About New Lamarckian Synthesis Theory

It is fair to note that jar did not provide any evidence supporting the fact that mutations are random with respect to fitness. But that scarcely matters, because others have done so, and you've ignored what they have presented.

As for the OP, it does leave room open to argue about some Lamarckian aspects to epigenesis, but even that modification might well be random with respect to fitness even if the mutations themselves are induced by external stimuli. In order to have a case, you need to show not just that the rate of mutations is susceptible to environmental pressure, but that the fitness of those mutations is also susceptible to the same pressure.

Is this really your best argument? After all, I cannot disprove that evolution of mammals was not caused by magic elves living in hollow trees.

I presume that you are describing the actions of Mother Nature here.

Exactly what do you mean by your statement? How would nature disallow a non beneficial change from occurring?

Again, what does this statement mean? You've attempted to distinguish epigenetical change from mutations which could be beneficial or detrimental by saying that nature will not allow the former to go astray?

If your statement means something other than saying that Nature won't allow detrimental epigenetical changes, then I cannot figure out what you are saying.

Are you truly unable to see the contradiction in this sentence?

Where "astray" means what exactly? Perhaps if you cite an example of an astray epigenetic change that nature won't allow.

Or even better, stop referring to nature anthropomorphically and just talk plainly about what process you are referring to.

Wrong. I did not ask you for evidence. What I asked for is an example, and it can be one you invent, of an astray epigenetic change that you believe nature would not allow. I want you to tell me how nature would prevent such a change. If you are unable to do this, I am going to conclude that you have no idea what you are talking about.

I'll try to do so.

If natural selection is at work, then the expected action is that changes are created by whatever mechanism, and the changes that provide an advantage in a given environment for the purpose of surviving to pass on inheritable change. You say that epigenetic changes are developed through natural selection, but then you deny that such changes can ever be detrimental without specifying what the environment is.

That combination of ideas is nonsensical. Further, you've been provided with counter examples.

And I'm asking you how nature would prevent this thing it would not allow. What is the process by which economics are taken into account?

In short, (and again) stop treating nature as a person or deity and tell me how this thing you say happens would or could work. What would prevent an elongated giraffes neck from becoming a useless or even a detrimental change?

If this is what Zi ko means, I hope he will acknowledge it. I don't find the concepts particularly difficult, but I don't see much science in them.

"Prevent" means the same thing as "does not allow", at least to the extend that "disallowing" requires that Nature prevent something.

You make statements like this, but then with a straight face claim not to be talking about nature as some sort of person or deity. How would Nature use something without being an entity capable of use?

Either there is a communication barrier here that you are unable to surmount, or your ideas make no sense.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

We might make the statement above, but we would also recognize and accept that such statements are sloppy. If asked to explain we could talk about the chemistry and math involved between the bonding of carbon and oxygen atoms in such a way that we don't treat them as living beings. On the other hand microbes are living beings.

You admit that Nature is not a living being, so I am asking you to explain what "use" and "disallow" actually represent in non-anthropomorphic language. Can you do that?

So how does nature 'prevent' it from getting lost? What role does economics and efficiency play in preventing it from getting lost?

How is this done? You seem to be arguing in a circle.

Communicating with you is far too difficult. You've outlasted me, so I guess you win.

It's almost as if Nature had no cognitive ability at all!