Did evolution evolve?

In my work "THE NEURO-GENIC EVOLUTION HYPOTHESIS. A NEW ROLE FOR NEURAL SYSTEM.Is empathy and intelligent communication essential parts of evolution related information?" ( http://www.sleepgadgetabs.com ) there is the chapter:The multi-dimensional approach.Current theory had been restricting evolution to the model defined by the clear cut frame concept of genes affected only by random mutations which dictate evolution. Although this theory remains valid, all new biology findings show to the direction of multi-factorial evolution.The well established endosymbiosis theory had proved (at least at the organelles level) that there is another model of evolution as well, parallel or complementary to the previous one. That makes easier for somebody to think that might be even other models of evolution as well, coexisting or succeeding or completing the previous ones.Lamarckism the information model, once thought to be obsolete, may offer a third one, as many contemporary scientific works show and the introduction by my hypothesis of the idea of empathic information transfer (see below), bring it again in the front line.I am now submitting a fourth model, the neuro-genic type of evolution, in which I introduce the concepts of the thinking neural system (n.s), empathy, intelligent communication and their role on evolution. I believe that combining all four above models is the best policy. Choosing and sticking to only one of them, in order to have a pure theory of evolution isn’t a wise approach of thinking when dealing with nature, which is so complicated and resourceful.My two main propositions are:
1. Thinking neural system, is a functional extension of DNA, intervening in evolution process in a decisive way, and
2. Empathy (together with intelligent communication) is a very important mechanism of information transfer related to evolution.
We see from above that there are different stages of evolution mechanisms that depend on the place that
organism has on the life tree. So we can talk of evolution in evolution.I like to have your opinion.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

Hi Zi Ko,Can you trim this down to focus just on neural systems as a mechanism of evolution, and provide some evidence that any such thing exists.

In my work THE NEURO-GENIC EVOLUTION HYPOTHESIS. A NEW ROLE FOR NEURAL SYSTEM.(http://www.sleepgadgetabs.com) in chapter : Neural system and evolution we readEdited by zi ko, : No reason given.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

In my work THE NEURO-GENIC EVOLUTION HYPOTHESIS. A NEW ROLE FOR NEURAL SYSTEM.(http://www.sleepgadgetabs.com) in chapter : Neural system and evolution we read
"JABLONCA has made a big step further. Her ideas are very close to mine.
, we regard the emergence of the nervous system as a major transition. The evolution of a nervous system not only changed the way that information was transmitted between cells and profoundly altered the nature of the individuals in which it was present, it also led to a new type of hereditysocial and cultural hereditybased on the transmission of behaviourally acquired information.
"The evolution of information in the major transitions". Journal of Theoretical Biology 239 (2): 236—246.
This clear cut statement clears off the whole issue. I wholly agree with it.
My entire hypothesis is basically a further elaboration on the above statement, although there are differences."
As to thequestion of evolving evolution in the chapter:
The multi-dimensional approach., we read:
"Current theory had been restricting evolution to the model defined by the clear cut frame concept of genes affected only by random mutations which dictate evolution. Although this theory remains valid, all new biology findings show to the direction of multi-factorial evolution.The well established endosymbiosis theory had proved (at least at the organelles level) that there is another model of evolution as well, parallel or complementary to the previous one. That makes easier for somebody to think that might be even other models of evolution as well, coexisting or succeeding or completing the previous ones.Lamarckism the information model, once thought to be obsolete, may offer a third one, as many contemporary scientific works show and the introduction by my hypothesis of the idea of empathic information transfer (see below), bring it again in the front line.
I am now submitting a fourth model, the neuro-genic type of evolution, in which I introduce the concepts of the thinking neural system (n.s), empathy, intelligent communication and their role on evolution. I believe that combining all four above models is the best policy. Choosing and sticking to only one .......We see from above that there are different stages of evolution mechanisms that depend on the place that organisms have on the evolution ladder .So I think we can talk of evolution in evolution. Thinking graphically we can say that the known evolution tree now gets roots; specifically three main roots (endosymbiosis, random mutations, information-organism interaction). These feed low life evolution. The last one is divided in two branches, one of which leads to upper life (as defined by the appearance and development of nervous system) and finally to man."I would liketo have your comments.

Are you saying that your neural systems mechanism is social and cultural, not biological?Also, please, as I requested before, trim this down to focus just on neural systems as a mechanism of evolution (meaning biological evolution) and provide some evidence that any such thing exists.

