Materialist science is desparate to prove that everything is just within their reach in terms of inheritance, especially the reductinist camp.
I am not sure that "desperate" is the right word to describe the attitude of scientists. "Successful" would be more accurate.
Lamarckism is the ability to acquire new genes or characteristics during life and pass them on to the offspring. When we are considering hard Evolutionary Theory at a cellular level, Horizontal Gene Transfer conforms to that definition whilst Darwinism is a term generally applied in a scientific context as the rejection of this possibility.
Well, that was nonsense from start to finish.
Cellular growth and differentiation is controlled by an electromagnetic template and causality has been confirmed.
It's a shame that no-one noticed this "confirmation". C'est la vie.
What determines the shape of the "electromagnetic template"?
Is it just a coincidence that (for example) people with mutant genes for fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 also have electromagnetic templates in the shape of achondroplasiac dwarfs, and vice versa? --- or is the shape of this mysterious template determined by the genes?
The "theoretical justification" of Darwinism over Lamarkism is that Darwinism explains things while Lamarkism does not. Children of pirates don't inherit peg-legs.
Lamark could reasonably have answered that he didn't claim that all acquired traits were inherited by the organism; at the very most he was talking about traits which were acquired by the organisms' efforts to achieve them.
In order to explain evolution, the only acquired traits that he needed to be heritable were those which are, in fact, heritable, since evolution is only about heritable change.
And you have put your finger on the problems of the electromagnetic template. There is no way to explain it 'scientifically'.
Demonstrating its existence would be a start.
In achondroplasia, the body is not capable of 'filling' its inherited (?), natural form and so a new map is formed. The same with the pirates leg. Yet shape is inherited.
This is unclear.
Does the dwarfism gene determine the dwarfish shape of the template? Yes or no?
And it does not conform to the chemical anatomical model of life. There is nowhere that it can be stored in physical terms, let alone inherited. Science has no grasp on it and so it does its best to forget about it. Medicine really would prefer to forget it for so many reasons.
"Forget about it"? Who knew about it to be able to forget it? It seems to be a bunch of nonsense that New Agers have made up rather than anything that scientists once knew but which has now slipped their minds.
Until science does find hard answers to these questions, it must admit to pragmatic, working hypotheses such as our individual shape is coded in the mind and god knows how it is inherited.
In what way is that a working hypothesis? You can't work with it. Whereas scientists with the working hypothesis that actually works, i.e. that genes control development, seem to be doing quite well at finding the genes and explaining how they operate.
Your "working hypothesis" leaves you saying that "god knows how" shape is inherited. Whereas geneticists can tell you exactly how (for example) achondroplasia is inherited.
The research was conducted between the wars as a result of that wondeerful human invention the landmine. The medical profession was presented with a concerning number of amputations for which they obviously sought a cure.
One question was why a limb could grow the first time but was unable to regrow a second time. The second question was that some species, most notably certain lizards, are able to regrow a limb, a tail, which requires the ability of cells to be directed into differentiating into the correct cell types in the correct places.
The electromagnetic field was empirically measured in both cases. It was found that the lizard was capable of maintaining this Em field during the time of growth and that the cells literally grew into it. Unfortunately in terms of a human amputation, the field collapsed before significant growth had occurred.
Causality was proven by placing an disruptive electromagnetic field into the cage of the lizard. There was no regrowth.
Could we have some references, please?
The achondroplasia gene does not 'create' the original template. The template adapts to it as it does to any fact which impedes its being 'filled'. The effect of the inability of the long bones to grow is akin to that of external factors changing the ability of the body to fulfill that shape, such as malnutrition, the Japanese banding girls feet, African tribes that use metal rings to elongate the neck or banding the head to make it grow pointed before the growth plates close.
This can be seen more clearly in congenital short stature caused by a failure of growth hormone, so called Peter Pan Dwarfism. The short stature or shape is not congenitally coded into the defective gene. Growth hormone suppliments allow the body to assume its predestined shape.
Similarly the PKU gene does not code for organic brain damage but the protein error that causes that organic brain damage is.
Wherever it has been possible to remedy the problems that a protein abnormality causes, the organism becomes normal without any change taking place to the gene itself. Hence, there is no causality for the characteristic being coded into the gene but a consequence of the protein abnormailty preventing normality from being expressed.
That was an unnecessarily long and obscure answer to what was after all a yes or no question.
Does the dwarf gene determine the dwarfish shape of the "electromagnetic template"? Yes or no?
I would suggest firstly that you have a look at the history of science if you believe that evidence can disappear from the mainstream only to be rediscovered later. It has happeneed from Copernicus to String Theory and of course including Mendel's work. During that time it is generally only carried in the oral tradition ....
... with the exception of all three of your examples, of course.
I think that I have adequately proved that in similar cases, a simple correction of the protein abnormality leads to normal development and shape. Development and shape are normal in the presence of the abnormal gene. QED, in these cases, the gene does not code for shape. It is a consequence of the protein that the gene creates.