Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?

Hey there. You know that HGT in prokaryotes and epigenetic inheritance should just about have confounded current genomic modelling into a meltdown, I would think."Most thinking in genetics has focused on vertical transfer, but there is a growing awareness that horizontal gene transfer is a significant phenomenon. Amongst single-celled organisms it may be the dominant form of genetic transfer."
Modern synthesis - Wikipediahttp://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2011/02/110217141307.htmI think Mendellian population genetics has been confounded by Lamarkian style inheritance in epigenetic inheritance and Darwin has been outdated as too simplistic.http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2009/05/090518111723.htmI think current thinking about Darwinian evolution requires replacement, maybe a Creationist model would be more parsinomous with current knowledge.

Hey there,Isn't Pigliucci a philosopher rather than a credentialed scientist?Quote Granny Magda:"He could almost be talking about you. Did you even read that before you quoted it? He's saying that you're wrong Shadow. He's saying that what modifications must be made to the MS are not sufficient to bring the whole crashing down. He is saying that the theory can take these modifications just fine. That is how it is supposed to work."You know that evolutionists operate from a faith that overides the unfalsifiable basis for evolutionary theory. About the only basis even Dawkins could come up with is a precambrian mammal.As you stated "scientific theories are constantly modified". Hence TOE is a theory in evolution itself and has little, if any, predictive power. An example is the human Y chromosome. It is remarkably different to the human male Y chromosome. Rather than admit they got it wrong another theory of 'accelerated evolution' is invented to explain why some genomic regions do not fit as predicted. The same happened with the death of LUCA and HGT, the same happened for Darwins gradual change with punctuated equilibrium, abiogenic single cell arising to multiple cells arising and undergoing HGT.Darwins gradual change, his theoretical basis in population genetics, TOE's reliance on Mendelian inheritance alone are way too simplistic.Epigenetic inheritance (Lamark) and HGT in both eukaryotes and prokaryotes must be confounding evolutionary modelling into a meltdown. Really all the speak to genetic markers, relics etc could be no more than fantasies and wish lists.About the only thing I see evolutionary researchers agreeing on is "It all evolved". The how, when, where and why are still up for grabs.So I'd say the faithfull that follow TOE do not care if the how, when, where and why constantly changes. These have the underlying faith that "it all evolved" so the details are irrelevant.No matter what changes or how, evolutionists will believe in a TOE. It does not matter if chimps and man are 1%, 30% or 80%dissimilar. Even if a precambrian mammal was found I doubt TOE would be tossed. Rather it would be reworked to suit, as researchers already do. eg Jehol bird fossils did not fit evo theory so the fossils redated the strata.You Can't Make a Monkey Out of Us | WIRED#
http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/22061/
Chinese fossil layers and uniformitarian re-dating - creation.comI think evolutionists need to amend their theory if they want creationists to abandon common sense and true science for myth, models based on probabilities that change like the wind and flavour of the month. eg LUCA, knucklewalking ancestry, etc...The theory of evolution is a theory in evolution itself and appears to be the only thing demonstrating macroevolution on this earth.TOE in its current state needs to be replaced or tossed.

A couple of words about your post. It appears that you are trying to minimise another posters point by denying the underlying basis of mols point that is well documented in various research even if the example given was not the best.How about something from the quarterly review of biology. In fact there are numerous papers that speak to the implications that epigenetic inheritance have for current evolutionary thinking.Here is just one...."New evidence for epigenetic inheritance has profound implications for the study of evolution, Jablonka and Raz say."Incorporating epigenetic inheritance into evolutionary theory extends the scope of evolutionary thinking and leads to notions of heredity and evolution that incorporate development," they write.This is a vindication of sorts for 18th century naturalist Jean Baptiste Lamarck. Lamarck, whose writings on evolution predated Charles Darwin's, believed that evolution was driven in part by the inheritance of acquired traits."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2009/05/090518111723.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2011/03/110323104737.htm..Another source....
Paternally Induced Transgenerational Environmental Reprogramming of Metabolic Gene Expression in Mammals: CellIf you disagree with the Mol, Jablonca and Raz and other credentialed researchers, then you had best submit a paper for critique as these credentialed researchers appear to agree that epigenetics has PROFOUND implications for evolutionary theory.and let's not forget about HGT...that also has ,major implications for your theories and models
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2011/02/110204144545.htmThese models and resulting hypothesis are already biased with the assumption of ancestry as scaffolds, and are not really robust and reliable to begin with. Below are some reflections by researchers on current genomic modelling, and I can provide plenty more.http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2011/02/110217141307.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2008/06/080619142102.htmIt will be difficult to revamp any theory with non credible computer models that appear to have a ways to go before they will actually reveal any truth, despite the biased scaffholding and presumptions of ancestry. The result is likely to be no more valid than the previous attempts to explain how, when, where and why or to make pretty simplistic pictures of a complex genomic system out of a handfull of dyed enzymes.Edited by Mazzey123, : No reason given.

