About New Lamarckian Synthesis Theory

It is not missing. We have that evidence. We observe that the same mechanisms of mutagenesis are present in both eukaryotes and prokaryotes. We also observe that these mechanisms produce random mutations in prokaryotes. We also observe that mutations cause deleterious, neutral, and beneficial mutations in metazoans just as these mechanisms do in prokaryotes. When we compare genomes between species we also observe an obvious selective signal in functioning genes were deleterious mutations have been selected against indicating that deleterious mutations have been occuring throughout evolutionary history.What we don't see is an entire population acquiring a specific mutation in single generation in response to a specific environmental stimuli. This is what I would expect from a system where the environment guides mutations, and it simply is not seen.

Try message 96. Epigenetic changes are involved in both fetal alcohol syndrome and type 2 diabetes. If epigenetic changes are guided by environment then you shouldn't need natural selection. You only need natural selection to separate the good from the bad/neutral. The same for actual mutations. If mutations are guided by environment then why would you need natural selection? You would only need natural selection if mutations are random with respect to fitness.

I disagree. You should be able to use comparisons of genomes between species to model past evolutionary events. If mutations are guided then it should show up in this data. It doesn't. Instead, we see mutations accumulating in junk DNA at rates that are consistent with neutral drift. Neutral drift is a HUGE piece of evidence for random mutations. Even more, we see a lower rate of accumulation for mutations in coding regions. This strongly evidences negative selection that is eliminating deleterious mutations.The problem is that you have nothing relevant to say as it relates to the evidence we do have for random mutations. You simply act as if this evidence is meaningless, and then accuse scientists of ignoring your ideas even though they have no evidence to back them. Sorry, but this is really bad science on your part.

I am still seeing no evidence for your claims. Please provide evidence. There are environments that are stable over several generations, and these environments do not cause the same mutation in all members of the population over a single generation. The pocket mouse example given in another thread is a perfect example. You can find the paper here:Just a moment...In this example, the pocket mice evolved a darker fur color as a camoflage adaptation in areas with dark basalt lava. There were several areas of lava separated by large areas of dried grass that strongly disfavored the dark color. What did they observe? DIFFERENT MUTATIONS OCCURRED IN EACH OF THESE DARK POPULATIONS. The dark color was not due to the same mutation in these differen populations. This is slam dunk evidence for random mutations.

How did you determine that they were guided?

Epigenetic changes do not explain the differences between species. Why do you keep mentioning epigenetic changes? I do so because that is what the evidence indicates. Yes. Radiometric dating puts the lava flows at about 2 million years old. With 4 generations per year that puts it at 8 million generations of mice. That seems adequate to me. That is precisely what the researchers did."Finally, the pattern of nucleotide variation observed among Mc1r alleles from the Pinacate site suggests the recent action of positive selection. Thirteen polymorphic sites are variable among the light haplotypes, whereas only one site is variable among the dark haplotypes (Table 1)."They found that due to the recent selection of the specific allele that not very many neutral mutations had built up in the dark allele while many such neutral variations were seen in the light allele. Of course, both alleles carry neutral mutations that were present in the common ancestor of the two alleles. I would also suspect that you could find neutral mutations in the non-coding DNA that surrounds the dark allele. Neutral mutations are always constantly accumulating at a probabilistic rate.

I don't want you to overlook this data. There were two areas of dark lava, each with a population of dark colored mice. As it turned out, the mutations that conferred dark color in one population were not seen in the other dark population. This indicates that different mutations in different genes were responsible for the same phenotype in the two different populations. The two populations were dubbed "Pinicate" and "Armendaris"."Strikingly, the data presented here implicate amino acid changes at Mc1r in the dark phenotype in the Pinacate population but not in the Armendaris population. Only one Mc1r amino acid polymorphism (Ala-285 Thr) was observed among the 40 alleles from Armendaris; this variant was present in 2 of 24 alleles in light mice and 0 of 16 alleles in dark mice. Two silent polymorphisms were present at intermediate frequencies (48%) among the 40 Armendaris alleles, but neither showed any association with mouse color. In fact, the frequencies of these polymorphisms were very similar among dark (50%) and light (45%) mice."
Just a moment...If mutations are guided, why do you have two different mutations in two different genes in two different populations who are under the same environmental conditions? It would seem to me that this falsifies guided mutations. This is extremely strong evidence of random mutations.

It was not known whether or not mutations were truly random until the 20th century. That is why Luria, Delbruck, and the Lederbergs did the experiments that they did. They wanted to know if beneficial mutations were induced or random. As it turned out, the DATA supported random mutations, and it still does.Random mutations are not an idea. Random mutations is a CONCLUSION drawn from the EVIDENCE. You still refuse to deal with that evidence.

Citation please. Evidence please.

This is like epigenetics all over again.DNA regulation is not DNA mutation. They are two different things.

Is your post missing sarcasm tags?

So how do you determine if a mutation was guided or random? What experimental setup would be able to differentiate between the two?

How so? I have evidence to back up my claims which makes them more than a belief.

What evidence do you have for this mechanism? That is not a problem. We have a direct record of millions of years of evolution in the genomes of living organisms. It's all there. How does DNA regulation guide mutations? Please cite evidence for this claim.

That is taken into account. That is why you see more variation in the light allele compared to the dark allele because the light allele is ancestral and had more time to accumulate neutral mutations. The dark allele has less variation indicating that there was a selective sweep of that allele in recent history. This matches with the radiometric dating of the lava which is less than 2 million years old.