Simple Questions For Those Who Believe That Evolution Is The Answer For Everything

a reply to: mikefougnie

I didn't ask you to tell me what the evidence isn't. I asked you to show me what it is. Show!

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: TzarChasm

Oh but those paintings and sculptures are conveying a message, it is communication. Didn't you take Art History? Or was that someone else?

What is the artist telling us? Visual path, focal point, balance, harmony and asymmetry all guide you into interpreting what you see. Film is 72 frames per second of still images, but through persistence of vision, you believe that what you are seeing is moving.

the painting itself doesnt determine what it means to us. you assign meaning and thats what makes it subjective rather than a reliable means of communication such as language which has a extrapersonal meaning that can be referred to and applied as needed. not sure how any of this concerns evolution.

That is true, you can only see that if you aren't blind.

But the blind can hear music. But the blind and deaf can see or hear nothing, but they can feel.

Here is a quote from the very famous Helen Keller

The best and most beautiful things can't be seen or even touched , they can only be felt with the heart.

How did she feel something greater than her immediate experience?

Once I knew only darkness and stillness... my life was without past or future... but a little word from the fingers of another fell into my hand that clutched at emptiness, and my heart leaped to the rapture of living.

It's never only what you just see or touch or hear, it is what that touch does within you, that your heart can know something beyond just you. How can one expect another to see what they see, if they don't know the immediate experience of the other?

Let Helen Keller feel the cold marble and what would she conclude from it? Let her feel the entire statue then she might have another conclusion, but it didn't arise in her seeing it. She could not see the sky was blue, she had to take it on faith that you were telling her the truth.

a reply to: WarminIndy

How did she feel something greater than her immediate experience?

It's never only what you just see or touch or hear, it is what that touch does within you, that your heart can know something beyond just you. How can one expect another to see what they see, if they don't know the immediate experience of the other?

Let Helen Keller feel the cold marble and what would she conclude from it? Let her feel the entire statue then she might have another conclusion, but it didn't arise in her seeing it. She could not see the sky was blue, she had to take it on faith that you were telling her the truth.

what does this have to do with evolution?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: WarminIndy

How did she feel something greater than her immediate experience?

It's never only what you just see or touch or hear, it is what that touch does within you, that your heart can know something beyond just you. How can one expect another to see what they see, if they don't know the immediate experience of the other?

Let Helen Keller feel the cold marble and what would she conclude from it? Let her feel the entire statue then she might have another conclusion, but it didn't arise in her seeing it. She could not see the sky was blue, she had to take it on faith that you were telling her the truth.

what does this have to do with evolution?

Nothing at all.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: WarminIndy

How did she feel something greater than her immediate experience?

It's never only what you just see or touch or hear, it is what that touch does within you, that your heart can know something beyond just you. How can one expect another to see what they see, if they don't know the immediate experience of the other?

Let Helen Keller feel the cold marble and what would she conclude from it? Let her feel the entire statue then she might have another conclusion, but it didn't arise in her seeing it. She could not see the sky was blue, she had to take it on faith that you were telling her the truth.

what does this have to do with evolution?

Everything.

And since the thread I created, I can postulate whatever I choose.

Tell, what doesn't it have to do with evolution? It's not evolution, it is how people interpret what they see. Hand a blind person a bone you dug up out of the ground, they have to take your word and have faith it is a bone.

So, along comes someone who says "Ah, that is a fossilized leg bone of Lepus curpaeums, that evolved from a common ancestor of you and I".

See, now they have to take your word and faith that is what you are telling them to be true. Can they observe what you did? What criteria do they employ to know you are telling the truth?

It relates to my first question, perhaps I should have phrased it better, but let's revisit.

Q: Are ALL mutations random?

A: No.

Q: Are some mutations random?

A: Yes.

Q: For those non-random mutations, what are they?

A: Refer to scholarly journals.

Well, you could really only say that evidence suggests random mutations, because evidence also suggests non-random mutations. Therefore, the statement "mutations are random" means that you have to now supply evidence for random mutations, because it isn't absolute truth.

Here, if you want to pay for a scholarly journal, you can read this Evidence suggesting non-random mutations

And here Trisomy 7-harbouring non-random duplication of the mutant MET allele in hereditary papillary renal carcinomas

And here Evidence of non-random mutation rates suggests an evolutionary risk management strategy

I think it would be suggested at this time to revisit the idea that mutations are random, which was assumed in the first place. Evidence suggests otherwise.

A central tenet in evolutionary theory is that mutations occur randomly with respect to their value to an organism; selection then governs whether they are fixed in a population. This principle has been challenged by long-standing theoretical models predicting that selection could modulate the rate of mutation itself1, 2. However, our understanding of how the mutation rate varies between different sites within a genome has been hindered by technical difficulties in measuring it

What is a central tenet?

ten·et
ˈtenit/Submit
noun
a principle or belief, especially one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy.
"the tenets of classical liberalism"
synonyms: principle, belief, doctrine, precept, creed, credo, article of faith, axiom, dogma, canon; More

I don't make these things up, I just find them. So how to reconcile new evidence with previous held dogma? To say there is no dogma, no orthodoxy, no faith, no belief, no creed, no article of faith within evolutionary science, is simply wrong. It had become a tenet as much as Dawkin's books.

Importantly, the variation is not random: we detect a lower rate in highly expressed genes and in those undergoing stronger purifying selection

You have to buy the full text if you want to see the experiments performed. But can we go back to the first question I posed, are mutations random? No, they are not.

So now we have to move forward to understand what these new findings will lead to.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Are you seriously suggesting that those biologists, palaeontologists and other scientists who have studied evolution are, somehow, taking things for granted by not looking at their own research?

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: WarminIndy

Are you seriously suggesting that those biologists, palaeontologists and other scientists who have studied evolution are, somehow, taking things for granted by not looking at their own research?

Hmm, it wasn't me who said that in the article.

Are you refusing now to look at the science? You want evidence, here it is. Read it, digest it, learn from it, because this wasn't on ID or Creationists sites. Are you now dismissing the evidence?

And yes, that problem you mentioned has happened, until some other scientist comes along and says "whoa, hold on a minute, back the train up, beam me up Scotty; Houston, we have a problem".

Peter Vlar and Hydeman probably would read these articles, Peter Vlar has the credentials to study them and make judgment calls, but unless I show this evidence, then others would not have known about it.

Given the evidence provided, could you still say mutations are random?

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: WarminIndy

How did she feel something greater than her immediate experience?

It's never only what you just see or touch or hear, it is what that touch does within you, that your heart can know something beyond just you. How can one expect another to see what they see, if they don't know the immediate experience of the other?

Let Helen Keller feel the cold marble and what would she conclude from it? Let her feel the entire statue then she might have another conclusion, but it didn't arise in her seeing it. She could not see the sky was blue, she had to take it on faith that you were telling her the truth.

what does this have to do with evolution?

Everything.

And since the thread I created, I can postulate whatever I choose.

Tell, what doesn't it have to do with evolution? It's not evolution, it is how people interpret what they see. Hand a blind person a bone you dug up out of the ground, they have to take your word and have faith it is a bone.

So, along comes someone who says "Ah, that is a fossilized leg bone of Lepus curpaeums, that evolved from a common ancestor of you and I".

See, now they have to take your word and faith that is what you are telling them to be true. Can they observe what you did? What criteria do they employ to know you are telling the truth?

It relates to my first question, perhaps I should have phrased it better, but let's revisit.

Q: Are ALL mutations random?

A: No.

Q: Are some mutations random?

A: Yes.

Q: For those non-random mutations, what are they?

A: Refer to scholarly journals.

Well, you could really only say that evidence suggests random mutations, because evidence also suggests non-random mutations. Therefore, the statement "mutations are random" means that you have to now supply evidence for random mutations, because it isn't absolute truth.

Here, if you want to pay for a scholarly journal, you can read this Evidence suggesting non-random mutations

And here Trisomy 7-harbouring non-random duplication of the mutant MET allele in hereditary papillary renal carcinomas

And here Evidence of non-random mutation rates suggests an evolutionary risk management strategy

I think it would be suggested at this time to revisit the idea that mutations are random, which was assumed in the first place. Evidence suggests otherwise.

