Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?

Both Shapiro and Pigliuccci are saying that micro and macro evolution are not the same, ie. macroevolution is not just gradual micro evolution.
If correct does that require a change to the MS?

Is there a scientific paper that finds "the soul" would have a genetic marker?

Emphasis mine.
He doubts it, but cannot absoutley refute a dramatic change in the way we understand evolution. Yet his paper is full of examples that the MS does not deal with.
So it's his OPINION that the scientific findings he cites do not change the theory, that is not a fact.

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.

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?

Yes I do. I will be posting scientific papers in the future. Because of my Grandfather joys I may not be on board for awhile, but I will post the papers for discusion when I have the available time.Looking forward to discussing them with you.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Both Shapiro and Pigliuccci are saying that micro and macro evolution are not the same, ie. macroevolution is not just gradual micro evolution.
If correct does that require a change to the MS? Mayr stated in his 1963 book "Animal Species and Evolution" that the synthetic therory maintains that all evolution is due to the accumulation of small genetic changes guided by natural selection, and that transpecific evolution (macroevolution) is nothing more than an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species (microevolution).Is that a a valid definition today?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Accepting that there is a Supernatural Being who created, and continues creation, you are correct.
We as human beings have no control over what might happen.
What was there before the big bang.
Did gases, matter etc. just occur out of nothing w/o a Supreme Being creating it.
We are way off thread now, but can you tell me what there was, what existed before the Big bang?.

Here are 2 quotes from Shapiro's recently released book,EVOLUTION
A View from the 21st Century
June 2011
You can find on Amazon"In the context of earlier ideological debates about evolution, this insistence on randomness and accident is not suprising. It springs from a determination in the 19th and 20th Centuries by biologists to reject the role of a supernatural agent in the religious accounts of how diverse living organisms originated. While that determination fits with the naturalistic boundaries of science, the continued insistence on the random nature of genetic change by evolutionsts should be surprising for one simple reason: empirical studies of the mutational process have inevitably discovered patterns, environmental influences, and specific biological activities at the roots of novel genetic structures and altered DNA sequences. The perceived need to reject supernatural intervention unfortunately led the pioneers of evolutionary theory to erect an A PRIORI philosophical distinction between the "blind" processes of hereditary variation and all other adaptive functions. But the capacity to change is itself adaptive. Over time, conditions inevitably change, and the organisms that can best acquire novel inherited functions have the greatest potential to survive. The capacity of living organisms to alter their own heredity is undeniable. Our current ideas about evolution have to incorporate this basic fact of life."pp2-3"Genomes are sophisticated data storage organelles integrated into the cellular and multicellular life cycles of each distinct organsim. Thinking about genomes from an informatic perspective, it is apparent that systems engineering is a better metaphor for the evolutionary process than the conventional view of evolution as a selection-biased random walk through the limitless space of possible DNA configurations." p.6 Shapiro does and it makes sense

The major biologists who are responsible for the MS determined that all evolution had to be random and accidental in order to eliminate any possibility of a Supreme Being, Creator.
That is an athestic position, followed by many scientists led by Dawkings, Coyne et.al.

I did not say it was a quotation. I don't know what NB means.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My point is that many of the other revelant fields do not accept random mutation and natural selection or do so as a lesser fundamental causing the changes in the evolution of organisms.Shapiro has stated clearly that the information based natural genetic engineering process does not rely on random and accidental change.To my thinking these are findings that require a change to the modern theory of evolution.

Darn that Pigliucci. His words keep getting in the way of your ideas.

What Pigliucci is saying is that microevolution does not lead to macroevolutionary changes. They are two different entities.
Macro changes are novel adapations that require changes at multiple locations and can arise within a single generation (per Shapiro) while micro is basically stability.So the MS did not recognize this and held that macro was a result of gradual micro changes.
Pigluicci is saying that is not so, and so the ES must recognize Macro as a different entity from micro.