Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?

I have also included some evolutionist PRATTs that demonstrate the sorry state of TOE and its constant need for rescussitation from a zombie state by more and more convoluted theories to explain what was not predicted by current researchers, let alone Darwin.Edited by Mazzey123, : No reason given.

You made arguments for evolution that creationists have rebutted a thousand times? Where? And more importantly, why? Split personality?What you did was make a large number of familiar creationist arguments against evolution that have been rebutted thousands of times, and that are not the topic of this thread. That's why instead of addressing them I asked if you have any specific suggestions for how evolution should be modified or replaced in order to be better aligned with the available evidence. You can still use your PRATTs, but it would be nice to narrow it down to just one or two. At a time, anyway.--Percy

Molbiogirl wasn't arguing against epigenetics. She was arguing against directed evolution.--Percy

I mean it in the way shapiro in his paper " Mobile DNA and evolution in the 21st century" has described it; This seems to me more sophisficated that random mutation and natural selection.
I read Pigliucci as advocating the new ES reducing the role of natural selection. It seems to show some type of planned information in evolution that to some may indicate a planned evolutionary process.

Shapiro and Pigliucci and finding that evolution is much more complicated then the MS describes it.
Creationism does not require a radical change. If in fact the information systems are more complicated than the MS and micro and macroevolution are driven by two different programs then it may well be that in the future it will be recognized that all things were planned to great specificty.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why did Pigliucci see the need for him to write about what he sees as a need for an ES?

You have just described a feedback mechanism. Nothing very unusual about that.Example: plants follow the sun. I think to call this "information driven" is to exaggerate what is actually happening to try to drag in the latest great hope of creationists, their unique interpretation of "information."

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

LOL. You can not be serious.ALL of science is based on one great assumption: "Reality is real"In order to adopt Creationism, you must void that assumption.Doing so completely undoes EVERYTHING that science has ever done. Every experiment, every observation, every discovery, every tool, every measurement, every invention, every deduction. All of it - gone.If Creationism is correct, then when flipping a coin 1,000 times, instead of getting roughly 50% heads and 50% tails, you are just as likely to get a donkey appearing in mid-air.

Yawwwn, indeed as we have all agreed from the start because the MS is a series of mathematical formulations describing population genetics almost a century old. Could you stop repeating the same thing over and over again? What am I, psychic? I'd suggest pragmatically that one possible reason is that coining a term that then goes into popular usage can be a good way to get your names in the textbooks and ongoing citations. Maybe he thinks a catchy title will encourage people to focus on the specific areas of research he considers most important. Maybe he wanted to write some sort of overall precis of current evolutionary theory and the direction he sees it going for those outside the field.TTFN,WK

But don't you see, or do agree not to see, that this is a very different system than random mutation and natural slection? Pigliucci cannot use those terms because he is an Atheist dedicated to the BELIEF not scientific fact that evolution cannot be planned.Shapiro has the intestinal fortitude to say what his research reveals, not what the protectors of the MS say you must say. If these "modifications" did require a significant change in the MS would you acknowledge that Manny? You will never accept the possibility that these modifications might change the theory significantly, so in a way you are being as pig headed as you accuse me of being. This may be off thread, but I would like to know what Catholic dogma you refer to as being falsified by known facts.

I find it fascinating that absolutely NOTHING has been advanced since Message 3, including the sub-title.

---

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

The assumption that "reality is real" has nothing to do with how evoultion came about or how it works.If evolution is in fact planned by a Creator, how does this change how Science investigates what has and is happening.If the Unvierse and all in it was created by a Supernatural Being, that does not in any way negate the scientific findings.
It only negates the belief of SECULAR HUMANISM that decrees all scientific findings must be natural, not Supernatural.So "Reality is real" is not affected by whether it is created by a Supernatural Being, or it started by natural means.

This assertion is only valid IF your claim is that the Universe was created by a "supernatural being" who then had absolutely no further interaction whatsoever.In which case, the assertion is also useless.It's exactly as valid as this claim: "I, Nuggin, created the Universe and everything in it exactly the way it is."You can neither prove nor disprove that.You might as well claim that the Universe was created by a supernatural being which was first created by the Universe. Equally worthless assertion.Now, if you are asserting that there is a supernatural wizard, that he created the Universe and then had ANY interaction with it whatsoever, then you must completely void "reality is real".You must accept that at any given moment, the outcome of any given event, is basically completely random. Nothing is predictable at all.This cosmic wizard can step in at ANY TIME, in ANY WAY, and do ANYTHING. Flick a light switch, an elephant appears in your pocket. Totally possible under your new rules.

But the important point is that neither RM nor NS has been overthrown. They remain central to the modern theory. The MS has only been added to since it was founded, exactly as one would expect from decades of cumulative research. This is, of course, complete crap. If Shapiro had any justification for his claims of intelligence, then there would be no need to consider anyone's religious views. If it was justified by the evidence, he would have no problem convincing others of his case. The reason that he does not isn't because of some atheist conspiracy of silence - always a bad argument, since the ToE is widely believed across religious boundaries - it's because he has not justified his hyperbole with evidence. I don't know what you expect to gain from this. What I would or would not accept is not really the point. I would say that any findings that eliminated the roles of RM or NS would be a major modification, but that has not happened. And you, over five-hundred posts, are yet to show a glimmer of an inkling of awareness that you might simply be wrong. The Catholic dogma on evolution still includes Adam and Eve. Laughable! The idea that humans evolved to a certain point, only for A&E to have souls inserted into them like so much jelly in a doughnut, is not only palpably stupid, it is in contradiction of known facts about human evolution. If there had been such a pairing, they would show up in our genomes. They do not. The Catholic church is still clinging onto simple-minded superstition, when there is good concrete science available. I can see where you get it from.Mutate and Survive

Translated from creationist into reality, evolutionary biologists have made many interesting discoveries and have effortlessly incorporated them into the fabric of evolutionary biology. In opposite world, this makes it inferior to creationism, since creationists have made no discoveries and are unable to incorporate any aspect of reality into their dogma.