About New Lamarckian Synthesis Theory

The mechanism that the authors cite is random mutations in cis-regulatory elements (CRE's) that give rise to novel regulatory pathways that are the passed through natural selection.

quote:

---

In contrast, a CRE that is functional in a given tissue already contains some of the sites necessary to direct gene expression in that tissue, and therefore it represents a more likely template to accommodate a new expression pattern in that tissue, because a relatively shorter evolutionary path would lead to functional novelty. Consequently, it seems more probable that a novel gene expression pattern in a tissue will arise from random mutations creating binding sites in the vicinity of an existing CRE driving expression in that tissue than from mutations in nonfunctional DNA.
[emphasis mine]

​

---

All you have done is outline the selection regime. The source of variation is still random mutations. You have not cited any mechanisms that could guide mutations in a manner that would be non-random with respect to fitness.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Then why are you citing this paper as supporting guided mutations? Where do they outline a mechanism for guided mutations? Where do they present any evidence that could be considered a mechanism for guided mutations? Where? I did a word search for both "epigenetic" and "methylation". Those words are not found ANYWHERE in the article. The only mechanism I saw that they discuss is natural selection. For example:

quote:

---

In theory, the loss of a particular pigmentation pattern could occur by the loss of pigmentation gene expression or the disruption of pigmentation protein functions through mutations in their coding sequences. However, the latter kinds of genetic changes would have substantial collateral effects, affecting all pigmentation patterns and other processes in which these proteins are involved. Many fly pigmentation proteins are also involved in cuticle formation and the metabolism of dopamine, an essential neurotransmitter, and D. melanogaster yellow mutants are notorious for their poor mating success (37, 40—42). Hence, losses of pigmentation through changes in the coding sequences of pigmentation genes are unlikely to be tolerated by natural selection, because their fitness cost is too high.

​

[emphasis mine]

---

That is the only guiding that I saw, and it is done after the mutations appear, not before.Have you actually read the paper? Where do the authors describe epigenetics guiding mutations as you claim?

What does that even mean? I really don't understand what you are trying to claim.The paper you cited is talking about random mutations in regulatory DNA that results in changes in DNA regulation. These changes then pass through natural selection. That is the mechanism in the paper. If that is not the mechanism you are trying to evidence, then why did you cite this paper? What about mutations?

Then why are you citing the paper? If you are just going to find papers to disagree with then this discussion can not move forward. What you need to find is a paper that outlines the mechanism that is responsible for guided mutations. In science, you need evidence for a mechanism before you can include it. Where is that evidence?

It doesn't matter if you think it is stupid or not. Random mutations is what the evidence indicates, and you have not presented any evidence that would lead us to consider guided mutations.

However, none of these mechanisms guide mutations. Pointing to epigenetics and DNA regulation does not evidence guided mutations.

You may think it is stupid for the Earth to move about the Sun, but the reality is that it does. You are commiting the Fallacy of Incredulity:Argument from incredulity - RationalWikiWe observe that mutations are random with respect to fitness. You have not offered a single observation that demonstrates that mutations are guided. Where in those links can we find a mechanism that guides mutations?

You need to show how epigenetics guides mutations so that they are only beneficial and do not produce neutral or detrimental mutations. Where have you done that? All you are doing is making an argument from incredulity which is a logical fallacy.

Then what is the point of guided mutations? Compare the human and chimp genome. The differences between those genomes are the result of random mutations. That is an argument from incredulity. I don't need to explain your difficulty in accepting reality.

If you buy more lottery tickets does the lottery cease to be random? Based on what evidence?

How so? What is that evidence? The account is that mutations are random, so detrimental mutations do occur. I have been giving you the account from the very start of this thread.

Where did you show this? No, it means that natural selection is what pushes a population in a given morphological direction.

Histone packaging and DNA methylation does NOT change DNA sequence. DNA sequence change, without a doubt. If giraffes were consistently given food on the ground for multiple generations you would not see them suddenly all change into okapis:Okapi - Wikipedia

How does that work?

Where did you show that epigenetics caused the giraffe ancestor to have a longer neck? What evidence led you to this conclusion?Natural selection selects for mutations that improve the fitness of the population. It doesn't matter if these mutations act against or in concordance with epigenetic changes. Also, I have already shown that epigenetic changes can be detrimental such as in the case of type II diabetes and fetal alcohol syndrome.