About New Lamarckian Synthesis Theory

So can we agree that none of us can bring the needed evidence? It would be a very good start. Of course it pains,especially for you anderstandably, as after 250 years of intense research, the results are so meagre for the randomness of mutations. After all a theory or a hypothesis does not always need to bring the needed evidence.
Do you think it is realistic or even normal to expect a non specific scientist or even a specific one to provide all you want to be persuated, which i don't intent to. On the OP I related some work done in the field. Can you comment on them?

No, I mean direct environmental effect on deep DNA. I quote from TIME MAGAZINE, "WHY YOUR DNA ISN'T YOUR DESTINY by JOHN CLOUD:
"The stress of fear, lack of food, lack of mating opportunities etc., are the main causes of soft or deep changes. As these stresses are empathetically transmitted not only to life peers, but to extant population in wild areas, and to proximal generations , the resultant beneficial mutations are fairly quickly established, reducing the time needed by natural selection to do its work. This long time effect is the main cause of speciation as it expresses deep survival needs."

Is it so difficult that compelling evidence to presented for? I can't prove the non-existance of something that it does not exist. As far as we know up to now. But guided mutations are at least having equal chances to exist as random mutations do, regarding the realy slim amounts of evidence for each of them. From JOHN CLOUD's "your DNA ISN'T YOUR DESTINY" I quote:"For deep evolutional changes in multi-cellular organisms, mutations on DNA to be beneficial, need to be prepared by epigenetic phenotype changes, which facilitate these types of mutation. In one cell and other of low organization evolution is endogenously forced by life momentum." Edited by Admin, : Fix quotes, improve formatting.

I have to state and apologise for it, a mistake made unintentionally by me. The quotes mentioned in messages 44 and 46 in replies to nwr and HBD are not from WHY DNA ISN'T A DESTSTINY FOR YOU by JOHN CLOUDS. The mistake had been caused from a mixing up of my notes----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My intention is to discuss the matter, not to convince anybody.
The article i brought here it is enough for the beginning of the discussion. I think there isn't any need to fo relate passages of it. The important question that arises from it is: Is it correct to stick on the up to now knowledge that epigenetic changes are always remaining epigenetic and don't pave the way, in the long run, to deep DNA changes?

Yes I agree.But what if theoriginal factor will not fade away? Has science any answer on this?------------------------------------------------------

This does not preclude that it could happen. I can not prove how does it happen (becouse of the time limit, or limited knowledge) neither you manage after so intence research to prove it couldn't happen.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

in fact the effects were lasting in many generations. You can't see mutations in metazoans and so in man.

I don't follow you.

It doesn't seem to me so simple. We are talking about thousands or more of years. Is it sensible to equate one four generations and so long spans, at their affects on genome? Any way we just don't know.

Lack of food for maybe a thousand or more of years.Or lower environmet temperature for amillion of years.

You are right. But surely you and science in general on lack of evidence against a theory should keep an open mind of its possibility to happen.

Why not? And again why not? What makes you to believe otherwise? Or it is an avasion?

I agree. . Ufortunaly in science there are theories,not proved, but just accepted by its followers as true, for not exactly scientific reasons, as f.e randomness in mutations, which they act against probing new or old ideas , as it did happened with Lamarckism. I know your arguments. They are so few. I understand the difficulties (long time scale, focusing in mutations on metazoa etc). The same it applies to environmentally guided mutations. I just hope you aknowledge this.

You are right. But in my opening pos i did put some thoughts and data i wanted and insit to discus.Not to present a new theory.Thiw was not my purpose.