Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?

Wow, so Shapiro agrees with Shapiro as well, all we need now is Shapiro to agree and we'll have a universal scientific consensus.TTFN,WK

I never claimed Cairns claimed directed mutation, I merely pointed out his paper casts doubts on the Luria & Delbeck expertiment allegedly showing random mutations.The only reason I mentioned Zheng, is that he said random mutations is a null hypotheisis, ie it may be the default hypothesis, but it is not proven.

Shadow 71 writes:I know Cairns and others have challenged the Luria & Delbuck experiment, but it this scientist is correct, we may have no proof of random mutations. Dr. Adequate asked me to show where Carins disputed the Luria & Delbeck experiment, and I told him to read Carins paper "The Origins of mutants" for that information. I wasn't talking about Zheng in that reply.

I was pointing out there is authority for my assertions.Do you reject Shapiro out of hand?

Yes, Cairns 1988 paper did cast some doubt. And, as you also know, other experimenters pointed out potential errors in Cairns work shortly after the 1988 paper was published.But more importantly, in Cairns 1998 paper, the one quoted by molbiogirl, Cairn describes further research which removed the doubt cast by the 1988 paper. It is pointless to continue to cite Cairns "Origins of Mutations", at least for the purpose of casting doubt on Luria & Delbeck's experiment.Your nonsense regarding Zheng has been addressed elsewhere.

I accept that you did not mean to refer to Zheng in your reply, but Dr. Adequate certainly actually asked you to quote Zheng since you said that Zheng was the basis for your excitement.Here's what you said in Message 265So who is "this scientist" in your post. It's clearly Zheng and not Cairns. Whose work is featured in Message 265?So given your claim in Message 265, who do you expect Dr. Adequate was asking you to quote for the principle that there is no proof of random mutations in Message 270?Instead of speculating on what a null hypothesis might be and on what evidence for that null hypothesis there might have been in Zheng's paper based on reading a two line summary, Dr. Adequate asked you to cite Zheng actually saying that there was no proof of random mutation. The idea that you were being asked to cite Cairns for something you claimed to have gotten from Zheng is silly.

No he didn't. Read it again:"where certain changes are non-random with respect to their potential biological utility."Potential biological utility is not fitness.

In science, it is the data that matters, not authority. Do you accept Shapiro without understanding the data?

Shapiro overstates things a bit, and I believe you do as well.
Hypothesized overstates Darwin's position and "postulated" is definitely incorrect for characterizing Darwin's position regarding random changes. Darwin's work does not depend on mutations being completely random. Speculated would be a more accurate characterization.Shapiro is closest to being correct when he talks about Darwin postulating 'numerous, successive, slight variations'. In chapter II of Origin of Species, we can understand that Darwin speculated on many sources of variation including Lamarkian variations.From Chapter II of Origin of Species

quote:

---

Some authors use the term 'variation' in a technical sense, as implying a modification directly due to the physical conditions of life; and 'variations' in this sense are supposed not to be inherited: but who can say that the dwarfed condition of shells in the brackish waters of the Baltic, or dwarfed plants on Alpine summits, or the thicker fur of an animal from far northwards, would not in some cases be inherited for at least some few generations? and in this case I presume that the form would be called a variety

---

In my view, it seems that Darwin speculated that some types of environment driven variations might be inherited.In other words, the ultimate source of variations might have been directed by the environment, random, or some combination, but in each case, variation would have still have plugged right into Darwin's theory of speciation. Darwin's focus was of course natural selection working on variations of whatever source to produce species.So yeah, Shapiro is wrong about Darwin. Edited by NoNukes, : fix some typos

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.

Reference my Message 296I note you acknowledged my message 296. Then you continue with this same "Null hypothesis = not proven" BS.I must assume one of the following:1. You acknowledged my message without reading it.2. You read my message but did not comprehend its content.3. You read and comprehended but choose to ignore its content.Which is it?I think this community deserves an answer so we know what kind of person we're dealing with here.Edited by AZPaul3, : mechanics. Mom whould really be PO'd if she saw that.

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.

I read your message #296. When you use language such as "rectally ejected" I just refuse to reply to that type of nonsense.

I interpret Shapiro as meaning fitness. If he did not mean random mutations for fitness, he would have just answered my question no.

I have told you many times that I do not know the data, or understand all of the data.I assume you and Shapiro understand the data and I rely on Shapiro's statements in papers as to what the data means.
That is what I mean by authority.I am sure that if you publish papers you interpret what the data means and give your interpretation to your readers.Then your readers will be able to tell others what your position is based upon your interpretation of the data.Using your protocol, no lay person may read a scientific paper and comment on it.