1]. Such a cognitive component is absent from conventional evolutionary theory because 19th and 20th century evolutionists were not sufficiently knowledgeable about cellular response and control networks. This 21st century view of evolution establishes a reasonable connection between ecological changes, cell and organism responses, widespread genome restructuring, and the rapid emergence of adaptive inventions. It also answers the objections to conventional theory raised by intelligent design advocates, because evolution by natural genetic engineering has the capacity to generate complex novelties. In other words, our best defense against anti-science obscurantism comes from the study of mobile DNA because that is the subject that has most significantly transformed evolution from natural history into a vibrant empirical science.

NoNukes writes: Shadow71, your statement seems pretty close to the conventional thinking, shadow71. So I know I must be misunderstanding you. What do you mean when you say "purfyilng selection eliminates the deleterious mutations".

shadow71 writes:Not sure of the accurracy of this, but I take it to mean that all mutations that are not beneficial are destroyed, or not picked, in some way.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

shadow71 writes:Not sure of the accurracy of this, but I take it to mean that all mutations that are not beneficial are destroyed, or not picked, in some way.

Not sure of the accurracy of this, but I take it to mean that all mutations that are not beneficial are destroyed, or not picked, in some way.

Is the above statement;" Completely random..." a quote from Wright?

I understand that the beneficial mutations are being directed to a locus only, along with deleterious mutations, and purfyilng selection eliminates the deleterious mutations, thereby allowing only the beneficial mutations to proceded.

A definition of adaptive mutation is that only useful, not deleterious or neutral, mutations occur during selection (7, 12, 29).

To date, two cases of neutral mutations occurring at higher frequencies than expected among selected mutants have been published.

First, lethal mutations remove cells from the mutagenized population and reduce the potential yield of individuals with a beneficial mutation.Second, even genomes that acquire a beneficial mutation (without suffering a lethal mutation) are likely to acquire deleterious nonlethal mutations.

The controversy surrounding adaptive mutation originally centered on whether and how selected mutations could arise when neutral or deleterious mutations did not.The two criteria for this selectivity were: (a) nonselected mutations did not occur during selection; and (b) the selected mutations did not arise under nonspecific stress, such as starvation.As discussed above, several prominent examples of adaptive mutation have failed one or the other of these tests.

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

(This) allowed us to dismiss the hypothesis that the selective conditions instructed the cell to make appropriate mutations.