Summations Only

Until someone can show a comprehensive mechanism by which such can occurr and that indeed this has and is taking place then, no, we do not see neural systems affecting the genome in any way whatsoever.

zi ko, you are the one pushing neural systems as a vector for genetic change, not me.It is you who carries the burden of proof, not me.If you cannot produce the evidence then you have nothing. And so far you have nothing. Until you produce direct positive evidence (not negative evidence on other mechanisms) your idea is mere speculation, nothing more. Not my problem.If you want to insist that neural systems are involved then I have two words for you:Prove it!

This is the falacious part, zi ko. No one has observed or documented neural functions as a vector for genetic change. It is not accepted by anyone.I think you need to re-read your sources with a more critical eye.And if I may, please. Your web site is a bit hard to read. When I view it there are complete sentences with no spacing whatsoever.I understand English is not your native language (though you do express yourself well enough) and as such this detracts from your presentation. I suggest you have a friend more familiar with English edit your web page for proper English mechanics. This will help with making your speculation (errant as it is ) more clear for us.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I assume you meant your Message 173.I thought Wounded King's response to part of your message (in Message 174) was more than adequate.I addressed the rest of your message in my Message 175. What these studies show is that DNA methylation and chromatin remodeling can activate some genes and quiesce others in response to various external biochemical stimuli. Nothing more. Good for you. Right now you have nothing but a speculation. You may be right, though I doubt it. Go for it. Prove your case.

Oh, zi ko, this is so very very wrong!Evidence is not necessary, but desirable, for a speculation.But for an hypothesis, and even more so for a real full blown theory, evidence is not just a condition it is a hard fast requirement.Do not confuse the scientific definition of "theory" with the pop-culture misuse of the term. This is a science issue.I think you need to get your definitions in order before you continue here.

National Academies of Science

quote:

---

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

---

Evidence is paramount to having a "theory". And a "theory" must be a "comprehensive" explanation of a phenomenon based upon observable, demonstrable and repeatable evidence for all aspects of the theory.You are missing cogent definitions of "information" and "empathy" and you are missing a defined comprehensive testable mechanism for this effect on a genome.You do not have a theory, zi ko.

Wounded King is our resident expert on these things.His answers to you are more than adequate for my purposes. I refer you to his Message 207 above.

I think you have accomplished this. The problem you now face is presenting adequate evidence to show your speculations have merit.As I said in Message 206 your speculation that neural systems can channel environmental "information" via "empathy" into directed alteration of a genome needs to be evidenced with precise definitions and a complete mechanism.It is not that we do not understand, zi ko. You have given us nothing but your ideas and we do not agree.

Please, zi ko, stop using this terminology. You cannot present a "comprehensive theory" when you have no "theory" and what you do present is not in the least bit "comprehensive". Overview of Natural SelectionA more detailed treatment of Natural SelectionYour first part, with some evidential support, posits that the effects of environment can directly affect the phenotype, and in a few very limited cases, the genotype. This is well known and is the modification part of the equation.But ...The resulting phenotype must survive and procreate within the environment or die out. This is the process of Natural Selection. Ultimately, Natural Selection determines what variations, no matter their source, are effective, survive, propagate, continue and which variations die and do not continue. Even the statistical results of allelic drift in static populations must pass through the greater environment. You cannot escape the sieve of Natural Selection in evolution.Natural Selection is the big hammer in evolution and cannot be avoided. Modification and Natural Selection direct evolution. Until you can evidence this vector of genotypic modification this has no efficacy. Edited by AZPaul3, : spelins korekshonsEdited by AZPaul3, : some change

Wounded King answered this above.So, yes, zi ko, in wikipedia' s definition of SCIENTIFIC THEORY is the requirement for lots of evidence. Besides, if there were to be any conflict in definitions it is the National Academies' definition that would prevail in this forum.If you have a body similar in scope to the National Academies in your country you might want to check there. Science is science the world over and I would be surprised if they did not also recognize the primary requirement of evidence in the formalism of "theory".

Proved? Science can never "prove". Only religion does that, and badly. But, I won't pick. I understand what you mean.I hope I understand the question correctly.It depends on the strength of the evidence and whether the experiments have been successfully reproduced.You are proposing an extraordinary vector of genetic change and it will take extraordinary sets of evidence to show its validity.Let us assume the best for you and say that sometime later this year a study is published succinctly defining both "information" and "empathy" and identifying a possible mechanism through the neural net by which this "information" can alter the genome. If the study was duplicated with the same results in peer review then I would say your speculations would take on the mantel of "hypothesis".If additional studies by groups around the world continued to show the same results with the same conclusions then your hypothesis would enter the realm of "theory" and would be incorporated into the Theory of Evolution along side the other known vectors of genomic change.If this near impossible state of affairs were to actually arise the one thing to keep in mind is that since you did not do the work you will not receive any of the credit. Speculations, even when they are shown to be correct, usually do not garner honor for the speculator. The first one to do the intellectual grunt work and publish a logical and viable proposed mechanism usually is granted the credit.

It would be easy, yes, but if you want to be taken seriously in a science discipline I would advise against using the word "theory" at this point. If you are looking for a title for a formal paper on your ideas I would suggest something like:"Information, Empathy and Neural Networks: A Speculation on Genomic Change"or something to that affect.

That's a good one. I like it.But then I imagine the page with the title and credits written at the top then being blank until about mid-way down where a small "No." appears. But that's just me.Edited by AZPaul3, : fix oopsEdited by AZPaul3, : clarity