Summations Only

In at least 2 of the examples, Pax6 and Neural Crest Cells I'd say it was the role of the developing nervous system as an organising centre that was the cause of that involvement since the key developmental timepoints involved are well before the CNS starts acting as a central interpreter of environmental information.I am not a specialist in the field but in the article Cabej writes:
The neural control of recruitment of Pax6 in the regulatory network of lens crystallin during the early individual development strongly suggests that the nervous system must have also been responsible for the initial recruitment of lens crystalline in metazoan evolution.Concerning the neural crest cells, based on other published works, Cabej writes that hindbrain (neural tube) provides the neural crest cells with epigenetic patterning Dynamics information’. He quotes Trainor . ‘‘the proper program of events governing the migration of crest may need first to be established in the hindbrain to allow migratory crest cells to interpret and respond to environmental signals set up through a series of tissue interactions.’’However, it seems to me that examples on the direct involvement of the CNS in producing evolutionary innovations are to be found in his book. Don’t worry I find the $150 a bit steep myself. Maybe go to the author’s site? *Note: Are are block quotes done on this site? Thanks .

There is no doubt that the evolution of the CNS developmental pathways was an important factor. However, this is not what Zi ko is going for. He is claiming that the CNS chooses which mutations will occur in offspring. This is not what the quote is alluding to.Also, epigenetics does not involve mutations. Two of the important mechanisms in epigenetics is DNA methylation and histone packaging. Neither involves changes in DNA sequence. Again, this thread is about guided mutations. Epigenetics does not even involve mutations, much less guided mutations.

Actually, this thread is about Zi Ko's 'neurogenic theory' and in one of his several OP variants he included epigenetics as one of the factors he was interested in.Maybe you are getting mixed up with the thread about the Wright paper. That would be fairly understandable since there are currently 2 parallel subthreads going on, one titled "Re: Are there ONLY RANDOM MUTATIONS?" and the other "Re: Are there RANDOM MUTATIONS?"TTFN,WK

If you don't understand this how can you even talk about this kind of think at an equal level with those trying to educate you?

Why that means that guidance in some degree didn't happen? Yoy seem keep forgetting that guidance in mutations is not a strict procedure. It can be only an increase in mutation rates at specific site of genome. Exactly the same "evidence" you provide for random mutations. As it is yours of random mutations. Life can use even "randomness" to fulfill it's scopes. We both are in the same boat. We just rely on what belief we prefer to choose Again i repeat detrimental and neutral mutations can be a product in the guided procedure..

So you do understand. Could you then please explain to me how it has this predictive value?

Then why call them guided at all? An increase in the random mutation rate is still an increase in the RANDOM mutation rate. Buying more lottery tickets does not make the lottery non-random. Then why not call them random mutations and be done with it? Mine is not a belief. It is a testable hypothesis. I have defined what random mutations should look like, and I have experiments that have produced results consistent with this definition. Let's use the Luria-Delbruck fluctuation experiment as an example. If parallel cultures produced the same number of mutants then my definition would be falsified. They don't. That is the test. That is how my definition of random mutations is falsifiable. Your definition of guided mutations is an unfalsifiable moving target.Would it be helpful if we went over the two experiments (fluctuation test and plate replica test)?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Then how would you differentiate between mutations that are random and those which are 'guided'?

Buying lottery by a man is not equivalent of "buying lottery" by nature, becouse nature has a great purpose to fulfill , e.g preserve life . Also it can choose between different possibilities, or as it happens usually, it can combine all them. Becouse if i call them random , which it can be true at the low level of one cell organisms, according to your dedefinition, then i will find it difficult to apply this concept to higher organisms, in relation to mutations, whic lead to changes are more clearly evident that they are guided, as f.e in instinct formation etc. It is testable as far as somebody doesn't accept nature's innate strife for preserving life through using environmental information, something so obvious to me and well proved in epigenetics . You don't deny this fact as regards epigenetic changes due to environmental effect on paragenome, but you stop arbitrarily there. You don't accept any effect on genome in the long run maybe thousands of years, without any scientific evidence to support your opinion, as scietists have not the means ,e.g time, to make the neccessary following. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

I don't try to. I believe they all are guided as they both, "random"and guided mutations serve nature's strife to preserve life.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nature is an abstract concept that roughly speaking refers to the entire world outside of things that result from man's own purpose. Nature is literally incapable of having any purpose, because it possess no sentience. Similarly, it is only by colloquial thinking that we can even say that Nature is indifferent to life, because non-entities cannot even be said to have feelings.Perhaps your anthropomorphism of Nature has some rationale and logic behind it. But so far, it is a rationale and logic that I do not see and that you do not explain. What I do see is muddled, and non-linear thinking, that I would label irrational. Of course, I could be wrong.Perhaps if you explain what entity it is that you actually believe has such a purpose, or how a non-entity might at least euphemistically be said to have purpose, others could more easily understand what you mean.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Nature's purpose could be imposed by:
1.The existing universal laws.
2.By a supernatural entity.
I think that either of them is logically preferable to me as a cause of life, than randomness. Of course somebody could prefer the last one; But in any case it is a matter of belief, and not a scientific conclusion, as many here tent irrationally to to think.

Not directly, because existing "universal laws" is just another abstract concept that cannot possess sentience or purpose. In fact, what we call laws are simply our observations of how the universe seems to work. I think you are really limited to only this possibility. The first possibility is just patent nonsense, and is what allows you to say that when an apple falls to the ground, it is being directed by sentience. Yes, and I suspect that if you were to simply call your "theory" a belief rather than trying to pretend it was science, this thread would not be approaching 400 messages in length. Edited by NoNukes, : remove extraneous quoted material.

Isn't this example tautological?
'existing universal laws' is a reasonably accurate simile for 'nature'.

Nobody said universal laws possess sentience or purpose. But they could lead to creatures that have them. What does me prevent to say that aple is directed by gravity? I think you misunderstood me.I was refering to tobelievers to random mutations as well.... I think those too are pretenting it is science and not simply a belief.