Summations Only

Yes.

It seems to me your theory is very poor to explain the comlexities of instincts. I am curious. is there an y evidence that a mutation has coused a specific instinct change? Or is there any special genome loci that directly correlates with a particular instinct? Your experiment proves the exact opposit! That learning is a powerful way to evolution. Was there any any mutation and so any evidenced genome change in the foxes?Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

There weren't any changes in my claims. They were there all the same brom the very beggining. I don't discount the idea that there can be genetically determined instinctual behaviours .Simply instinctual behaviours are acqired in a diferrent way (through learning) but still tey are inherited. I quote:
..Many biologists feel that the foundations of the evolutionary paradigm that was constructed during the 1930s and 1940s . and has dominated Western views of evolution for the last 60 years are crumbling, and that the construction of a new evolutionary paradigm is underway.
(Soft inheritance: Challenging the Modern Synthesis
Eva Jablonka1 and Marion J. Lamb).

So there is arising a more updated form of modern syhthesis! That is good news.Maybe now the arguments of some people here hopefully would become more intelligent.
You don't seem to have red my work (http://www.sleepgadgetabs.com), so it is understandable you think of "your empty word salads", though unfair.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

I will try once more to have an intelligent conversation with you.
May i ask you to give me the reasons of your opinion?
Is becouse is written badly?
Becouse you didn't understood it?
Becouse you don't agree with what i am saying?Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

You are right. Ihave no any relative experience, nor any advisor to help me. I respect your opinion as far as this is not a product of the religious bellief of Darwinism or current theory for its moral implications.It couldn't be any sensical communication in such case, you or any body else must agree.It is as if somebody talks with a Christian fanatic .

Who is talking about "conscious decisions"?

Hi Taq,
it reminds me saying that everythink has a rudimentary "intelligence"! Do you realise that?

Nobody has been talking about "planning or forethought". It seems there is no diversity of opinions about "innate intelligence" in this thread! Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

The difference between me and you is that you see and criticise things from the narrow human standpoint, while i view things through evolution from the whole animal scale. So decision making in humans being evoluted from rudimentary "decision making" in cells and lower animals is basicaly the same funnction in all cases.So we can have unconscious decisions.

There is not any vagueness. Just a different approach.
Iquote from the O.P:
"Intelligence: I don’t give it the original meaning of the word (namely, to choose between contingent alternatives). What I really mean is: in response to environmental and other factors, a naturally inside organism pre-existing mechanism, and by force of chemistry and physics, causes changes in the genome. So I think of it as a mechanism, but not intelligence in any traditional sense. Of course we have then the eternal question to face here: how was this made?" But this is a second level question."Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

I quote from wikipedia:
"Belyaev believed that the key factor selected for in the domestication of dogs was not size or reproduction, but behavior; specifically, amenability to domestication, or tameability. He selected for low flight distance, that is, the distance one can approach the animal before it runs away. Selecting this behavior mimics the natural selection that must have occurred in the ancestral past of dogs. More than any other quality, Belyaev believed, tameability must have determined how well an animal would adapt to life among humans. Because behavior is rooted in biology, selecting for tameness and against aggression means selecting for physiological changes in the systems that govern the body's hormones and neurochemicals"
Selecting for flight distance and behavior means that he was selecting for mainly learnt staff. The short time of the experiment imply that there was not any mutations involved. Anyway Belayev have not said anything about it.
It is important to note that he talks about hormones and neurochemicals, both of which are related to messaging, particularly the neurochemicals directly lelated to neural system and learning.(rememper my neuro-genic theory of evolution)

No. I expected it.
But try to understand this. A man practically living alone with only his PC, poor knowledge of english languadge, no previous studies on the matter, not any kind of help or guidance, trying to formulate a comprehensive new theory of evolution , anew paradigm of it. It is really insane. BUT I HAD TO GET IT KNOWN. I want to believe it will be proved, at least in some aspects, right. Read the work about domestication by Trut et all suggested by W.K in message 286.you will see there where biology and new knowledge leeds to, very near to what i am saying.

It was not a waste of time. All thread's comments were very usefull to me to form an idea of what is going on, what the general climate is, and to test some of my ideas and also to change some of them. So i really i am very gratefull to all participants. My revised form of my hypothesis can be found on http://www.sleepgadgetabs.com. About my competence don't hurry to make a verdict.

I think you are right in general. But i am not a scientist in the field. I have no the means to support for my ideas or even discuss about them,besides a forum like this, where changing ideas is so handicapted because of preconcieved beliefs. So the best thing i can do is to put the questions and expect the real scientists will give the anwers. I hope.