About New Lamarckian Synthesis Theory

In the OP Iset the matters iwould like to discuss. Not the new Lamarckian Synthesis Theory.

Thanks for the valuable information. But my intention of OP, as you can see, was not to describe a new theory. Only to discuss some relevant matters.

And so you find a good reason not to discuss the real issue. Is it any different from what i have said on OP about Darwinian evolutionists and their sacred caw of randomness in mutations? Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

You are right Percy.

I accept the mechanism of random mutation in ONE CELL ORGANISM.On these cases randomness is an economical way, for nature, to proceed to evolution of species. In metazoans things are more complicated, Environmental guidance and randomness cooperate,for the same purpose, eg evolution,as a shorter cut of a long road. That's the reason of the existence of detrimental or neutral mutations. Epigenetic changes, lasting for environmental reasons for very long times, maybe thousands of years,pave the way for deep genome changes, not in a very strict manner, so to live room for some randomness to take place . So it is where they come thedetrimental mutations you are referring to.
It is the best and more economic way for nature to suceed evolution. Economy is a BIG axiom for nature.

Here is where our difference lies. NOT exactly the same. There is the long lasting, environmetally positioned, epigenetical change. This last couldn't go astray. Nature wouldn't allow it to happen, as it is a very economic short cut road to evolution.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nature Does not know what change is beneficial or not. That will be decided by natural selection. Nature only keeps mutations on line not in a strict manner, with existing phenotypes tedencies.

Detrimental, neutral and beneficial mutations in metazoa are not random. All of them are happening in a frame of loose guidance of the prevailing, for maybe thousands of years, epigenetic tedencies. imply detrimental or neutral mutations do not find their target.
As for your analogy i can offer a better one.
If during the gabling game process the dices are exchanged (by environment) with others, which have three instead of six numbers, would you still say the gabling is not guided?

Nobody said they are. But they can lead to "desired" by environment mutations.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Epigenetic changes are never detrimental, as they had been selected by natural selection. What i am saying is that nature would not allow epigenetic changes to go astray.

Perhaps you could show me it. Astray =lost, useless. You ask me to give evidence of a possible phenomenon,a supposition, taking place over thousand of years. You just think the almost nil evidence, due to long time frame needed to happen, as they say, for random mutations in metazoa.

Almost nil, as it is the evidence for random muations, to be fair. I think we are reaching to some agreement. The process is not consciously guided relating fitness.It is a natural process governed by natural laws. Randomness here is an unfortunate term to describe the real thing. The crucial factor here is the permanent existance of the environment factor that changes dynamically and constantly the numbers on the dices.. We have either to exclude it once and for all, by hard evidence against it, or accept its possibility to play a significant role in evolution.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

the evidence brought here up to now were about one cell organism, which i accepted, not for metazoa.

I really i don't follow you. I never said "of an astray epigenetic change that nature would not allow." What i am saying is: Nature would never, for reasons of economics, would allow n epigenetic ghange to go astray ( eg to get useless. An example: elongated girrafes neck, being first an epigenetic change, paved the way of deep genome mutations that increased number of spondyls etc. No. Epigenetic changes are developed by environmental factors. Natural selection chooses the best of them.

Are yo referring to message 84? You then were talking about detrimental mutations. Epigenetic changes after being selected by natural selection could not be detrimental.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------