Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?

Hello shadow71,I see a few others have been trying to explain to you about being non-random not necessarily being decision based nor implying teleology. There's plenty of examples to draw from, but I just happened to be planting grass yesterday...The seeds were somewhat rod shaped and fell on their sides. Then when I was watering, the pressure of the water droplets forced one end of the rod to embed in the ground a little bit and the other end stick up a little. I chuckled to myself: "Gee, I hope the root ends are the ones that are sinking..."But I knew it doesn't matter, when the plant starts to grow, the roots will grow downward and the blade will grow upward, its called gravotropism <-- it:

quote:

---

Abundant evidence demonstrates that roots bend in response to gravity due to a regulated movement of the plant hormone auxin known as polar auxin transport (Swarup et al., 2005). Auxin exists in nearly every organ and tissue of a plant, however its concentration in an organ/tissue is regulated by the auxin transport, synthesis and conjugation. In roots, an increase in auxin concentration generally inhibits cell expansion. Therefore the redistribution of auxin toward the lower flank of a root, that has been reoriented in the gravity field, can initiate differential growth resulting in root curvature.

---

Can you see that the fact that they do not grow in random directions does not imply that God is determining which way the root of every planted grass seed will grow in?Can you see how all this relates to the arguments your putting forward in regards to Shapiro's work?Shapiro would seems to want to describe the gravotropism as the plant sensing gravity and deciding which way to grow. Then you would come along and argue that plants have some sort of sentient process in their root growth. I mean, obviously its non-random so it must be, right?Is this helping clear up the error of your argumentation at all?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

It seems you've missed my point. I didn't care to discuss whether or not plants have sentient properties, I was using that as an example to expose the flawed reasoning in your other arguments. How so? What does it say that goes in the same direction?

Until enough time passes and then they start referring to "Current Evolutionary Theory" as that of the 2010's....The creationists could still be saying that evolution needs to be replaced just like the OP.Its inexcapable.

See modern Some of them just think its "incomplete"...And I think this is what the OP is getting at. That there's some, uh... "freaky" mechanism in this natural genetic engineering that the current, heh, or modern, evolutionary theory is not accounting for.Oh, and that's where God probably is Obviously a beautiful example of Intelligent Design.

I tried to explain to him that nonrandom is not the same as directed a month ago in Message 125. He ignored it.He's just searching paper titles for key words like "nonrandom" and then saying they support his position without getting into understanding what the paper is actually saying.Don't waste your time.

It'd be a little more convincing that you were actually reading papers and comming to conclusions, as opposed to simply copying and pasting whole pages that include key words but that you've never actually read, if you didn't include the price of the paper in the quoted material!

Sort of, but not really. It depends on what you mean by causitice factors, and the scare quotes and scare caps make me think that you think its something different than I do. So to better understand that:What is the "CAUSATIVE FACTORS" of my desk having length?Anyways, Natural Selection is the consequence of imperfect replication in a competitive environment. If you have both those things then you have to have NS. Those are the causative factors.Its not some "thing" that had a specific cause.

Yes, but it doesn't require modification or replacement of the current Theory of Evolution because it is still random with respect to fitness.This has been explained to you for over 100's of posts over the last few months. Cite away!

Kind of, but not really. If we found that in a very specific situation that one species of bacteria had a mutation dictated by the enivronment, then that mechanism should be added to the theory. I suppose that would technically be a "modification", but it wouldn't change the fact that everything else is still evolving via mutation that are random with respect to fitness.