Is there a coherent argument to be made for any sort of entirely genetically independent epigenetic inheritance becoming genetically encoded over generations?
My understanding is that chemicals (hormones to pollutants) can change the way specific organisms exposed to them develop and mature into adult organisms capable of reproduction. Such developmental traits would be inheritable as long as the chemical exposure lasts. Mutations can then occur that have the same effect without the chemical exposure, possibly by disabling development that would occur without the chemicals.
An example of an environmental effect is the different heat during development that changes sex in alligators. Another example is that selecting for different adrenaline levels in russian farm foxes results in "domestic breed" traits in foxes similar to dog traits.
It seems to me that this would have to be a process where a number of different mutations would have the same effect.
The problem is that there is no evidence this is in any way connected to any 'creative response'.
To be a "creative response" - ie intentional - you would have different possible responses to the same stimulus from otherwise identical organisms, all of which would be beneficial.
This obviously does not occur.
Is too much emphasis put on purely genetic changes and not on the long term interactions between the genotype and the environment?
Yes.
Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •