Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?

Couple of words about that paper.One. This paper has never been cited. By anyone. Ever.
Two. It was published in a rinky dink backwater South American journal which no one cites. Source.That's pathetic. Seriously.

That's an understatement. That's going to be news to the scientists who have written over 51,000 papers on epigenetics. Source.And I betcha it's gonna be a big surprise for the folks that authored over 39,000 papers on epigenetics and evolution. Source.

No question about that, Jar.What's a girl to do?I've spent the last two weeks just trying to get him to cite the literature.

It looks like I'm not the only one linking her to Sheldrake. Source.And looks like she's a Discovery Institute girl. Source.Ho's an HIV denialist too. Source.And it looks like she has a problem with the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Source.Homeopathy, biophotons, morphic fields, quantum healing, radionics, polyphasic water, HIV denialist, antivaxer, Discovery Instituter, and she denies the 1st and 2nd laws of thermo!Now that's a CV!

You cite an expert and then reject that expert's findings.
You don't get to pick and choose the bits of the paper you like, shadow.
The guy said, and I quote: Period. End of sentence.You are not an expert.
He is.
Those are his conclusions.
There's no "But but but he's an atheist!"You gotta problem with the atheist's conclusions, you cite one of those creo papers you go on and on about (and have yet to produce).

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.

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.

From Pigliucci's book, Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science. Darn that Pigliucci. His words keep getting in the way of your ideas.

Notice the names in the middle of your quote? Eldredge & Gould?
Notice the names in the quote I posted upthread? Eldredge & Gould?He's talking about E&G because they are credited with a little something know as punctuated equilibrium.Now let's take a peek at this bit of your quote: Pigliucci's talking about gradual change. And about how micro to macro doesn't always occur gradually. Sometimes the change from micro to macro occurs real quick! Hence the "punctuated" in punctuated equilibrium. He is not talking about micro not leading to macro.Now let's take another look at that quote from upthread! See how I did that there? E&G linked micro to macro.Furthermore, had you bothered to read the paper you quoted, you would have noticed that E&G are part of what Pigliucci calls the ES, not the MS.See? Right here in the section called An Extended Synthesis? And right here? Just a little bit later in the section? Did you get a chance to skim the conclusion? Now let's take one last look at a snippet of your quote. The MS. Not the ES.Howzabout you show me where Pigliucci said micro doesn't lead to macro? That would be mighty impressive.Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

Huh. So, on the one hand, Pigliucci believes that E&G linked micro to macro. On the other hand, he denies that micro leads to macro? That's fascinating.Funny, tho.I don't see micro mentioned in that quote. Can you point that out for me?Hey, shadow. You wanna know where he talks about micro & macroevolution? In his books. You know where else Pigliucci talks about micro and macro evolution? In his debate with Hovind. Have a listen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj0m6GrFR3AYou know where else Pigliucci talks about micro and macro evolution? On his blog. As a final note, in perusing his blog I found this. LOL!
Have you two met?

I think you might mean Dr. A? Pigliucci used his physics metaphor to illustrate just this point.

I'm assuming you know about as much about physics as you do about biology. QM describes things at very small scales. GR describes things like ordinary stuff (Newtonian stuff) and special relativity. Both QM and GR have been thoroughly tested. Both have passed with flying colors.The Theory of Everything is (according to wiki) Hard. But not impossible. The Grand Unifying Theory, which unified electromagnetism with the strong and weak forces, is considered to be a "step" toward the TOE. Lots and lots of physical observations (like dark matter) have been explained by the GUT. But the TOE is incomplete. Gravity needs to be tied in.For our purposes, QM = micro, GR = macro, GUT = MS, TOE = ES.Are you arguing that since we can't, in Pigliucci's words, "get a physicist to give you a full account of what goes on in your living room -- at the quantum level", the GUT is invalid? Are you arguing that QM doesn't "lead to" GR? That they are fundamentally two different things? Cause that ain't what Pigliucci says. And I guarantee you, a buncha physicists would have your head onna stick.Both the GUT & the MS have been, again in Pigliucci's words, tested and found to "by means of an established theory and the available empirical evidence [linked the micro & macro]". He is simply trying include a few things (see Figure 1 in his paper) to establish an ES, just as the physicists are trying to include gravity in the GUT to establish a TOE.You are just another creo/IDiot who "either [misunderstands] the issue or ... [is] deliberately distorting it to serve [his] inane agenda."ABE: Over the weekend, I thought of another metaphor. Neuroscientists are currently unable to fully explain the mind in terms of the brain. Would you therefore contend that brain and mind are two entirely separate phenomena? Would you then contend that the brain does not "lead to" the mind?Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

I figured you'd go the ghost-in-the-machine route. No neuroscientist worth his spit buys that crap. And neither does Pigluicci.Here's Pigluicci on Descartes and dualism: And you side stepped the physics question. Does QM lead to Newtonian physics? I am not talking about Shapiro. I am talking about Pigliucci. And Pigliucci said: And Pigliucci said: That is crystal clear. Unambiguous. Pigluicci is saying the exact opposite of this: And, finally, from his blog, here's Pigliucci on Shapiro:

You didn't bother to listen to the Hovind Pigliucci debate, did you?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj0m6GrFR3AAt 20:39, Hovind specifically addresses micro v. macro, using his banana/dog schtick. Pigliucci’s response at 27:45: Is that clear? Micro leads to macro. Period. End of sentence.

Interciencia? A backwater Venuzuelan "journal" that ranks below journals from Nigeria, Bulgaria & Tunisia in cites? A "journal" that ranks 16,154 out of 18,750? A "journal" whose scientific influence is rated at .03 (compared to Nature whose scientific influence is rated at 17,588)? Source.You wanna know who else has a scientific influence rating of .03? International Tinnitus Journal, Saudi Dental Journal & Indian Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases.And a paper that hasn't been cited? At all? Ever?By an author whose paper The Risks of Tilapia Culture in Venuzeula got more cites than the paper you quoted?By an author who, in nearly 30 years of publishing, manages, at best, 2 cites for one of his papers on aquaculture?Way to pick em, dude.