About New Lamarckian Synthesis Theory

Then please show how the process of mutagenesis is different in metazoans and how that results in non-random mutations.

What evidence would you have to see in order to admit that mutations are not guided.

Are they permanent or dynamic? You need to choose one.

Also, how does the environment make mutations non-random with respect to fitness.

I have an analogy may explain what I think Zi Ko is saying.
Mutation is going to shoot an arrow, but it can't see where the target is. Nature, however, has a way to call out to mutation to say "aim this way", so that the arrow will be shot in the general direction of the target. But mutation still fires in a relatively random direction because it cannot actually see the target. Nature however can see exactly where this arrow is heading so she quickly moves the target to intercept the arrow and thus mutation hits the target.The big thing is that nature is almost a being in and of itself and is directing all natural processes, so what looks random really isn't, but guided by some supernatural force (nature itself). If anything survives and thrives then that is considered evidence that the process is guided. If anything dies or goes extinct, that is also evidence that nature had deemed it necessary to ensure survival of other life.Zi Ko's philosophy seems very Eastern in nature and very difficult for us with a more Western philosophy to get a handle on.HBD

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?

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

How would Nature use something without being an entity capable of use?

you have to provide your evidence or at least a rationale.

Why don't you follow my suggestion from earlier in the thread and use the Time article to structure your arguments? It provided some pretty strong evidence and arguments, it was foolish to abandon it as quickly as you introduced it.

...A rationale of "It's not impossible" is just an excuse to keep talking when you've got nothing. It's not based on any evidence.

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

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?

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.

We also observe that mutations cause deleterious, neutral, and beneficial mutations in metazoans just as these mechanisms do 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.