Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?

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.

It is a good mutation for the flue you where immune to its predecessors but not the new flue. Or the swine, bird flue who got a whole aray of new hosts humans that flue never touched us before id say its a verry good mutation for that strain of flue. change over timeEdited by frako, : No reason given.

One last thing what proof is there we are currently evolving?

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. that appears to be directed for fittnes to me.

Everything is always evolving from the basic viruses like the flue to the lizards in Australia that that stopped laying eggs and started to give live birth, the mouse that was left on some island, forgot witch, that changed so much it cannot breed with the typ of mouse that was left there and can still be found in abundance back home and only in 250 years . Why should we be the exception? What sort of "stimulates" evolution is the changes in the selective pressures that mouse for example was left in a totally different environment from whence it came so the pressures for "good" mutations was "bigger" then the pressure back home.

"And I quote evidence that we are changing."

Haha btw the lizard you are talking about is a skink that is a rare species which gives birth to live young no evolution there and the mouse could have many factors affecting a birth defect or it has no eggs in the whom?For viruses:Let’s first define life. According to the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary, life is an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.Viruses are not living things. Viruses are complicated assemblies of molecules, including proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, and carbohydrates, but on their own they can do nothing until they enter a living cell. Without cells, viruses would not be able to multiply. Therefore, viruses are not living things.When a virus encounters a cell, a series of chemical reactions occur that lead to the production of new viruses. These steps are completely passive, that is, they are predefined by the nature of the molecules that comprise the virus particle. Viruses don’t actually ‘do’ anything. Often scientists and non-scientists alike ascribe actions to viruses such as employing, displaying, destroying, evading, exploiting, and so on. These terms are incorrect because viruses are passive, completely at the mercy of their environment
Quoted by virology blogEdited by OliverChant, : No reason given.Edited by OliverChant, : not enough info

Do you even know what evolving means?You really need to learn that as a first step towards knowledge.Once you know that, then ask yourself if you are a clone of your parents?

---

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

go and compare your genome with the genome of your father and the genome of your mother you will find 4 gens (on average 4 muatations happen in humans) are different from the gens that your mother has and your father has ergo you changed from the blue print of your mother and father.You do know how reproduction works dont you your momma provides 50% of the genetic material and your papa provides the other 50% a small amount of that material is different then the material your mama and papa have gens that have mutated. so you "changed" granted a minuscule amount but you did you are different. Now if any of those mutations give you a better chance of reproduction you can be the first "transitional" human in a long line of transitional humans to the first super human. Like gengis kahn who left a specific genetic mutation to a few million of his descendants. A study found that a few million people in the area where Genghis khan lived have the same mutation on their Y chromosome the most likely candidate to have passed down this mutation is Genghis khan.As to what trait would be greatly selected for in todays society i have no idea in the near future probably mutations that give you "smarts" will be selected for. smarter----> easier at getting an education ----->>> mo money ------->>> ability to have and properly raise more kids ------>>> kids having their own mutations the noes with mutations for "smartness" follow the same principle ........why do i mention selection well because change whiteout selection is not evolution and do sent work.

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.
yahoo.answers.com
and if you please stop undermining me because of my age and just answer the questions.

well life is a chemical reaction viruses are just the simplest things some call life. To me a virus is just a simpler bundle of chemicals and chemical reactions then a cell's bundle of chemicals and chemical reactions. well yes except SAME SPECIES of lizard one state higher only lays eggshttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-skink-live-birth-eggs Well that mouse can reproduce with the mice that are on that island but it can no longer reproduce with the ancestor mice from witch it evolved the mice still found in EUROPE or are you implying that the mice on that island will die off cause they cant reproduce at all. Edited by frako, : No reason given.

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

Again, no, not quite true.We have many most recent common ancestors depending on which trait is being examined.

---

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

Again...

quote:

---

Jon in Message 292 in Peppered Moths and Natural Selection:

​

Copying and pasting in your entire post from another site is not allowed here. You should attempt to make your own reasoned argument, using other sources as support for your position.

​

You've been posting at a ridiculously high rate since you joined; so high, that it is obvious that you could not be putting much thought into your postsand it shows. You should bother to read the Forum Guidelines, and look at some of the other posts on the forums (especially the nominated PotMs) to get a sense of the type and quality of messages that is expected of participants here.

​

Doing this would greatly increase the quality and accuracy of your posts.

---

It doesn't matter if you provide the link; your posts need to be in your own words!Jon Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

---

Love your enemies!

The selection is what imparts the direction you describe through the selective maintenance of the beneficial mutations. How can you say all that and still not realise that what you are describing is explicitly not directed for fitness at the locus, because it relies on selection to weed out the deleterious mutations which is simply classical neo-darwinian evolution.The best you can say is that the increase in the mutation rate at that specific locus might produce more beneficial mutations related to the environmental trigger that caused the derepression than would otherwise have ocurred.TTFN,WK