Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?

Unless you can come up with evidence you have nothing.And from what we've seen, you have to misrepresent the various articles you're pushing, so that they say something far different from what the authors had actually said. Examples have been provided upthread.So where is the evidence that there is any such thing as "supernatural" and that there are various deities out there?Evidence, not ancient tribal myths.

---

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

They unquestionably think that evolutionary biology today is in advance of evolutionary biology in the 1930s (the "modern synthesis", so-called). They also seem quite pleased about this fact, as is every other evolutionist.

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.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So that is a 'No' then.I didn't think you did, and you proved me correct.

I did not quote myself, I pointed out that you have added nothing that contradicts what I pointed out back in Message number three so the last 539 messages have been irrelevant.

quote:

---

Do you disagree that these scientlist are in fact questioning the MS as presented?

---

YUP.I am saying that they are NOT questioning the Modern Synthesis.

---

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

Topics are not chat lines. Get more substance into your messages.And don't reply to this message, in the context of this topic.Adminnemooseus

But see posts #194, #197, #198, #199. They are certainly not questioning modern evolutionary biology; but if by "the modern synthesis" we mean the state of evolutionary biology in the 1930s, they naturally join every other evolutionist in rejoicing at how far we've come since then

You asked me a question and I answered. That the answer was not to your liking shouldn't surprise you. Are you really yet to work out that this is a debate site? Why so shocked at an opposing view?I have already told you what bothers me. It is that those ignorant of science, a category that most assuredly includes yourself, seek to replace it with superstition. You asked me where Catholic dogma on evolution has been falsified. I told you. You have no answer, so you resort to childish taunts and whining. You misrepresented Pigliucci, several of us clearly demonstrated that his views are actually the opposite of what you claimed. You have no answer for that either, so you once again resort to whining. It is a sad spectacle. You haven't cited one yet. You are confusing Philosophical Materialism with Methodological Materialism. Try again when you have something of substance.Mutate and Survive

I heard the creationist preacher; he said:
"Evolution is constantly forging ahead
and we learn more and more every day;
from Darwin's first thoughts, it's developed at length
to a theory possessed of great scope and great strength ---
which is why we should throw it away.""By dint of research that is terribly clever
the theory is finer and better than ever
and should be dismantled for scrap;
Since Darwin first published, it's grown more profound,
and more accurate, evidenced, detailed and sound,
which proves that it's totally crap." "It's a truth that is known to the fundie elect
that every step forward is twenty steps back:
if someone grows wiser in every respect
then this proves that he doesn't know jack."And I marveled to hear as he prated at length
of how progress must indicate weakness, not strength
'til I felt I had something to add.
"If it's true what you say", I exclaimed with delight,
"that in getting much righter, we cease to be right
then all modern science is bad.""How foolish I feel to have spent my time cheering
advances in science, design, engineering,
that ought to have caused me to curse
if only I'd heeded creationist sages ---
since things have improved since the late Middle Ages
it's clear that they must have got worse." "For nothing was ever improved by improvement;
no theory that's strengthened will last very long;
to go forging ahead is a retrograde movement;
and things we've corrected are bound to be wrong.""The chemists have grown more precise and exact,
thus proving that nothing they say is a fact:
(it was better by far to be vague);
and every improvement in medicine teaches
we ought to go back to blood-letting and leeches
and die of the bubonic plague.""In math we've been having unbroken success
which informs us we're doing it wrong, I would guess
and proves, as one has to suppose
that it isn't as good as in ages of yore ---
let's return to the way that we did it before
and count on our fingers and toes." "For every improvement's a form of decline
and every advance is a shameful retreat;
when you're making no progress, you're doing just fine,
but a victory counts as defeat.""In physics, we've come very far, very fast,
which proves it was better in ages gone past
before Einstein and Pauli and Bohr.
You can keep modern physics --- I hope the whole lot'll
be scrapped, and we'll just resurrect Aristotle
and not use our brains any more.""And so" (I went on) "in biology too,
since it keeps on improving, what else should we do
but hearken and heed to your call
to set aside science, and blindly subscribe
to the primitive myths of an ignorant tribe
which never get better at all." "Increasing in wisdom's the mark of a fool
and every advance is a form of regress.
In science, let's follow this excellent rule:
there's nothing that fails like success."Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Sanford original, srsly? He's just put a shiny patina of academic respectability on Walter Remine's tired old Haldane's dilemma schtick which he's been pounding out since at least the 90s.They've even collaborated together on the "Mendel's accountant" software.TTFN,WK

Yet you don't even know what natural selection is. Shapiro talks about the role of negative selection on genetic engineering produced changes and his words won't enter your head.We know you are motivated reader who does not understand biology particularly well. You've been caught in any number of interpretation errors when reading these papers, all in favor of your own position. So why would anyone accept your reading of Pigliucci paper over Pigliucci's own interpretation?

Nice find, Dr. A!Allow me to quote the whole abstract for shadow. Are you going to dismiss this as "just an opinion" as well?
As I mentioned upthread, dismiss Pigluicci's expert opinion and you must dismiss Shapiro's.

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?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NB: Not a quotation.

Wow you just won't get the message will you no matter how many people tell you how many times. The answer is no because the MS is a very specific thing. There is no way to modify the population genetic basis of the MS to accomodate some of the events that have occurred during the diversification of life on Earth.What is required is the information and models from the other relevant fields that encompass those mechanisms distinct from microevolutionary ones and a framework on which to identify when these mechanisms have been in operation. That is why Pigliucci calls it an extended synthesis, because we need additional mechanism to explain those situations for which a molecular pop. gen. model is insufficient. In the majority of cases it probably is, but as I said in my earlier post there are obviously some evolutionary events, such as the endosymbiotic origins of mitochondria and chloroplasts, which are necessary to explain the diversity of life on earth and for which the MS is insufficient.All you have really done is change the question to what you mean by transpecific evolution. There is a very wide range of things this could encompass, from changes in recently isolated sister species to differences between the animal and plant kingdoms.So rather than quoting Mayr why don't you actually tell me what you understand transpecific evolution to mean.TTFN,WK