Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?

I am not a scientist, how can I present data? I can only read the papers of the scientist who have presented the data in their papers. Shapiro presents the data, I present his findings from the data per his papers.
Using your procedure, only scientists could post on this board.There have to be positions presented from the data outside the mere mechanical physical and chemical data.The scientists on this board must be open to causation that flows from the data.

Are you agreeing that these are non-random mutations that are beneficial for fitness?

The paper below which can be accessed atThe ‘root-brain’ hypothesis of Charles and Francis Darwin - PMCseem to be going in the same direction as Shapiro et. al in re communciation properties, even in plants.The ‘root-brain’ hypothesis of Charles and Francis Darwin
Revival after more than 125 years
Frantiek Baluka,1 Stefano Mancuso,2 Dieter Volkmann,1 and Peter W Barlow3
1IZMB; University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
2LINV; Department of Horticulture; University of Firenze, Sesto Fiorentino (FI), Italy
3School of Biological Sciences; University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Corresponding author.
Correspondence to: Frantiek Baluka; Email: baluska@uni-bonn.deReceived November 9, 2009; Accepted November 10, 2009. Other Sections▼
AbstractIntroductionCharles and Francis Darwin and their Revolutionary BiologyThe Darwins’ ‘Root-Brain’ HypothesisRecent Support for the Darwins’ ‘Root-Brain’ HypothesisRoot Tropisms: From Sensory Systems to Motoric SystemsEscape Tropism of Illuminated Roots: Stress Situation for the Whole SeedlingNeurobiological View of the Plant Body Solves the Recently Introduced ‘Schizophrenic’ Apical-Basal DichotomyBose’s Unity of Life and Ockham’s Razor UpdatedOutlook: Complex Social Life of Plant RootsReferencesAbstractThis year celebrates the 200th aniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, best known for his theory of evolution summarized in On the Origin of Species. Less well known is that, in the second half of his life, Darwin’s major scientific focus turned towards plants. He wrote several books on plants, the next-to-last of which, The Power of Movement of Plants, published together with his son Francis, opened plants to a new view. Here we amplify the final sentence of this book in which the Darwins proposed that: It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the tip of the radicle thus endowed [with sensitivity] and having the power of directing the movements of the adjoining parts, acts like the brain of one of the lower animals; the brain being seated within the anterior end of the body, receiving impressions from the sense-organs, and directing the several movements. This sentence conveys two important messages: first, that the root apex may be considered to be a ‘brain-like’ organ endowed with a sensitivity which controls its navigation through soil; second, that the root apex represents the anterior end of the plant body. In this article, we discuss both these statements.Key words: auxin, cognition, plant neurobiology, plant tropisms, roots, sensory biology, signaling Other Sections▼
AbstractIntroductionCharles and Francis Darwin and their Revolutionary BiologyThe Darwins’ ‘Root-Brain’ HypothesisRecent Support for the Darwins’ ‘Root-Brain’ HypothesisRoot Tropisms: From Sensory Systems to Motoric SystemsEscape Tropism of Illuminated Roots: Stress Situation for the Whole SeedlingNeurobiological View of the Plant Body Solves the Recently Introduced ‘Schizophrenic’ Apical-Basal DichotomyBose’s Unity of Life and Ockham’s Razor UpdatedOutlook: Complex Social Life of Plant RootsReferencesIntroductionRecent advances in plant molecular biology, cellular biology, electrophysiology and ecology, unmask plants as sensory and communicative organisms, characterized by active, problem-solving behavior.1—6 This new view of plants is considered controversial by several plant scientists.7 At the heart of this problem is a failure to appreciate different living time-scales: plants generally do not move from the spot where they first became rooted, whereas animals are constantly changing their location. Nevertheless, both animals and plants show movements of their organs; but, as mentioned, these take place at greatly different rates. Present day results,8—13 however, are increasingly coming to show that, in contrast with the classical view, plants are definitely not passive automatic organisms. On the contrary, review they possess a sensory-based cognition which leads to behavior, decisions and even displays of prototypic intelligence.4,12 Other Sections▼
AbstractIntroductionCharles and Francis Darwin and their Revolutionary BiologyThe Darwins’ ‘Root-Brain’ HypothesisRecent Support for the Darwins’ ‘Root-Brain’ HypothesisRoot Tropisms: From Sensory Systems to Motoric SystemsEscape Tropism of Illuminated Roots: Stress Situation for the Whole SeedlingNeurobiological View of the Plant Body Solves the Recently Introduced ‘Schizophrenic’ Apical-Basal DichotomyBose’s Unity of Life and Ockham’s Razor UpdatedOutlook: Complex Social Life of Plant RootsReferencesCharles and Francis Darwin

