Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?

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.

So according to your intrepretation of Wright we have a mechanism generating non-random mutations that are clearly benefical, that are then subject to selection, "purifying selection" which is defined as the selective removal of alleles that are deleterious.

I cannot summarize or interpret the data, I am not a scientist.

I have read many papers about the new findings about "intelligence" in cells, and I have come to the opininon that this tremedous communciations systems in the cells is not the result of random mutations for fitness and natural selection.

So in re your interpretation of Wright's data I cannot intelligently give you an answer.

I have been reading a few papers on phenotypic plasticity and one issue I see is that it appears that the genetic alterations by the enviroment take place within a single generation, which does not appear to fit into the gradual change of Darwinian evolution.

Shapiro also wrties about novel adaptations that require change at multiple locations in the genome that can arise within a single generation.

Is it your position that both Wright and Shapiro are unqualified scientists who do not understand the "Current neo-Darwinian Dogma" and the scientists on this board are all well qualified and infallible?

Shaprio writes:The second major aspect of evolutionary change by natural genetic engineering is that it generally takes place after an activating event which produces what McClintock called a 'genome shock' [160]. Activating events include loss of food [18], infection and interspecific hybridization (Tables 3 and 4) - just the events that we can infer from the geological and genomic records have happened repeatedly. Episodic activation of natural genetic engineering functions means that alterations to the genome occur in bursts rather than as independent events. Thus, novel adaptations that require changes at multiple locations in the genome can arise within a single generation and can produce progeny expressing all the changes at once. There is no requirement, as in conventional theory, that each individual change be beneficial by itself. The episodic occurrence of natural genetic engineering bursts also makes it very easy to understand the punctuated pattern of the geological record [161]. Moreover, the nature of activating challenges provides a comprehensible link to periodic disruptions in earth history. Geological upheavals that perturb an existing ecology are likely to lead to starvation, alteration of host-parasite relationships and unusual mating events between individuals from depleted populations.

I have just been reading some papers on "directed mutations" and one very qualified researcher QI Zheng states as follows:

It's interesting that Darwin's theory was random mutation period. Now we have studies about directed mutation, adapatilve mutation, intelligence in the cells etc. and all you regulars keep saying all's well with the theory.

Face it, the days of random mutation are gone.

I will keep reading papers and learn, while you rest in your complacency.

The above quote from Wright's paper is where I believe evolutions is going.

Read his paper "The Origin of mutants"

Where did I say QI Zheng supported Creationism? He is saying, in re the debated about, random, directed, adapative mutations, that there is no proof that random mutation is true.

This all complies with Shapiro papers i.e.sentience in the cells, non random mutations for fitness etc. and the biocommunciative, information schools, that are moving away from the random mutation accidential evolultion hypothesis.

He claims he did.