Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?

Those are the issues we may well have solved already with unbiased scientific research.Of course, you can always daydream that tomorrow they'll find Bigfoot ... but a brain in the cell? That's a much smaller volume to search. It's not like they're going to say: "oh, it was there all along, it had fallen behind the endoplasmic reticulum".

A challenge to it would be rather fun. But a real challenge should be challenging; it shouldn't be a mixture of facts that have been incorporated into the theory for half a century on the one hand and vacuous rhetoric on the other.Wishful thinking also doesn't cut it.Let us know when you find something that challenges the current theory. Like that awesome brain-organelle or whatever-it-is you hope will turn up at some point. We'll be all ears.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Then you'll be happy to know that it isn't.Problem solved.

That is a very good description of a woo believer. I do not believe. I know only what the present facts and observations tell us and the direction they point.Only imagination and blind desire can manufacture from nothing, in the face of all the contrary evidence, the kind of universe you wish we lived it. It is a delusion that just will not yield up its proof. So at every turn you misunderstand, you misinterpret and you mis-frame the words and works of others attempting to justify your personal desires and confirm your delusion.You spend all your time in your fantasy. You deny the true beauty of a natural universe that made stars by purely natural means, which made atoms by purely natural means, that made planets and molecules and orchids and thunderstorms and puppies all on its own, not by accident but by nature, without any overseer or plan or magic.That is the real miracle of this universe and tragically, since you will pass this way but once, you are missing it.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Cute. So when Shapiro does not answer your question no, that means he agrees with you, but when he does not say yes, that also means he agrees with you.Why doesn't Shapiro mean what he actually said in his response?Do you understand that what is referred to as the "modern synthesis" is evolution theory formulated about 60 years ago? Do you even know the current state of evolutionary theory? How do you explain that the ideas that show up in Shapiro's 2010 paper also show up in papers that you have cited from one or two decades earlier? Shapiro doesn't discuss your particular view.Does Shapiro hypothesize that random mutations and natural selection do not play a role in evolution? I've asked you this question before.Does Shapiro hypothesize on mechanisms that extend beyond the realm of single cell life forms? Dr. Wright explicitly acknowledges that she has not done this.

She's talking about "microorganisms, from phage to fungi".
I was quoting her passage on "higher organisms".
See? In the passage you quoted? You do understand that there are 2 million species on this planet, only 9000 of which are microorganisms, right?
Wright claims that for 99.5% of the extant species on earth, mutation is completely random and undirected.
Care to dispute Dr. Wright's findings?Cite a paper that supports directed mutation in something other than a microorganism.I see Wounded King is handling your continued misunderstanding of "directed" but I would like to repeat: Notice that careful wording? NOT RANDOM IN THE SENSE THAT.
In other words, non random in ONLY ONE WAY (the location).
Which base will mutate? At what position in the gene? In a coding or noncoding section?Do you, or do you not, understand what is being directed? THE LOCATION ONLY.
Don't ignore my question this time. Since, as you insist, there's an abundance of creo research, let's see some.
In fact, why don't you dig up a creo paper on directed mutation in something other than a microorganism?Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

Genetic mutatations or mistakes which make organism biologically more advanced-this right here shows that evolution does not invlove the bettering of species but you evolutionist argue that we evolve from mistakes,which by the way is funny because us humans have had many mutations yet remain the sam and continue with these genetic mishaps -my question why aren't we evolving?and dnt tell it take millions of years ,carbon dating has been proven inaccurate so one step closer in proving the earth is only thousands of years old

so you are saying there are no good mutations like the flue changing every year, or desieses getting resistant to antibiotics and stuff like that that just does not happen in daily life. Yes we are well yea you have around 4 mutations yourself as well as do I. So we are not the same anymore or how much difference do you need enough to turn us in to super humans in one go from normal to super not gona happen slow process remember. Yes in your little world where the preacher who has no skills on a subject like:
Absolute dating
Amino acid dating
Appearance Event Ordination
Biochronology
Dendrochronology
Fluorine absorption dating
Herbchronology
Law of superposition
Obsidian hydration dating
Optical dating
Optically stimulated luminescence
Orbital tuning
Oxidizable carbon ratio dating
Principle of faunal succession
Rehydroxylation dating
Relative dating
SPECMAP
Thermoluminescence dating
Wiggle matchingć
Astronomical chronologyyes all dating methods none point to a young earth.

If a mutations beneficial and deleterious are directed to a specific locus, and then purifying selection deletes the deleterious mutations, isn't that a process which selects beneficial mutations that were directed to that locus?

Have a really exciting paper coming. Hope to post about it next week sometime.

That's great news. Do we have some kind of diector for this non-random, non-accidential, purposeful process?

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide and off-topic banner.

If you show me one method which cannot be argued against I'll believe you.But I don't as those where more than likely began by pro-evolutionists...

NATURAL SELECTION <----- all.

And how can you tell me a flu is a good mutation don't make me laugh how can we be benefitting from flu?.And on what basis are we evolving?Edited by OliverChant, : No reason given.