About New Lamarckian Synthesis Theory

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Which are linked and one is following the other It is temporarily only a belief , not much different than yours.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From these three terms the 1. is ,I suppose, by any body accepted.
Term 2 : The targeted mutations are bound to increase fitness, as there are from the start chosen by environment to meet special needs.
So in fact it remains only the 2, term. I have said many times that time scale makes it almost impossible ( for the moment) to identify such guidance in mutations. It is exactly the same reason that no direct evidence of random mutations in metazoans, even after 150 ys of intense research and effort. Any relevant deductions are just hair pulled. In view of works that show different states of regulations in metazoans and the principle of economy, guidance of mutations vs random is the most propable.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

You dinn't take into account that these mice had already evolved not today but many millions of ys ago. So your calculations are definitely wrong.

The above work , among many others, shows the possible mechanism that guided mutations follow. When in a epigenetic area , through long periods of epigenetic changes, relevant regulations are havily placed one upon others, ( and this phenomenon is a FACT), we onlly can expect as an inevitable sequence, the replacement of that complex and and energy expensive situation, with an act a Gordian knot solution , which is the somehow, but not strict, guided mutation.

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.The above work , among many others, shows the possible mechanism that guided mutations follow. When in a epigenetic area , through long periods of epigenetic changes, relevant regulations are havily placed one upon others, ( and this phenomenon is a FACT), we onlly can expect as an inevitable sequence, the replacement of that complex and and energy expensive situation, with an act a Gordian knot solution , which is the somehow, but not strict, guided mutation--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The authors just express their fixed belief in randomness ( or could they dare to do otherwise?).They don't bring any new evidence for it. But what kind of random mutatayions are they that are chosen to happen on predetermined places in order to...? Maybe it is time to redefine random mutations. In any case i think they are describing a mechanism of epigenetic changes causing new mutations.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

You seem to support a totally illogical situation: You now forced by the evidence to accept that epigenetic changes, inherited to many generations, accompanied with a lot of regulating mechanisms, loaded in specific epigenetic genome places, you are by your theory obliged to the illogical conclusion that, sudenly due to a random mutation(s) , that leads propably evolution to different direction, are all wiped out and go astray. Even if this paradox genome mutation could happen, evolution remains guided by environment, not only by the process of selection, but also by energetic environmental guidance, through epigenetics intervention, because epigenetic changes dictated by long standing envronmental changes can not be wiped out.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.