A central tenet in evolutionary theory is that mutations occur randomly with respect to their value to an organism; selection then governs whether they are fixed in a population. This principle has been challenged by long-standing theoretical models predicting that selection could modulate the rate of mutation itself1, 2. However, our understanding of how the mutation rate varies between different sites within a genome has been hindered by technical difficulties in measuring it

What is a central tenet?

ten·et
ˈtenit/Submit
noun
a principle or belief, especially one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy.
"the tenets of classical liberalism"
synonyms: principle, belief, doctrine, precept, creed, credo, article of faith, axiom, dogma, canon; More

I don't make these things up, I just find them. So how to reconcile new evidence with previous held dogma? To say there is no dogma, no orthodoxy, no faith, no belief, no creed, no article of faith within evolutionary science, is simply wrong. It had become a tenet as much as Dawkin's books.

Importantly, the variation is not random: we detect a lower rate in highly expressed genes and in those undergoing stronger purifying selection

You have to buy the full text if you want to see the experiments performed. But can we go back to the first question I posed, are mutations random? No, they are not.

So now we have to move forward to understand what these new findings will lead to.

i am very happy to see that you have done your research. bravo, well done. i am not an expert in the subject, so i will leave it to the encyclopedic members to handle the details. your right, the theory is flawed. thats why it is a THEORY. unfortuntely for opponents of evolution however, it is still the MOST COMPLETE theory to date. it seems to me that your argument is based around the assertion that since evolution is not a perfect theory, it is exactly the same if not worse than ID because ID employs copious fallacies that answer every question with ease because they dont actually answer any queston at all except why its convenient to believe in ID.

if you require a god of the gaps to feel okay with this world, go right on ahead. it is your sovereign right after all. but please dont insult our intelligence by attempting to compare thiis god of the gaps with scientific theories we have spent decades putting together and polishing, or by suggesting that our comparatively few gaps are in any way more serious than the grand canyons riddling ID theory. you may as well bring a cow patty to the bake sale and try to say that since god made it sugar free and without preservatives, its a perfectly acceptble dish.

if evolution is proven wrong, we will admit it. we will adjust our current theories to reflect the new findings and set out in search of a better theory. but not until then.

a reply to: TzarChasm

If I have demonstrated that mutations are not random, where do we go from here?

I don't think I have ever said that I don't think all facets of evolution are wrong. But I have demonstrated that this one particular thing had no evidence because new evidence has shown that my point was valid.

I don't think you can say that it is complete, young scientists are working very hard now to find the multiverses and Russel's Teapot. Let's never say it is complete, what if everyone said it was complete in Michael Farraday's day?

originally posted by: WarminIndy

Everything.

And since the thread I created, I can postulate whatever I choose.

In all fairness, that's not how this works. Sure you created the thread but per board rules, you're supposed to stick to the original topic postulated in your title and OP

Tell, what doesn't it have to do with evolution? It's not evolution, it is how people interpret what they see. Hand a blind person a bone you dug up out of the ground, they have to take your word and have faith it is a bone.

So, along comes someone who says "Ah, that is a fossilized leg bone of Lepus curpaeums, that evolved from a common ancestor of you and I".

See, now they have to take your word and faith that is what you are telling them to be true. Can they observe what you did? What criteria do they employ to know you are telling the truth?

Can they observe what was done? In some cases yes. What criteria? There are standards and practices involved in excavations of the nature you are describing. It is all highly documented and it all follows the scientific method. Its not Jimmy his brother and cousin out in the yard with a shovel going buck wild. If the proper practices are not followed, there is no provenance. Without provenance, you've got diddly squat and your find isn't worth anything. Its why items such as the Paracas Skull are a joke and any real science is difficult to come by as opposed to say the pre-revolutionary war dig I worked in upstate NY where every square inch of the grid was documented.Every artifact photographed in situ with measurements and location. When studying HNS, I've never handled remains that were not heavily documented with provable provenance.

It relates to my first question, perhaps I should have phrased it better, but let's revisit.

Q: Are ALL mutations random?

A: No.

Q: Are some mutations random?

A: Yes.

Q: For those non-random mutations, what are they?

A: Refer to scholarly journals.

Well, you could really only say that evidence suggests random mutations, because evidence also suggests non-random mutations. Therefore, the statement "mutations are random" means that you have to now supply evidence for random mutations, because it isn't absolute truth.

