About New Lamarckian Synthesis Theory

You are falling back to you original idea that there is intelligence or what you erroneously called empathy at work in directing evolution. Again.You have have already admitted that you don't have any evidential support for this: it is just an idea you have had.

Again, what does this statement mean? You've attempted to distinguish epigenetical change from mutations which could be beneficial or detrimental by saying that nature will not allow the former to go astray?If your statement means something other than saying that Nature won't allow detrimental epigenetical changes, then I cannot figure out what you are saying.

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.

"Epigenetic changesstable but potentially reversible alterations in a cell’s genetic information that result in changes in gene expression but do not involve changes in the underlying DNA sequencemay mediate some of the detrimental effects of prenatal alcohol exposure and contribute to the deficits and abnormalities associated with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders."
Alcohol Res Health Volume 34(1);  2011 - PMC"IGT during pregnancy was associated with leptin gene DNA methylation adaptations with potential functional impacts. These epigenetic changes provide novel mechanisms that could contribute to explaining the detrimental health effects associated with fetal programming, such as long-term increased risk of developing obesity and type 2 diabetes."
Leptin Gene Epigenetic Adaptation to Impaired Glucose Metabolism During Pregnancy - PMCSo we have detrimental epigenetic effects seen in both fetal alcohol syndrome and type 2 diabetes. Obviously, they do go astray and cause detrimental changes.

Based on what evidence?

Based on what evidence? Yes, because the results of the roll will still be random with respect to the bet made. The only thing that would change is the payout for the bets as judged by the odds of randomly hitting specific results. Reducing the number of slots on the roulette wheel does not make the results non-random. They are still random. Reducing the number of ping pong balls in the lottery hopper does not make the lottery non-random. It is still random.

Are you truly unable to see the contradiction in this sentence? Where "astray" means what exactly? Perhaps if you cite an example of an astray epigenetic change that nature won't allow.Or even better, stop referring to nature anthropomorphically and just talk plainly about what process you are referring to.

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.

Two points here:1: You admit (again) to not having any evidence.2: You ignore (again) the evidence of mutations (positive, neutral and negative with respect to fitness) being RANDOM!

Wrong. I did not ask you for evidence. What I asked for is an example, and it can be one you invent, of an astray epigenetic change that you believe nature would not allow. I want you to tell me how nature would prevent such a change. If you are unable to do this, I am going to conclude that you have no idea what you are talking about. I'll try to do so.If natural selection is at work, then the expected action is that changes are created by whatever mechanism, and the changes that provide an advantage in a given environment for the purpose of surviving to pass on inheritable change. You say that epigenetic changes are developed through natural selection, but then you deny that such changes can ever be detrimental without specifying what the environment is.That combination of ideas is nonsensical. Further, you've been provided with counter examples.

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

Evidence that mutations are random has been provided. You objected that evidence for randomness in mutations in unicellular organisms is not evidence for randomness in multicellular organisms, but now the onus for providing evidence is upon you because the replication mechanisms in the cells of both unicellular and multicellular organisms are pretty much the same.You position makes little sense. To use an analogy, why would the sole photocopier of a small business be more likely to introduce random errors than a photocopier in a huge corporate headquarters where there are many other copiers?So if you think the DNA copying process in a unicellular organisms can experience random errors while that in multicellular organisms cannot then you have to provide your evidence or at least a rationale. Taq is already asking you for this evidence, and I agree that you need to provide it.