Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?

This thread has attracted a large number of responses and is now too unwieldy for all but the most determined to make their way through it. Please post summaries and, if interested, propose follow up threads. Please, no further respsonses to one another.

Edited by AdminModulous, : summaries only now please. content hidden. You can use peek to view contents.

SUMMATION. DOES THE DARWINIAN THEORY REQUIRE MODIFICATION OR REPLACEMENT?

I have to admit I have failed. The Darwinian theory from Darwin to Neo-Darwinism to the Modern Synthesis are perfectly correct. All who talk about Molecular biology, information exchange in the cells, Genetic changes that are non random and driven by the enviroment, stavation etc. are fools.
The Cental Dogma is correct, there is not information exchange from proteins to DNA, RNA, ect.
Endosymbiosis
Reticulate evolution
Evo-Devo
Phenotypic Plasticity
Gene flow
genetic drift
Fusion of genomes and gene fragaments
methylation of DNA
hybridization
Polyploidy
CRISPS
Epigenetics
THATS ALL BULLSHIT.

As Mayr says

Medelian genetics, by proving the constancy of genes, completely contraticts soft inheritance. Finally it was shown by molecular biology that NO INFORMATION CAN BE TRANSMITTED FROM THE PROTEINS OF THE BODY TO THE NUCLEIC ACIDS OF THE GERM CELLS, IN OTHER WORDS, THAT AN INHERITANCE OF ACQUIRED CHARACTERS DOES NOT TAKE PLACE, THIS IS THE CENTRAL DOGMA OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY.

Anyone who argues against this should be drawn and quartered. Let us open minded Darwin believers rest in peace.

Let Shapiro and those heretics be banned from the kingdom.
Let Nobles et. al. be banned from the Kingdom.

We will not take dissent.
Nothing is planned.
Nothing is directed.
All is random, unplanned, and if it were to happen again, it would all be different.
Long live Dawkins.

Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

The Modern Synthesis is made up of two major pillars:

1. Variation is produce by mutations that are random with respect to fitness.

2. The probability that a mutation will be passed on to future generations is determined by the interaction of the population with the environment.

No one in this thread has presented data that challenges these two pillars. Shadow has quoted Shapiro saying that mutations are not random with respect to "biological utility", but never did Shapiro state that mutations are not random with respect to fitness. Wright claims that mutations are not random with respect to fitness, but a closer look at the data from Wright's papers demonstrate that they are indeed random with respect to fitness. What we see is a lot of smoke and mirrors from the likes of Wright and Shapiro. When those mirrors are broken and when that smoke clears the same observation is made: the mechanisms that produce mutations are blind to the effects that those mutations will have on the fitness of the organism.

Let's look at two examples. First, Shapiro cites transposon mutagenesis as a "non-random" mechanism. This is wrong. The effects of transposon mutagenesis on fitness can be detrimental, neutral, or beneficial. They are random with respect to fitness. Further reading of Shapiro's work indicates that non-random in Shapiro-ese is defined as mutations that are not replication errors. Second, Wright points to the increase of specific mutants in a given environment. As it turns out, this is due to an increase in the random mutation rate, not a specific mutation of a specific base in response to an environmental stimuli.

Each time that an example is given for non-random mutations it turns out to be random. The only exception I have seen that breaks this pattern are CRISPR domains. I will gladly admit that these are perfect examples of non-random mutations. However, CRISPR domains are a tiny portion of some bacterial genomes. They can not be used to explain the evolution of the rest of the genome, much less the rest of the species on Earth that do not have CRISPR domains. CRISPR domains are a very limited mechanism with very limited evolutionary reach.

This whole thread has been about one single problem; Shadow is upset that reality hasn't left any room for God.

The basic problem is that evolution, depending as it does upon natural forces acting without conscious guidance, leaves very little for God to do in the whole creation of life. That seems to bug Shadow, leading him to sink a great deal of effort into finding instances of biologists (doesn't matter how fringe they might be) saying things that sound a little bit like intelligent guidance. Thus God. Or something.

Of course no-one has agreed with Shadow about any of this. To judge from his rather petulant summation, he thinks this is because the assembled evolutionists of EvC are a big bunch of mean meanies. There is another, simpler reason though; Shadow doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

Shadow has repeatedly hidden behind quotes from scientists. When asked to expand upon these quotes he refuses, saying "Well I'm not a scientist", as if that excused him from understanding the points he raises. What is worse is that when offered the chance to understand these issues Shadow has pretty much refused. It's not just that he knows sod all about biology, it's that he doesn't want to know. And why would he? That would make it less mysterious and then there would be no way for him to crowbar God into the proceedings. He isn't actually interested in biology at all, except insofar as it can be abused for the purpose of Christian apologetics.

Shadow has spent the entire thread puffing up quotes that he doesn't understand, hyping fringe science that he doesn't understand and even misrepresenting at least one scientist so that he appears to endorse the opposite of his actual position (as we saw with the Pigliucci example). Strangely, no-one has been impressed by these antics. For this, Shadow blames everybody else.

Meanwhile, the Theory of Evolution, the Modern Synthesis and general biological research continue unabated. They require modification of course. All scientific theories require constant reappraisal and modification. That's how science works. But replacement? Hardly. The fact is that these ideas continue to prove their worth every day in multiple areas of study. They aren't going to go away just because certain Christians find them inconvenient.

Mutate and Survive

Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?

Absolutely. Every few years a scientist pops up negating bits of it. I preferthe original version seen in Genesis, which instigated the very premise of evolution. Consider:

1.That all life emerged as a dual-gender duality and then seperated as male/female - how else applies!

2. That the seed factor rules supreme and is not removable from the top preamble; Darwin does even mention it!

3. That the first factor distinquishing life form groupings is of terrain and habitat [water, air-borne, land, etc] - not hidden skeletal and dna.

4. Cross-speciation is introduced in Genesis, not by Darwin, and is conditional: a land based life form may follow its own land based kind. This is regardless if a fish creature adapted to wings.

5. That a species [kind] follows the program directive in its seed [inherited genes], not the environment. No evolution can occur without the seed factor. This negates that all life began from one life, to the only evidential one - the seed.

Years ago I used to discuss the Bible a lot, and one result was that I ended up reading the Bible a lot. Makes sense, right?

Creationists come here to discuss evolution but rarely bother learning anything about it. They arrive with a caricature of evolution already constructed within their mind and then spend all their discussion time working hard to avoid learning what evolution actually says.

I don't think we ever discussed the topic in this thread. We spent all our time correcting mistaken notions about nearly everything, from evolution to the modern synthesis to information theory.

--Percy

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.