Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?

Please point out where your quote:

quote:

---

The CRISPR system is an elegant, effective, and fluid mechanism of defense against foreign genetic elements (Fig. 4). It is rightly described as an adaptive immune system, which evolved long before its famed namesake. Interestingly, CRISPR's ability to acquire a resistance phenotype and pass it to progeny could be construed an example of a soft, or Lamarckian, mode of inheritance. One could also view this from a conventional Darwinian perspective, where pressure exerted by the environment simply selects the fittest. However, armed with knowledge of the molecular basis of this response, CRISPR-cas does seem to fit more firmly with a Lamarckian paradigm, in essence because increases in fitness do not rely on random mutations but on a much more specific acquisition of genetic information from environmental sources.

---

mentions "dedicated, nonrandom, beneficial change"?

---

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

Does the term "dedicated, nonrandom, beneficial change" appear in your quote.A simple yes or no should suffice.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

---

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

I think that it is totally irrelevant whether they hold that opinion or not.In addition, the authors opinions are not relevant to the topic itself.As I pointed out in Message 3: If you look at your OP you will see that you are discussing "directed evolution", and dedicated, nonrandom and beneficial have nothing to do with some directed or drive evolutionary system.You are quite simply, trying to palm the pea, misdirect the audience, con the rubes. create an attractive rabbit hole.And you also refused to answer the question.Does the phrase "dedicated, nonrandom, and beneficial" appear in either the abstract or the article?

---

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

Dedicated and Directed are not synonymous.

---

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

If it is a natural process then no supernatural being need apply.

---

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

No, I do not agree that it says or implies what you seem to allege that it says by quote mining the passage and taking pieces parts out of context.

---

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

As posted in Message 3:I really don't see much if any point to the topic.Looking at science, when sufficient evidence is found to require a modification to a theory and when a mechanism is found that explains the model and mechanism that accounts for the new evidence then theories change.So far nothing in Shapiro's work seems to require such change or is unexplained. Further he in no way points to any directed non-natural methodology.