About New Lamarckian Synthesis Theory

By using the epigenetic change to pave the way to environmentally guided mutations. If epigenetic effect were not to be used , it would just a huge waste . Such thing don't see often in nature. I can't follow you.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

How is this done? You seem to be arguing in a circle. Communicating with you is far too difficult. You've outlasted me, so I guess you win.

I have said it many times. But i will repeat it for you. There is not to my knowledge, relevant work done on this issue. It is a new idea. Maybe it wil be in future I hope.Why do you insist asking the same question again and again?. I suppose for reasons of impression. So you made the most of it and so you have won. And so with this unkind evasion you perfectly suceed to keep intact your sacred caw. Well done!Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

At a minimum your goal must be to convince people you know what you're talking about, and as I said before, your scatterbrained and scattershot approach is working against that. Let me repeat word for word my request from Message 124, where I was apparently already repeating myself word for word: You said you could only provide a rationale, but rationales have to be based upon evidence. You can use existing evidence or introduce new evidence, but your rationale has to be based upon evidence.

If all the participants and lurkers could find their way to my first post in this thread I will humbly claim victory.

It is not missing. We have that evidence. We observe that the same mechanisms of mutagenesis are present in both eukaryotes and prokaryotes. We also observe that these mechanisms produce random mutations in prokaryotes. We also observe that mutations cause deleterious, neutral, and beneficial mutations in metazoans just as these mechanisms do in prokaryotes. When we compare genomes between species we also observe an obvious selective signal in functioning genes were deleterious mutations have been selected against indicating that deleterious mutations have been occuring throughout evolutionary history.What we don't see is an entire population acquiring a specific mutation in single generation in response to a specific environmental stimuli. This is what I would expect from a system where the environment guides mutations, and it simply is not seen.

Try message 96. Epigenetic changes are involved in both fetal alcohol syndrome and type 2 diabetes. If epigenetic changes are guided by environment then you shouldn't need natural selection. You only need natural selection to separate the good from the bad/neutral. The same for actual mutations. If mutations are guided by environment then why would you need natural selection? You would only need natural selection if mutations are random with respect to fitness.

Yes, you nailed it from the start.For those wanting to check, it is Message 10

I disagree. You should be able to use comparisons of genomes between species to model past evolutionary events. If mutations are guided then it should show up in this data. It doesn't. Instead, we see mutations accumulating in junk DNA at rates that are consistent with neutral drift. Neutral drift is a HUGE piece of evidence for random mutations. Even more, we see a lower rate of accumulation for mutations in coding regions. This strongly evidences negative selection that is eliminating deleterious mutations.The problem is that you have nothing relevant to say as it relates to the evidence we do have for random mutations. You simply act as if this evidence is meaningless, and then accuse scientists of ignoring your ideas even though they have no evidence to back them. Sorry, but this is really bad science on your part.

I suppose you mean.... "beneficial changes"... OK with procayotes eucaryotes and random mutations. It is the most economic way for nature to suceed evolution. The environmental factor comes in the picture more vigorously in metazoans.( here the relevant evidence is missing), but it still an element of randomness is remaining, as the broad direction given by environment, gives the the chances of many types ov variation, of which some is neutral or deleterious. So the existance of such mutations does not favor random or guided mutations. No i wouldn't expect a specific mutation from a specific environmental stimuli. Quite the different. Environment , specially for long periods, is so fuctuating and unstable.

Thanks!
( So Epigenetic changes CAN CAUSE detrimental or neutral changes.)
In a schematic way we have two theories: random mutations vs guided/random mutations. Both epigenetic changes and guided actual mutations are producing a broad variety of changes from detrimental to beneficial, though the first, in much less numbers needed fo be produced by random mutations (economy principle) to hit the target to be selected for.

As my idea/theory foresees detrimental-neutral mutations the main issue bedomes the comparison numbers of these mutations. That could give us a clue and not their simple existance.

You keep making the same flawed inferences. Epigenetic changes CAN be influenced by the environment, but they are not permanent changes to the genome. Epigenetics affect the expression of genes not the genes themselves. The resources we have reviewed on this thread support that position, if you believe otherwise, you will need to provide evidence of that.Regardless of how long the epigenetic changes persist, they are not know to be able to affect the actual genetic code. If you have evidence that contradicts that, please present.If the epigenetic changes cause deleterious effects, then, yes, natural selection can remove those individuals with negative fitness. This may seem to you like the environment is guiding the process, but it is really not the case. You could more accurately think of the epigenetic changes as a part of the environmental conditions since there are no changes to the genetic code.An analogy: Superman is fighting the bad guys but they are hiding a big chunk of kryptonite and when superman gets close, the bad guys expose him to it. Superman is weakened and the bad guys start kicking his butt. However, he manages to escape but a piece of kryptonite gets stuck in his tights. Even though he is away from the main kryptonite "environment", the effects still go with him since there is a piece of it on him. His enemies continue to beat him, all is lost! However, Superman himself has not change, he is still Superman, but he is weakened by the effects of the environment that he has carried along with him. Finally he realizes that the piece of kryptonite is there and he gets rid of it. His super powers return and he saves the day. HooRah!The kryptonite was a part of the environment, not part of Superman himself.Now I think we need a brief refresher as to what random mutation actually means. It means that mutations occur regardless of whether the organism needs them or not. They are random with respect to fitness. A mutation does not occur because an organism is in a particular environment and needs that mutation to increase its fitness.So, in order to establish the case that mutations are guided by the environment via epigenetic changes it needs to be established that:1. The environment can target specific places in the genome for epigenetic change.
2. Those epigenetic changes can target specific mutations within that region.
3. Those targeted mutations increase the fitness of the individual.If you don't have hard evidence of the above, that's quite OK. But you need some rationalization that supports why you think you case is solid. That you believe that evidence is lacking in other areas is not support of your position. Besides, there has been plenty of evidence that supports the randomness of mutations (as defined above).HBD

I am still seeing no evidence for your claims. Please provide evidence. There are environments that are stable over several generations, and these environments do not cause the same mutation in all members of the population over a single generation. The pocket mouse example given in another thread is a perfect example. You can find the paper here:Just a moment...In this example, the pocket mice evolved a darker fur color as a camoflage adaptation in areas with dark basalt lava. There were several areas of lava separated by large areas of dried grass that strongly disfavored the dark color. What did they observe? DIFFERENT MUTATIONS OCCURRED IN EACH OF THESE DARK POPULATIONS. The dark color was not due to the same mutation in these differen populations. This is slam dunk evidence for random mutations.

How did you determine that they were guided?