Summations Only

By what mechanism do nerve cells communicate to DNA in germ line cells (i.e. sperm and eggs) in order to tell them what mutations need to be made in the next generation? In the case of eggs, they are already formed prior to the woman being born, so the changes have to be made to the intact egg and not to the cellular predecessors in the process of meiosis.So how does that work? Is there a ganglia responsible for taking information from the brain and injecting that information into the gametes?

And it does fail. The rate of Down Syndrome and other chromosomal irregularities increase with the age of the parent.

Your theory should at least be able to explain the facts we do have and be able to make different predictions than that made by the current theory of evolution. For example, your theory should be able to explain why chimps and humans differ in some genes more than others, and be able to do so better than the current theory. So what should we see when comparing the human and chimps genomes, and what predictions does your theory make that the current theory does not?On top of that, you have two classic experiments to deal with. These experiments are:1. Luria-Delbruck Fluctuation Experiment: In this experiment the authors discovered that the mutations needed for bacteriophage resistance occur in the absence of bacteriophage. Mutations leading to bacteriophage resistance were not a response to the death of their fellow bacteria as your theory would suggest.2. Lederbergs' Plate Replica Experiment: This experiment used a different methodology to demonstrate the very same thing that was demonstrated in the Luria-Delbruck fluctuation experiment. They found that mutations conferring antibiotic resistance occur in the absence of antibiotic, not as a response to the presence of antibiotics.I would be more than happy to discuss the particulars of these experiments if you are unclear as to how they demonstrate that mutations are random with respect to fitness.On top of that, we observe that harmful mutations do indeed occur. According to your theory, what is the purpose of dwarfism (i.e. achondroplasia) or hemophilia? We know that these phenotypes can and do occur through spontaneous mutations, and we even know the genes that they occur in. So what is the nervous system trying to adapt to in these cases? You also need to explain why neutral mutations occur, mutations that produce no change in any organs or phenotypes.The problem I see with your theory is that it doesn't explain the facts we do have. That is a big problem for any theory.

What are these general directions, how are they communicated, and what are they communicated to?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

So how do the neurons know which mutations to cause, and how does the central nervous system know to target these changes to the sperm and eggs?Even more, how do you explain offspring that are less fit than their parents? How do you explain children born with dwarfism and hemophilia?

Gravel does not need to know the size of the sieve in order to be sorted.Lottery players do not need to know the winning number in order to win.Adaptation does not require communication or knowing what the best adaptation for a given environment is.

Reality does not conform to theory. Theories conform to reality. You need to start with reality and work back towards theory.The first thing you need to explain is how offspring can be born with mutations which put them at a disadvantage. We know that this is a fact, so your theory needs to explain it.

There is no known facts which link the production of mutations in gametes with the central nervous system.

If you have no testable mechanism then you have no theory.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Then please outline the experiments that could be used to test your hypothesis. However, good theories do make predictions of what should happen in an experiment. Yes, there is. You claim that the nervous system is producing changes in the genome. These diseases are due to changes in the genome. Therefore, your theory must explain them.

Also, epigenetic changes only extend to a few generations. They are not permanent by any menas. They can not explain changes that occur over thousands of generations.

I have seen this before. People who are not experienced scientists sometimes have a strange view of how science is actually done, or even how theories are constructed to begin with. They think that scientists have eureka moments where this completely off the wall idea pops into their head that is unattached to reality in anyway. They then propose this idea to their peers who all say how brilliant it is because of it's originality.Well, it doesn't work that way unfortunately. Theories take a lot of hard work. Darwin spent many years testing his ideas and gathering data before he proposed the theory of evolution. Einstein worked hard to create a mathematical basis for his ideas of Relativity so that it could be tested, and still explain the data of the time. What scientists do NOT do is just throw their hair brained ideas into the scientific community and expect everyone else to do the hard work.I don't mean this to be insulting. It's great to have new ideas and talk about them. However, before you can start pushing it as science you need to put in some hard work first to bolster your position. You need to understand genetics and cell biology. You need to understand how these things interact and how your theory fits in with this knowledge. Your hard work will be noticed which will lead to people having more respect for your ideas. As it is, the idea that neurons specifically mutate the genomes of sperm and eggs isn't worth serious consideration.

How so? How does empathy cause specific DNA methylation and histone packanging patterns in eggs and sperm? How does DNA methylation and histone packaging translate into DNA mutations? How are they explained by your hypothesis in ways that are already not explained by random mutation and natural selection?

So say we all.

How do the patterns of DNA methylation and histone packaging indicate that neurons are guiding this process? Then what observations did you base your hypothesis on? How should the patterns of DNA mutation differ between a randomly mutating system and a system guided by neurons? Actually, that would be the job of the person proposing the hypothesis which is you. You hypothesis has nothing to do with the production of emotion in the brain. Your hypothesis deals with mutations produced by the central nervous system. Please focus on that. Random mutation and natural selection already explain this phenomenon quite nicely without any input from the nervous system.Let's use an analogy. I hypothesize that there is a pot of gold at the end of every rainbow. Is the fact that diffracted sunlight produces a range of different colors supportive of my hypothesis? Is the existence of gold supportive of my hypothesis?