Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?

Wounded King writes:Not necessarily, it is just that there is no evidence for such mechanisms operating in metazoa, and such mechanisms would need a radically different operation in large multicellular organisms compared to unicellular ones.If we look at Wright's mechanism for instance it rapidly becomes clear that in an organisms with a sequestered germline you aren't going to see the same interaction of genome to environment in terms of de-repression of genes in response to a challenge. Consequently the bias for mutations in transcriptionally active sites will not be towards metabolic genes triggered by the response.Instead we might expect to see a pattern of bias towards genes transcriptionally active in germline development and early embryonic development. Such genes would be likely to affect survival of the particular cell lineage in which a mutation arose and, arising early, such a lineage would be likely to have a chance of contributing substantially to the germline.TTFN,WK

Wounded King writes:Well the idea from Wright's article is that the bias towards derepressed/transcriptionally active genes focuses mutation, good and bad, on those genes. Over the entire population this may lead to a higher proportion of beneficial mutations suitable to the current stress. In this new speculation we might say that it will tend to make early development more robust.TTFN,WK

shadow71 writes:jar writes; I have never said that Creationism and Intelligent Design are science.
I have read and quoted experts on this board who disagree with some very important tenets of the modern synthesis and have taken the postion that the modern synthesis's postion that "secular naturalism" is not the explanation of evolution.
I may be wrong, but you may be wrong.Why are you so upset that someone may disagree with you?

shadow71 writes:Are you agreeing that these are non-random mutations that are beneficial for fitness?

shadow71 writes:I'm glad you enjoy them. Perhaps you will also learn something from them.

shadow71 writes: In a court of law I, as the attorney, present the Expert, in this case Shapiro via his papers that contain the data, and then with the evidence admitted into evidence, I interpret his testimony in my argument to the jury. That is what I am trying to do in this thread.

shadow71 writes: I was under the impression that Darwin and the "neo-Darwinists" and the current modern theories did not recognize that evolution is sensitive, that cells directed movements of their parts, that the plant cells contains "brains".

shadow71 writes:I am torn as to whether there can be random mutations, but not convinced they do not occur. I do not rule out selection, but what I have a problem with is that this whole process of evolution is toatally random, accidential and w/o purpose.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

shadow71 writes:Shapiro in his paper of 2010 wrote: So Shapiro is not stating that Natural Genetic Engineering is a fact, but it is a hypothesis on evolutionary change, the enviroment, and sentience in cells, and the origins of macroevolution. He does not believe the modern synthesis explains these issues completely.He discusses a regulatory/cognitive view of evolution, which is a far cry from random mutation and accidential changes.
I tend to agree with him.I cannot speak for him but I think as a scientist he knows that he may be right or he may be wrong, so he will not answer with a yes or no. Rather he is saying this is what I opine from my research and is throwing it out to the scientific community or debate.

shadow71 writes:If you read the postings on this board in reply to the scientific papers I cite, there is a definite desired outcome that the current theory of evolution not be challenged.

shadow71 writes:Those are the issues we may well solve in the future with unbiased scientific research.

OliverChant writes:One last thing what proof is there we are currently evolving?