Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?

However, none of this complication requires directed mutations or throwing natural selection out the window. So you want to replace a well supported theory with your prognistications? Really?

You're a hoot, shadow.This guy says "that natural selection is a major mechanism of diversification of biological forms [is] still valid and at the core of evolutionary theory".He says "biology is a clear example of a science that has proceeded at least since 1859 ... without any [paradigm] shift."He says "none of these additions have in any way undermined the foundations of the Darwinian edifice."That's his expert opinion.Just as it's Shapiro's expert opinion that there is a paradigm shift. From Shaprio's book ad: "James A. Shapiro's Evolution: A View from the 21st Century proposes an important new paradigm for understanding biological evolution."You can't have it both ways. They're both expert opinions. Dismiss one as "just an opinion" and you must dismiss both.

Shadow seems to think that if he can put a doubt in the mind of the jury he can overturn science and reality. That idea is simply laughable.

---

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

Hi Mazzy,You presented a lot of familiar creationist arguments, tesponding to your first item: You mean "elaborated upon and joined by other evolutionary processes." You might want to check out Tempo and Mode in Evolution by George Gaylord Simpson, published way back in 1944.In order to make a case for modifying or replacing the theory of evolution it would seem incumbent upon you to advance arguments that are actually true.--Percy

No, mostly because imaginary objects are extremely difficult to detect. The resulting population bottleneck however would be easy to detect. In fact, if we were all descended from two individuals, both living at the same time, it would be very obvious.It's not there.The reason I mention this is because it's emblematic of the Catholic church's position on evolution. They seem to want to have it both ways, accepting evolution on the one hand and retaining odd fragments of myth on the other. For as long as the church hierarchy insists upon inserting just a little bit of magic into its biology, it is always going to be out of step with the scientific consensus. Similarly, you are doing yourself no favours by insistently scouring the scientific literature for gaps in the Modern Synthesis within which you can house the God of the Gaps.Mutate and Survive

All ideaologists are very afraid of the doubt, ie, the truth, because that challenges their beliefs and scares them incredibilty.When these very qualilfied scientists such as Shapiro and even Piglucci express findings that are incompatible with the "THEORY" they must be silenced, or in the case of molbiogirl ridiculed. The truth is so very hard to accept when it upsets the apple cart.Keep an open mind and be not afraid.

That I read and discuss views by scientist that challenge the "THEORY' really bothers you doesn't it Manny?
Well be prepared there are many more scientific papers coming out that are seriously challenging the Atheistic view of evolution, which states, there cannot be anything but nature that is driving the Universe.

It is not the scientists that molbiogirl is ridiculing, believe me.Read Message 3.If evidence is ever presented that there is any external designer, then maybe ID will become something more than a joke. But it will also mean that whatever that outside influence happens to be will no longer be supernatural, but just more pond scum.

---

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

Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion?No?
I thought not.

quote:

---

Well be prepared there are many more scientific papers coming out that are seriously challenging the Atheistic view of evolution, which states, there cannot be anything but nature that is driving the Universe.

---

There is no atheistic view of evolution.

---

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

BTW ..LUCA is dead due to HGT, so there is no Last Universal Common Ancestor..or at least that is flavour of the year. So there goes that irrefutable evidence that turned out to be a delusion.
Horizontal gene transfer - WikipediaHere is an article that speaks to John C Sanford's work on genetic entropy, seeing as you doubt there is creationist research out there. It is just not so well funded. It does not matter that evolutionary researchers try to refute it because they refute each other all the time on pretty much everything and still manage to all agree 'it all evolved'. Likewise creationists agree "God created it".Mathematics Of Evolution
John C. Sanford - WikipediaSanford is a well credentialed ex evolutionist turned YEC.I also am not an expert in genomics. However I can undertand this.."A major conclusion of the work is that for some organisms, possibly including humans, continued evolution will not translate into ever-increasing fitness. Moreover, a population may accrue mutations at a constant rate -- a pattern long considered the hallmark of "neutral" or non-Darwinian evolution -- even when the mutations experience Darwinian selection."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2009/11/091102171726.htmWould you or anyone suggest this is not a paradigm shift? Indeed new models have been invented to address HGT in compartive genomics"BGC is thought to be strongest in regions of high recombination, and can cause harmful mutations can spread through populations. The results lead to the provocative hypothesis that, rather than being the result of Darwinian selection for new adaptations, many of the genetic changes leading to human-specific characters may be the result of the fixation of harmful mutations. This contrasts the traditional Darwinistic view that they are the result of natural selection in favour of adaptive mutations."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2009/01/090126203207.htmDoes anyone think the fixation of harmful mutations is in line with all the woffle and models about beneficial mutations and fitness?Yep....the TOE is a theory in evolution. It will modify and reinvent itself because there is no replacement.TOE is continually modified as the history of evolutionary thought highlights, so this is a mute point.Should TOE be replaced. Yes....but if not with a creationist model..then what have evolutionists got left to offer?.Edited by Mazzy, : more info

Actually, it isn't necessary for ideologues to "silence" Pigliucci when he says: "This, contrary to the misleading claims of creationists and other pseudoscientists, is no harbinger of a crisis but rather the opposite [...] none of these additions have in any way undermined the foundations of the Darwinian edifice". They can just make-believe in their heads that he's saying the exact opposite.And Shapiro, being a more obscure writer, is even easier for them to misunderstand.

Isn't science the study of nature? Or to the Pantheist, isn't science the study of nature and God?Will these purported 'papers' be published in ArchivX, Pubsci, Nature, Science, or any other peer-reviewed journal, be it online or print. Would they even be published in Discover or National Geographic? Or is it World Weakly Daily?Also, as usual, I agree with jar, there is no 'atheistic' view of evolution, there is only evolution. Change over time is a fact. Change over time due to natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, and a few more I don't have at the tip of my finger is a theory as well established as relativity or gravity, meaning it has a huge amount of evidence compared to any blatantly and obviously anti-enlightenment objection.Perhaps you should spend some time learning outside of various authoritarian entities, be they some home schooling cult or any other anti-human system and actually learn something about science, all major religions, and the humanities.Edited by anglagard, : title and emphasis

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

Jar, thats pretty eloquent, you quote yourself to prove your point. Get a life. Have you read the papers of Shapiro et. al that I have cited on this thread?
Do you disagree that these scientlist are in fact questioning the MS as presented?

As usual, you seem to be disguising your ignorance behind a veil of incoherence. This lie would have been even funnier if you'd made some token effort to substantiate it. They've got this marvelous thing called the TOE. Which incorporates such phenomena as HGT and biased gene conversion. Of course Sandford's nonsense isn't a "paradigm shift". To produce a paradigm shift it is not sufficient to be original, you also have to be right, which is kinda where Sandford falls down. Like the periodic table, then.