Biological. I am dealing with a cut edged issue, almost entirely new to science. So it is logical clear evidence not to exists.Apart JABLONCA i couldn't find any direct reference about it. Only hints and logical deductions, which i would relate when the discussion would go on, if of course you would let me to do so. Besides the topic is about evolving evolution, not just neural system participation in evolution.

You say that logical and clear evidence of neural systems as a biological mechanism of evolution does not exist, and that you couldn't find any direct reference about it aside from Jablonca, who says it is social and cultural, which means you have no evidence that neural systems are a mechanism of biological evolution.Unless you have evidence that neural systems are a biological mechanism of evolution, it cannot be included in the thread proposal. If you rewrite your proposal without reference to neural systems then I will review it again, but you'll need to provide evidence of your various other unsupported claims:

1. Provide evidence that endosymbiosis is a separate evolutionary model apart from the current one.
   ​
2. Provide evidence that Lamarkism is an information model.
   ​
3. Provide evidence that empathy is a mechanism of information transfer for biological evolution.

1."Dr. Lynn
Margulis
University of
Massachusetts,
Amherst
Acquiring
GenomesLynn Margulis presents an answer to the one enduring mystery of evolution that Charles Darwin could never solve: the source of the inherited variation that gives rise to new species....|These researchers argue that random mutation, long believed (but never demonstrated) to be the main source of genetic variation, is of only marginal importance. Much more significant is the acquisition of new genomes by symbiotic merger.The result of thirty years of delving into a vast, mostly arcane literature, this is the first attempt to go beyond — and reveal the severe limitations of — the dogmatic thinking that has dominated evolutionary biology for almost three generations. Lynn Margulis, whom E.O. Wilson called one of the most successful synthetic thinkers in modern biology, presents a comprehensive and scientifically supported theory that directly challenges the assumptions we hold about the diversity of the living world.THE ENDOSYMBIOTIC THEORY
Probably her most important scientific contribution is the endosymbiotic theory of the origin of mitochondria as separate organisms that long ago entered a symbiotic relationship with eukaryotic cells through endosymbiosis (see also symbiogenesis).The endosymbiotic theory concerns the origins of mitochondria and chloroplasts, which are organelles of eukaryotic cells. According to this theory, these originated as prokaryotic endosymbionts, which came to live inside eukaryotic cells. The theory postulates that the mitochondria evolved from aerobic bacteria (probably proteobacteria, related to the rickettsias), and that the chloroplast evolved from endosymbiotic cyanobacteria (autotrophic prokaryotes). The evidence for this theory is compelling as a whole, and it is now generally accepted."Nowhere I have found any indication that current theory had incorporated endosymiotic theory.2." interest in Lamarckism has recently increased, as several studies in the field of epigenetics have highlighted the possible inheritance of behavioral traits acquired by the previous generation."
"All the acquisitions or losses wrought by nature on individuals, through the influence of the environment in which their race has long been placed, and hence through the influence of the predominant use or permanent disuse of any organ;[10]" wikipediabehavioral traits: interaction with environment through information.
influence of the environment: again through passing information from environment (not by n. selection)3. It is yet just an idea.I am entitled to hope for evidence in the future. " In Evolution in Four Dimensions, Eva Jablonka and Marion Lamb argue that there is more to heredity than genes. They trace four "dimensions" in evolutionfour inheritance systems that play a role in evolution: genetic, epigenetic (or non-DNA cellular transmission of traits), behavioral, and symbolic"Heredity means biological. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

From the Wikipedia page on Lynn Margulis:

So you equate Wikipedia and general scientific community with current theory. Strange!
Anyway what about promoting my post?

You're misunderstanding or misinterpreting something somewhere, but I'm not sure in what manner and cannot respond. I cannot promote your thread because when I pointed out an error I could not make sense of your response. As far as I can see your opening post still contains that error.Zi Ko, look, I don't want to waste your time by holding out false hope, so let me again be very clear. I'm not going to promote threads that read like nonsense or that contain obvious errors, and I'm not going to allow participants to post nonsense in existing threads. The feedback you've been given by many people, including myself, is that you have a problem interpreting the English language. As long as this problem continues I will be working to minimize your participation at EvC Forum, because as I've said many times, we don't do nonsense discussions here.You have the same opportunity as everyone else to post a clear thread proposal that does not contain nonsense or factual errors. When you do so then I will promote your thread.