I have also included some evolutionist PRATTs that demonstrate the sorry state of TOE and its constant need for rescussitation from a zombie state by more and more convoluted theories to explain what was not predicted by current researchers, let alone Darwin.Edited by Mazzey123, : No reason given.

Listen up... Darwins gradualism has been discarded, epigentics is Lamarkian not Darwinian regardless of any excuses offered to Darwin. I have previously provided research that suggests epigentics plays a bigger role than thought and is a major player in inheritance. I have provided research that speaks to HGT being a confounding factor in phylogenic trees. From the look of what your researchers had to invent to address HGT it looks like a meltdown to me.It is not about whether or not the research is right or not. It is about all this modelling and data derived from genomic models and comparisons is as clear as mud and is not solid irrefuable evidence at all. It is as solid as saying chimp-human variation is 1% then altering to 6% MtDNA SNPs....what they choose to count, don't count, miss and misrepresent is as clear as mud...The theory of evolution is a theory in evolution. Based on that fact the current thinking will replace itself. It has done so many times in the past and will do so again. There is no need to formerly call for changes or modification to evolutionary thought. Darwin is already outdated and too simplistic.History of evolutionary thought - WikipediaLike any desperately needed item that has no alternative, other than creation, TOE will be patched, fixed and modified for eternity rather than letting it die a graceful death, as I and other creationists would recommend.The only thing that has not changed is the assumption "It all evolved". It is just the how, when, where, and why that is hypothesised without certainty.A theory in continual evolution itself with little if any predictive ability, that is also unfalsifiable, will continue to reinvent itself without any assistance from creationists. It is just the way it is for theories built on the straw foundations of probabilities .Edited by Mazzy, : grammer

BTW ..LUCA is dead due to HGT, so there is no Last Universal Common Ancestor..or at least that is flavour of the year. So there goes that irrefutable evidence that turned out to be a delusion.
Horizontal gene transfer - WikipediaHere is an article that speaks to John C Sanford's work on genetic entropy, seeing as you doubt there is creationist research out there. It is just not so well funded. It does not matter that evolutionary researchers try to refute it because they refute each other all the time on pretty much everything and still manage to all agree 'it all evolved'. Likewise creationists agree "God created it".Mathematics Of Evolution
John C. Sanford - WikipediaSanford is a well credentialed ex evolutionist turned YEC.I also am not an expert in genomics. However I can undertand this.."A major conclusion of the work is that for some organisms, possibly including humans, continued evolution will not translate into ever-increasing fitness. Moreover, a population may accrue mutations at a constant rate -- a pattern long considered the hallmark of "neutral" or non-Darwinian evolution -- even when the mutations experience Darwinian selection."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2009/11/091102171726.htmWould you or anyone suggest this is not a paradigm shift? Indeed new models have been invented to address HGT in compartive genomics"BGC is thought to be strongest in regions of high recombination, and can cause harmful mutations can spread through populations. The results lead to the provocative hypothesis that, rather than being the result of Darwinian selection for new adaptations, many of the genetic changes leading to human-specific characters may be the result of the fixation of harmful mutations. This contrasts the traditional Darwinistic view that they are the result of natural selection in favour of adaptive mutations."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2009/01/090126203207.htmDoes anyone think the fixation of harmful mutations is in line with all the woffle and models about beneficial mutations and fitness?Yep....the TOE is a theory in evolution. It will modify and reinvent itself because there is no replacement.TOE is continually modified as the history of evolutionary thought highlights, so this is a mute point.Should TOE be replaced. Yes....but if not with a creationist model..then what have evolutionists got left to offer?.Edited by Mazzy, : more info

I think the topic is something we all can argue about eternally.With Lamarkian style epigenetic inheritance, HGT and Chaos theory and the demise of gradualism with PE, are any of these researchers, evolutionist or otherwise, able to say anything definitive at all about TOE.The chaos theory of evolution | New ScientistThe point for me being that evolutionists already have a new theory of evolution, really. The only thing that has remained the same since Darwins day is "It all evolved".