Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?

How? What would be the protocol?Have you put together experiment plan?Will you share it with us?

In that some organisms may have developed an evolutionary mechanism by random mutation that allows them to identify and combat parasites by incorporating a portion of the invaders genome into their own thereby allowing them and their offspring to quickly identify like invaders and have responses ready that were already learned by random mutation and selection.The mechanism appears to be specific to specific classes of pathogens and thus can be called dedicated. The evolved processes have been developed and put in place by random trial and error over many millions of years and are thus now non-randomly invoked by the presence of the specific pathogens.None of this in any way indicates any directed intelligence performing predetermined modifications to the host genome for specific pre-need purposes. None whatsoever. That does seem to be your purpose here.What changes do you think your references would require of the Modern Synthesis?

You answer my question first and I'll answer yours in kind.

In a broad sense the "information" content of the genome changes with random mutation (to include insertion, frame-shift etc.) and the resulting phenotype is matched against the "information" of the environment. The "information" in the environment determines if the "information" in the genome continues as part of the larger population or if it is lessened or eliminated from the larger population.

I have a thick skin. No 'jerk' assumed.If you comprehended the papers you have been citing you would have answered your own question. All of them cite the usual and customary mechanisms to evolve what can now be seen as embedded non-random responses to external stimuli.Similar, indeed, to the evolved non-random responses some people have to certain plant pollen: blind chemical cascades evolved to fight the effects of some specifically irritating external stimuli. If you comprehended the papers you have been citing you would see the error in your statement.