Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?

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?

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:

Reality is not affected by what you can or cannot accept.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Shapiro's natural genetic engineering is based upon a process that relies on escalating random mutation at the genome based upon a biochemical cascade from an outside stimulus to a specific locus in the genome developed over billions of years of intra-cellular trial-and-error (read mutation and selection).Shapiro's natural genetic engineering is based upon a process that you seem hell-bent to misrepresent.If Shapiro and Wright and Pigliucci are right then these unplanned natural mechanisms will become additional vectors of hereditary change within the Theory of Evolution. Descent with modification, random mutation and natural selection, will not have been overturned. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Then you mis-understand their positions and the mechanisms they propose.Try again.

Hi Shadow71,I think you're misdefining the modern synthesis when you say this: The modern synthesis does not stipulate inclusion of "random mutation for fitness and natural selection." The modern synthesis combines what were formerly two independent fields: genetics and evolution. Genetics includes random mutation, but it is not limited to random mutation. Anything else we find out about genetics, such as epigenetic mechanisms that affect gene expression, is still genetics and therefore part of the modern synthesis.In the same way, evolution includes natural selection, and anything additional we find out about evolution, such as drift, is still evolution and therefore part of the modern synthesis.The modern synthesis does not itself say anything specific about genetics or evolution. It is merely a recognition that the changes we see expressed in organisms over time are intimately tied to genetic mechanisms within the cell. The modern synthesis never had all the answers. Probably no theory has all the answers. You don't want to make "doesn't have all the answers" your criteria for discarding a theory because then you'd have no theories left. Again: modifications to evolution and/or genetics would not have any impact on the modern synthesis. The modern synthesis combines the two fields and evolution and genetics, and so it automatically includes all new developments in those fields.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix bad grammar.

And this affects the modern synthesis how? Yes, of course it would have to be modified. What has that to do with the modern synthesis?I think you've got a definitional problem. Many times in your posts when you actually mean the "modern synthesis" you're instead saying "evolution" or "theory of evolution" or "TOE". They are not synonyms. The modern synthesis encompasses all of evolutionary theory, including all new developments and findings. It also encompasses all genetics, including new developments and findings.The definition of the modern synthesis is a simple combining of two fields that were discovered to be closely interdependent. Only the discovery that we were seriously mistaken, that in reality there is no intimate link between genetics and evolution, could cause the modern synthesis to be discarded or replaced.--Percy

Definition of information:
Data that (1) has been verified to be accurate and timely, (2) is specific and organized for a purpose, (3) is presented within a context that gives it meaning and relevance, and (4) that can lead to an increase in understanding and decrease in uncertainty.The value of information lies solely in its ability to affect a behavior, decision, or outcome. A piece of information is considered valueless if, after receiving it, things remain unchanged. For a technical definition of information see information theory.

---

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

I've been staying out of the discussion about information because there is so little agreement in this thread about the nature of information, and some are even confusing it with knowledge. For discussion of information to be productive it needs to be placed in a formal context. This is the first mention of information theory in this thread, and I think moving the discussion in that direction would be a good idea. Information theory has a formal definition of information where it can actually be quantified.--Percy

Fantastic. Now pick one of the four definitions, put it in context of information theory and explain how exactly that applies to Jewish Wizard Magic and we're off to the races.

In any case information is not God.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

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

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.

This decision making does not include deciding which mutation to create. The mutations seen in subsequent generations are random with respect to fitness. Therefore, this does not go "beyond nonrandom mutations" where it concerns evolution of populations.

Baloney. You are saying just the opposite. You are saying that you DO KNOW how evolution occurs, and it occurs through mechanisms that are not a part of the modern synthesis. And yet you could not get Shapiro to state outright that mutations are not random with respect to fitness. He danced around it at every turn. But they are random with respect to fitness even if they are not random with respect to time or genomic structure. The planned genetic engineering processes increase the random mutation rate during times of stress. No need for a rewrite of the modern synthesis.

Then why is Shapiro suddenly an expert on random mutations? Can you? You are the one who keeps citing Shapiro when you claim that mutations are nonrandom. You tell us, and be specific where it concerns the supporting data.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.