I know that you often refer to this "new" theory of evolution known as the modern synthesis, and you try to use this term as meaning some kind of new theory different from the past. As far as I am concerned this is a bit of a ruse to call it a new theory. I believe when you are referring to the modern synthesis all you are really saying is that there are many new mechanisms which we know of that effect how organisms develop. But I have never seen from you or anyone else a description of how this applies to a new theory of how things came to be. To me its akin to suggesting that every time you discover a new fossil or a new species that we didn't know existed before, that we now have a new theory of life-and thus we no longer accept the old one. We could have a new theory weekly by these definitions, and we could have a new modern synthesis weekly every time we discover some new molecular pathway. So which new modern synthesis are you referring to, the one from last week or the one from this week?
In other words, in what way is saying that there are many kinds of genetic transcriptions forming a new theoretical framework? I don't believe Darwin's theory, as it has been used for over 100 years ever really relied on one specific means for genetic change. He didn't even know how it happened. The theory has always been random mutations (after Darwin introduced shared ancestry) , combined with natural selection to form new forms after long periods of change.
So with this new modern synthesis how has this theory changed? Not how have the mechanisms changed, how has the theory changed. Can you present this theory in any way that makes it universally true and falsifiable? Is it no longer random mutations? Is it no longer slow change, but is rapid change? Because I am quite sure that no one, including the scientists who use this term 'new synthesis" really knows what the heck it means. All they are saying is that we have discovered all kinds of different genetic ways of change. they are not saying anything about how these different methods of change came to be, or why. They are not saying anything about where all of these grand epigenetic developments got their start, or why so many genes have combined to effect so many different regions of an organism.
This new modern synthesis hasn't clarified anything about the development of life on earth, it has in fact done the opposite.it has completely muddied the water about trying to see how we got here, and how life changed the way it did. If you disagree with this, then I think you have to state what exactly this theory is saying about how we got here and why. Does the modern synthesis have rules about what can't be included in the new ways that things can change? Does it make predictions? Does it attempt to answer where it got its start? I don't think you will do that because you never have, all you ever say is that the "modern synthesis' allows you to include any new thing you discover and throw it into a bowl and call it the result of random mutations. Does the modern synthesis have rules about what can't be included in the new ways that things can change? Does it make predictions? Does it attempt to answer where it got its start?
That's not a theory, that's just a way out of having to explain anything in a step by step fashion.
Let's be honest, this term "modern synthesis" doesn't mean anything specifically. It just means we found out a whole heck of a lot of things we never guessed were going on in development (and that appear to be just the tip of the iceberg), and we actually have no idea how or why these came to be. How is that a theory?
It is an entirely appropriate question to ask that it be explained what the theory of the 'modern synthesis" is, since it is this which is being used to the claim that "that living organisms actively reorganize their genomes..and can sense danger and respond accordingly." is simply another aspect of the modern synthesis.
If one is saying this is an aspect of the modern synthesis, they need to show what is and what isn't the modern synthesis, if it is anything at all, other than a plea to admit that we don't understand what is going on and why.
Of course, I can certainly understand why you would object to such a question-as it puts those on your side in an uncomfortable position for having to explain something-but claiming it is off topic is not a very good defense-although it is a popular one for you to try to use here, I fully realize.
Its is sort of like Dr.A's get out of jail free card..."Hey hey, wait, that is OFF TOPIC, we don't have to answer that!" Can't you even come up with some new tricks A?