I really don't base by religious ideas on biologists. I have had my religious beliefs for many years and they have continually gotten stronger as my life and experiences have unfolded.What I am saying in this thread is that Shapiro and those in the school of communicative cell discoveries, are reinforcing my religious beliefs.
If I am wrong about these biologists, it won't change my religious beliefs. I understand what Shapiro is saying in "natural genetic engineering" but he nor any scientist is the last word on the cause or initiator of these discoveries.In the end for this subject it all comes down to the Orgin of Life.

I'm glad you enjoy them. Perhaps you will also learn something from them.

Catholic Scientist writes; This quote is from the paper "the root-brain hypothesis... cited in my message The paper clearly is in line with what Shapiro is saying about cells in his papers .The plant cells are capable of cognition and communciative systems such as those in animals and human societies that improve their fitness and further their evolution.Thus these cells are, per Shapiro's papers also beyond the tenets of the modern synthesis, and in my opinon that suggests planning and not randon mutation and selection.
I cannot prove this at this point, but it is a valid interpretation of a planned process .

Do you agree that she is proposing that her paper does support non-random mutations for fitness?
And if so is that in conflict with the modern synthesis?

It is your opinion that I misinterpret Shapiro's findings. He said I understood them pretty well.In a court of law I, as the attorney, present the Expert, in this case Shapiro via his papers that contain the data, and then with the evidence admitted into evidence, I interpret his testimony in my argument to the jury. That is what I am trying to do in this thread.

She does not mention neutral and detrimental mutations, but only those that are non-random for fitness.

You are right that the attorneys arguments are not evidence, but the attorney comments 0n and interprets the evidence, i.e. the data in this case and Shapiro's testimony and opinions, and the jury then makes a decision on the isssue.In re the Expert. The evidence would be presented by the Expert under direct examination by Plaintiff's counsel and then cross examination by defendants's counsel
The data would be admitted by both the experts testimony and the admission of the papers into evidence.The jury, in some cases, may even take the actual papers with them to the jury consulation room where they reach their verdict.There is no hearsay problem under that procedure.

taq writes; I interpret the above part of the quote to mean the non-random mutations she discussed provided a benefical adapation of the organism to its new enviroment.

Please see my message 171 that explains how the evidene is presented at trial.

I agree with Wounded King.And I haven't come across any papers that have challenged Shapiro's papers, findings or opinions.

Dr. Wright writes-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I interpret that to mean that a mechanism is limiting the mutation rates to non-random mutations to certain genes under stress would be beneficial to those genes and selected for evolution.
That is not a process put forth by the Modern Synthesis and goes beyond the modern synthesis.Here is an interesting quote from Dr. Wrights paper page 4. She seems to be challenging the experiments of Luria and Delbruck in re random mutations that Taq previously cited.
She is also saying that dominance of current is perhaps is having a negtative effect on scientists who may put forth critical or different views than the current dogma holds.It surely seems some scientists are in fact challenging the modern synthesis.

Taq, your on my territory now. You did not fully read my post or misunderstood it.
Here is my quote There is no hearsay problem under that procedure.I am clearly saying that the expert is on the witness stand under both direct and cross examination. That his testimony and ID'ed documents would also be admitted into evidence.The Dover trial was a bench trial, i.e. before a judge with no jury. However both Plantiff's and Defendant's attorneys made closing arguments to the judge as to what they believed the evidence showed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------