Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?

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?

I stand corrected. Thank you.

The way I read Shapiro and apply it to Dr. Wright is that there may be "directed" mutations, ie mutations that are beneficial, and that "purilfying selection" a selection that destroys deleterious mutations takes over so the benefical mutations provide the beneficial apparatus.I may be totally wrong, and I am sure the scientific experts on this board will correct me if I am wrong.

I am torn as to whether there can be random mutations, but not convinced they do not occur. I do not rule out selection, but what I have a problem with is that this whole process of evolution is toatally random, accidential and w/o purpose.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that is the big difference between Science and the Law; in science there is no desired outcome.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Shapiro in his paper of 2010 wrote: So Shapiro is not stating that Natural Genetic Engineering is a fact, but it is a hypothesis on evolutionary change, the enviroment, and sentience in cells, and the origins of macroevolution. He does not believe the modern synthesis explains these issues completely.He discusses a regulatory/cognitive view of evolution, which is a far cry from random mutation and accidential changes.
I tend to agree with him.I cannot speak for him but I think as a scientist he knows that he may be right or he may be wrong, so he will not answer with a yes or no. Rather he is saying this is what I opine from my research and is throwing it out to the scientific community or debate.

That you tend to agree with him is why you will ultimately fail.Stop and think.What will a cell use for cognition?What will a cell use for sentience?Sorry but there is simply nothing available to think with.The most that can be said is that there might be some response (chemical and physical) to specific stimuli.But there is no thought, no direction, no design.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

But you miss my point with your last paragraph. I am not a "woo believer" whatever that means. I am a person who believes in creation in some manner by a supernatural being, and a person who, after trying many medical and product liabilty cases knows that scientists do not have all the answers and are not always correct.The controversy, as I see it, is whether there is something more than accidential, natural causation of the eloquent evolution we see in this world.The symmetry of the Universe, the complex wonderful life forms, the physists who say but for one change in the chemical makeup of the beginning of the universe, we would not be here.You believe in "natual creation", I do not.So when a scientist discusses directed, non random causes, it reinforces my belief that the universe and life are not random accidents.
That in fact there is a plan that is being carried out in our universe.
You may laugh at me, that is your right, but every day scientists who are not as you say creationists are putting forth new studies that lead to the conclusion of some planned, "engineered, if you will" program.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well we try, but it gets tedious when you continually ignore our corrections and repeat the same mistaken arguments again and again.For instance your description of 'purifying selection' is nonsense. Purifying selection doesn't take over, it is simply one result of ongoing natural selection, and by acknowledging its role in this situation you are conceding that your fabulous "directed mutation" mechanisms are producing deleterious mutations which need to be weeded out.Which is essentially what everyone has been telling you all along when we point out that there is still a whole spectrum of beneficial and deleterious mutations being produced. The spectrum of mutations after selection is a completely different issue and we would expect it to be strongly weighted towards beneficial mutations.I think you need to realise that Wright's "direction" is regardless of the fitness benefits of the resultant mutation. The "direction" is simply to a specific genetic locus. Wright makes a reasonable argument that this will give an increased chance of a beneficial mutation occurring at that locus since it has an increased chance of all mutations associated with its transcriptional state. We can easily point out that this will also produce an increased chance of deleterious mutations at this locus, and this is where selection plays its part by favouring the proliferation of the beneficial mutations and tending to eliminate the deleterious ones. Again, simply wrong. The whole point of acknowledging the role of selection is that it means that evolution is not totally random or accidental. Evolution is a feedback between the genomes of organisms and their environment with the environment constraining and filtering the form of the evolving genome. Really? Excellent! Can you provide us references for 5 papers published in the last month which lead to this conclusion? So far you have managed a handful, mostly review papers, covering about a decade.It seems that you are slipping into hyperbole here.Perhaps what you meant was that every day scientists are putting forth new studies which you insist on fitting into your preconceived notions of how things should be. Which would explain why you are throwing Cairns' name around even though he has produced several papers which have effectively shown that the phenomenon he observed was not directed mutation.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

Wrights paper says it is possible "MANY MUTATIONS ARE TO SOME EXTENT DIRECTED..."That is a start to further development of the hypothesis of directed mutations in some manner and in some way.
Because it is not fully proven today, does not mean it won't be in the future.
You close your mind molbiogirl too quickly.

I'm guessing you wrote the following sentence and accidentally attributed said sentence to AZPaul3

quote:

---

These scientific papers I have cited and others I will cite in the future on this thread, reinforce my belief that there is more to life than natural accidential occurrences.

---

Looking forward to the next paper.

If you read the postings on this board in reply to the scientific papers I cite, there is a definite desired outcome that the current theory of evolution not be challenged.

I'm sorry but that is totally false, simply not true.The current theory of evolution is the result of 150 years of successful challenges. That is how it has changed.What will assure your utter failure is that you have a desired outcome.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Those are the issues we may well solve in the future with unbiased scientific research.

Stop and think, please.What can a cell use for cognition?What can a cell use for sentience?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!