About New Lamarckian Synthesis Theory

Is there any mistake here Taq? It is like talking me, not you. You sorely are talking about mutations and not epigenetic changes? Of course you will say that the random mutations with natural selection was the mechanism to have those changes. But again such a language! Was there adequate time for the random mutations to get established? Can we count the deleterious or neutral mutations had taken place on this process? That would help us to make some deductions about guided or not mutations.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks fo relating me the classic evolution Theory! Maybe the following will make you to think a bit beyond it

Epigenetic changes do not explain the differences between species. Why do you keep mentioning epigenetic changes? I do so because that is what the evidence indicates. Yes. Radiometric dating puts the lava flows at about 2 million years old. With 4 generations per year that puts it at 8 million generations of mice. That seems adequate to me. That is precisely what the researchers did."Finally, the pattern of nucleotide variation observed among Mc1r alleles from the Pinacate site suggests the recent action of positive selection. Thirteen polymorphic sites are variable among the light haplotypes, whereas only one site is variable among the dark haplotypes (Table 1)."They found that due to the recent selection of the specific allele that not very many neutral mutations had built up in the dark allele while many such neutral variations were seen in the light allele. Of course, both alleles carry neutral mutations that were present in the common ancestor of the two alleles. I would also suspect that you could find neutral mutations in the non-coding DNA that surrounds the dark allele. Neutral mutations are always constantly accumulating at a probabilistic rate.

I don't want you to overlook this data. There were two areas of dark lava, each with a population of dark colored mice. As it turned out, the mutations that conferred dark color in one population were not seen in the other dark population. This indicates that different mutations in different genes were responsible for the same phenotype in the two different populations. The two populations were dubbed "Pinicate" and "Armendaris"."Strikingly, the data presented here implicate amino acid changes at Mc1r in the dark phenotype in the Pinacate population but not in the Armendaris population. Only one Mc1r amino acid polymorphism (Ala-285 Thr) was observed among the 40 alleles from Armendaris; this variant was present in 2 of 24 alleles in light mice and 0 of 16 alleles in dark mice. Two silent polymorphisms were present at intermediate frequencies (48%) among the 40 Armendaris alleles, but neither showed any association with mouse color. In fact, the frequencies of these polymorphisms were very similar among dark (50%) and light (45%) mice."
Just a moment...If mutations are guided, why do you have two different mutations in two different genes in two different populations who are under the same environmental conditions? It would seem to me that this falsifies guided mutations. This is extremely strong evidence of random mutations.

Maybe there is a reason it's a classic! How so? What you presented supports the "classic" evolution theory.Obviously, English is not your first language and I think we are all willing to work hard at overcoming that barrier. But your lack of comprehension skills is making a meaningful discussion practically impossible and there is not much any of us can do about that.HBD

Random mutations is so a lucrative idea, that even the term "classic" could be gifted nonnderservantly to this theory, which fitted so well to the psychologic needs of 17-18 century.

It was not known whether or not mutations were truly random until the 20th century. That is why Luria, Delbruck, and the Lederbergs did the experiments that they did. They wanted to know if beneficial mutations were induced or random. As it turned out, the DATA supported random mutations, and it still does.Random mutations are not an idea. Random mutations is a CONCLUSION drawn from the EVIDENCE. You still refuse to deal with that evidence.

No. Until 20th century there was the blind belief, due to Darwin's authority. Now Luria's etc observations unwarantly again had been aplied to metazoans.The same story is continued. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

There is the article:Emerging principles of regulatory evolution
1. Benjamin Prud'homme * , ,
2. Nicolas Gompel , , and
3. Sean B. Carroll * , "These principles endow regulatory evolution with a vast creative potential that accounts for both relatively modest morphological differences among closely related species and more profound anatomical divergences among groups at higher taxonomical levels. "
These regulatory mechanisms are to me clear indications of non randomness in evolution.

Citation please. Evidence please.

This is like epigenetics all over again.DNA regulation is not DNA mutation. They are two different things.

There is clear indications that mutations are not random; all the puppies or kittens in a litter are identical since they were all subject to the same environmental regulation. Now if there was a litter of kittens where one had a white paw but the others had white ears or a litter of puppies where some were brown and some were brown and white you might be able to make a case for randomness. Good thing that never happens.

Is your post missing sarcasm tags?

You seem to ignore and distort my thesis:It is about random mutations vs guided AND RANDOM mutations.

So how do you determine if a mutation was guided or random? What experimental setup would be able to differentiate between the two?