Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?

Hi Shadow,Most of Jar's post was on-topic. You seem to be focused on a portion that if pursued would draw the thread seriously off-topic. We'd really rather see your responses to the recent messages about your interpretation of Pigliucci, but that being said I'll answer one of your questions since the answer is short. No, of course not. He is saying that most Christians reject creationism (which is just bad science), not God. Most Christians have no problem with the modern findings of science.So do the explanations of what Pigliucci was saying make sense to you?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Learn to read.I said "Creationism".

---

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

I have never said they should not be part of the modern synthesis, I am of the opinon they go beyond the MS and change the nature of evolultion from only random mutation and natural selection.Shapiro in his new book "EVOLUTION
A view from the 21st Centurystates that novelity in evolution arises not by selection but by INNOVATION. He says without variation and novelty selection has nothing to act upon. So in his opinion, based upon his research and his study of the research there has to be a new paradigm for the theory of evolution.I agree with him that the MS is in fact in need of replacement based upon the new developments since the MS and Shapiro's natural genetic engineering concept.

Is he saying that we don't know how to reconcile micro with macro evolution?That's how I read the quote when he states we don't know how to reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity...So in other words we are not sure micro leads to macro, and we know for certain in some cases it does not, but so what, the Theory does not need a new paradigm.He is pretty straight forward isn't he?

I guess I have a serious misunderstanding of what is meant by "Creationists" on this board.I believe that God created the Universe and all within it. So I am called a "Creationist" on this board.
I have often written on this board that I have no problem with evolution, just that I believe it is planned, created, by God.The letter that Jar cited signed by the 13,000 clergy refered to God our Creator.So can one believe in God as our Creator, and still not be a "Creationist?" I don't agree with all of the explanations. I can't agree that the MS that Pigliucci says does not need replacement by a new more complete theory, cannot explain how micro leads to macro in some cases and not others.

There are few who would disagree with this, certainly no one in this thread unless they want to be picky about how this is phrased. And about this Shapiro quote: Few would disagree with this, either, but most people here believe this "basic fact of life" has already been incorporated into our ideas. You've been saying this over and over and over again in this thread, and the answer is always the same. We know that that's his opinion, and we congratulate Dr. Shapiro for finding a way to garner a lot of attention, but he's just one guy and he doesn't seem to be convincing many of his fellow biologists. That includes Pigliucci.In the end the labels we put on ideas are unimportant. It is the ideas themselves that count, and it appears to most people that Shapiro is trying to give a new label to ideas that have been around a while.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

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.

And if only there was such a thing as a Nobel Prize in the Bleedin' Obvious, Shapiro would be a strong contender.Perhaps his book should be called "Evolution: A view from the nineteenth century"; or maybe: "What evolutionary biologists have been patiently explaining to anyone who'd listen for the last 152 years". They do.For the n+1^th time, our ideas do not require modification in the light of things that we already know, because the things we know are in fact our ideas.This, too, is bleedin' obvious, yet you are having a singularly hard time grasping it.Our knowledge of genetics requires modification to incorporate the facts about genetics that we haven't found out yet. It already incorporates the things that we have found out.

So do I. Probably most non-atheists/non-agnostics believe God created the universe. Me too. We have differences, but in the broad brush we believe pretty much the same thing in this regard. Of course.Very generally, a creationist lets his religious beliefs guide his thinking in areas having nothing to do with faith. In science this means which theories he chooses to accept is guided by faith and revelation instead of evidence.If the modern synthesis is replaced it will be because the evidence indicates it is no longer an accurate model. Semantic arguments can perhaps fuel long bulletin board discussions, but they're far too insubstantial to invalidate theory. The modern synthesis combines genetics with evolution, and none of the discoveries you've mentioned fall outside either genetics or evolution. We've learned a great deal about both in the past century or so, but nothing that isn't either genetics or evolution. Even if we discover that DNA is capable of planning and forethought and carefully designs each and every mutation, it's still genetics.--Percy

Anyone saying "Darwin was completely wrong!" or "Darwin was completely correct!" would be wrong.
He is not famous for being 100% correct.
He is famous for pointing us in the right direction with high accuracy. Iam not talking about details.It is about the powerful (or not) role of information on evolution, to the extent that it reduces randomness role on mutations. Please dont misinterprete me. Idon't implay an ID idea

---

Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.

But to what extend those Darwinists do they accept the idea of importance of the environment and so the information in directing evolution? It seems to me very wrong and unscietific to deliberatly shut the eyes in facing a new possibly wright story, just from the fear of danger of the IDers having an advance.This is my strong impression in my reading of the relevant postings

---

Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.

If you mean that the environment is the information you keep referring to, then I'm sure you'll be very glad to hear that the "Darwinists" take it into account completely. You might've heard one refer to it, they call it "natural selection". Since they already take the environment into account, I don't see how they are "shutting the eyes".

I cite what B. WRIGHT says:
"As this minireview is concerned with the importance of the environment in directing evolution, it is appropriate to remember that Lamarck was the first to clearly articulate a consistent theory of gradual evolution from the simplest of species to the most complex, culminating in the origin of mankind (71). He published 1809, the year of Darwin's birth. Unfortunately, Lamarck's major contributions have been overshadowed by his views on the inheritance of acquired characters. In fact, Darwin shared some of these same views, and even Weismann (106), the father of neo-Darwinism, decided late in his career that directed variation must be invoked to understand some phenomena, as random variation and selection alone are not a sufficient explanation (71). This minireview will describe mechanisms of mutation that are not random and can accelerate the process of evolution in specific directions. The existence of such mechanisms has been predicted by mathematicians (6) who argue that, if every mutation were really random and had to be tested against the environment for selection or rejection, there would not have been enough time to evolve the extremely complex biochemical networks and regulatory mechanisms found in organisms today"
I dont think that what she as reffering towith "environment in directing evolution", was natural selection.

---

Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.

I think the topic is something we all can argue about eternally.With Lamarkian style epigenetic inheritance, HGT and Chaos theory and the demise of gradualism with PE, are any of these researchers, evolutionist or otherwise, able to say anything definitive at all about TOE.The chaos theory of evolution | New ScientistThe point for me being that evolutionists already have a new theory of evolution, really. The only thing that has remained the same since Darwins day is "It all evolved".

Yup, that's how science as opposed to superstition works; and there is still no other model that has ever been presented or that has any evidential support.

---

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