Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?

It appears to me that you conflate Lamarck with epigentics. I'm also not clear on what you wish us to take away from with your link? Is there some specific point you wish to make that is supported by your link? Please be a little more specific.

Please use your own words. Why does the theory of evolution require directed mutations and the absence of natural selection? As I have shown multiple times, the mutations that Shapiro talks about are random, not directed. Also, Shapiro directly states that these mutations are subject to selection.

I agree. All recent fidings in evolution biology tent to support this view.but this does not mean that we have to accept inevitably Supernatural interfearence. It can be other evolutional mechanisms than could "make the decisions",as e.g Neural System, (http://www.sleepgadgetabs.com) in metazoa with neural tissue, or engineering systems and maybe other systems yet unkown ,in bacteria.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

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

Shapiro states that engineering mechanisms systems is geared on by environmental factors. this isthe crucial undeniable finding , which gives a non randomness sense on the mechanism.This of course can be resulting from evolution and not a matter of Teleology.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

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

The product of these "engineering mechanisms systems" is random mutations that are then passed through natural selection. Shapiro points to the SOS mechanism in E. coli as one example. One of the most popular examples is lac revertants where mutations in a broken beta-galactosidase produces a functional enzyme capable of metabolizing lactose. These mutations are not stimulated by the presence of lactose. Rather, the E. coli increase their mutation rate in response to starvation, or DNA damage to be specific. Nowhere in the process does the E. coli sense the presence of lactose and then mutate the specific gene in a specific manner. The mutations are random with respect to fitness just as the Modern Synthesis states.Shapiro dances around these facts by stating that genetic engineering systems produce more mutations that have a higher probability of changing function. However, these mutations are still random. It is equivalent to buying more lottery tickets to increase your chance of winning. The fact that you buy more lottery tickets does not suddenly make the lottery non-random.

The mutations that Shapiro talks about are random with respect to fitness as I have pointed out time after time. On top of that, these random mutations are subject to selection. How could they not be? Can you point to any paper written by Shapiro where detrimental mutations are passed on at the same rate as beneficial mutations?

Shapiro treats the matter very serioucly and scientifically.He does'nt give any Teleology meaning in his nonrandomness.. I suggest an excellent article by him, The Third Way. Iquote:"Unfortunately, readers of Boston Review may remain unaware of this intellectual ferment because the debate about evolution continues to assume the quality of an abstract and philosophical "dialogue of the deaf" between Creationists and Darwinists. Although our knowledge of the molecular details of biological organization is undergoing a revolutionary expansion, open-minded discussions of the impact of these discoveries are all too rare. The possibility of a non-Darwinian, scientific theory of evolution is virtually never considered. In my comments, then, I propose to sketch some developments in contemporary life science that suggest shortcomings in orthodox evolutionary theory and open the door to very different ways of formulating questions about the evolutionary process. After a discussion of technical advances in our views about genome organization and the mechanisms of genetic change, I will focus on a growing convergence between biology and information science which offers the potential for scientific investigation of possible intelligent cellular action in evolution."--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is this your way to serve science by distorting others sayings? So information = God!!! !!!. Great!--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

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

Notice that my complaint is a that your side of the debate is a lack of definition for the word "information".Your response does not provide a definition. It just accuses me of distorting what you are saying.Really? Am I? In what way? How about you provide a working definition for "information" complete with examples and some method of testing.Then detail exactly how it is different from the word "God".Or, you could just reply again with the same lame "you're being mean" post and we'll know you've got nothing.

Shapiro writes: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."p.2 I cannot accept that these functions are randomly performed. I interpret Shapiro accepting that these functions are not random, and that his natural genetic engineering functions cannot be random.When he says;"Our current ideas about evolution have to incorporate this basic fact of life."What else could he mean than the ability of living organisms to alter their own heredity is beyond the Modern theory ?

Back in the 1920's the modern synthesis combined evolution and genetics. Is there anything Shapiro is proposing to add that isn't either evolution or genetics?--Percy

there is a theory that addresses your point.
Descartes theory of dualism, this quote is from wilkipedia"A generally well-known version of dualism is attributed to Ren Descartes (1641), which holds that the mind is a nonphysical substance. Descartes was the first to clearly identify the mind with consciousness and self-awareness and to distinguish this from the brain, which was the seat of intelligence. Hence, he was the first to formulate the mind-body problem in the form in which it exists today.[4] " I am arguing that both Shapiro, Pigliucci and others are saying that the theories of microevolution and macroevolution are not able to be reconciled at this point..
That they arise separately, and as of now it is not fully known what drives them.
Are they the result of natural genetic engineering?
Are they random mutation for fitness and natural selection?
Are they planned?
Science cannot answer these questions today.So today we cannot reconcile them. Thats what I am saying. By Percy's definition, I don't think I am a "Creationists" as defined on this board. Not sure about the "idiot" issue.

Shapiro writes:
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." What I am saying is that how evolution takes place is not fully known. I am saying that Shapiro and others are questioning the validity of random mutation for fitness and natural selection as the complete answer to the theory of evolution.Shapiro's natural genetic engineering is based upon a process that cannot be completely random.Would you agree, that if in fact there is a planned natural genetic engineering process, the TOE as we know it today would have to be modified?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I am saying is that, even though the modern synthesis combines genetics with evolution, it still is not able to explain everything by random mutation for fitness and natural selection.
Shapiro is talking about a natural genetic engineering system, that by definition I believe is not random.As I understand it "epigenetics" is not caused by random mutation, since genetics is not involved, but it is still a cause of a type of evolution.So the modern theory as we know it today, does not have all the answers, and in fact theories such as Shapiro's, Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Barbara Wright and many others are talking about "planned", "directed" mutations et. al.If DNA is capable of planning and forethought and careful design of mutations, would you agree that the TOE as known today would have to be modified?

Shapiro does not talk about random mutations. Here is a quote from his book p. 6 Can you really say Shapiro is talking about "mutations" that are random?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------