Actually, the information indicating that SOME mutation may not be random is rather new, the onus is on those with new data to prove their case not on anyone else to defend what has been known to be true for decades. I'm not saying that it might not be true, in saying that from everything I've read the data has been somewhat inconclusive. One of the studies involved tumors, another E. Coli. If you actually read the studies and not just the abstracts there is a lot of data to sift through and a lot that is glossed over in the abstracts or articles in Nature.

I think it would be suggested at this time to revisit the idea that mutations are random, which was assumed in the first place. Evidence suggests otherwise.

I'm your first link it says-

in both cases there is a very significant departure from randomness which is primarily a reflection of a high incidence of mutations in which a guanine is replaced by an adenine in the codon for the amino acid which is changed.

What this is referring to is what is called a point mutation or a single base substitution. Essentially it refers to te replacement of a single base nucleotide with another nucleotide of the genetic material. By significant departure they mean that it doesn't appear that it is random but they also can't really show evidence that its not random either.
In the second link it says-

However, the relationship between trisomy 7 and MET Germaine mutations is not clear.

That one is pretty self explanatory. They can't establish a relationship and though they're trying to show that its not random, they actually can't say so one way or another.
In the third link it states-

Our observations suggest that the mutation rate has been evolutionary optimized to reduce the risk of deleterious mutations. Current knowledge of factors IMF.uencing the mutation rate- including transcription-coupled repair and context dependent mutagenesis do not explain these observations indicating additional mechanisms must be involved.

Again, the lead up to all of this was random mutation. What they're saying is that an additional mechanism must be at play because the known mechanisms don't explain this. It doesn't mean the process wasnt random. Its all very inconclusive. There needs to be a lot more research to indicate what other mechanisms may be at play here and how they actually influence or stabilize the mutation rate. Again, if the data pans out them ill be the first to jump on board but when nothing is conclusive you can't just ignore the past.

I don't make these things up, I just find them. So how to reconcile new evidence with previous held dogma? To say there is no dogma, no orthodoxy, no faith, no belief, no creed, no article of faith within evolutionary science, is simply wrong. It had become a tenet as much as Dawkin's books.

You're stretching things a bit with this business about dogma and orthodoxy. Sure, to an extent it may appear to be so but science is a fluid process and if the data supports new, additional or updated information then it becomes included into what you see as the paradigm. There isn't really any reconciling. It may not work or move as fast as you want it to but it happens nonetheless. If the data is valid, it will become accepted. The more outside what is known, the more impressive and compelling the data must be but it doesn't change the facts and the facts are that science updates itself all the time. 20 years ago it was laughable to suggest that humans bred with Neanderthal let alone lived with or cohabitated with each other. Both are now not just accepted but widely understood to be true even by lay people.

You have to buy the full text if you want to see the experiments performed. But can we go back to the first question I posed, are mutations random? No, they are not.
So now we have to move forward to understand what these new findings will lead to.

The only people who seem to really believe that are those who don't trust science which no matter how you try to paint the picture, includes you which is evidenced by your earlier statements and analogy regarding blind people taking your word on faith that you're placing a bone in their hand. That's not how science works. We use the scientific method, we wite up our progress and results, we publish the data for others to peer review and for the world at large to see and look at for themselves. There really isn't any faith involved if one is willing to engage in simple due diligence.

a reply to: peter vlar

It would simply be not correct at this point to say "all mutations are random", when it appears that not all are.

We already established my skepticism of a lot of things.

But comparing this with the papers on epigenetics and environment, of which some people had told me prior that environment has no direct influence on mutations, but yet it does, and not only that, the genome itself is a vast information sharing network, then there is no reason to conclude that any mutation is random.

If there is a lot of information sharing within the networks of the genome, at the chromosomal level, then information plays the important functions of determining when or how a gene should mutate. But information not only exists at the chromosomal level, it is also at the atomic level.

We know that molecules are attracted to each other and form new chemical compounds by that. Hence, water. What causes the vibrations of the atoms? Why are molecules attracted? My biology professor told us it was because of Hydrogen bonds. But why does Hydrogen behave in that manner?

I believe it is electrical energy that causes the different vibrations, but it must be on the same wavelength, I assume.
Infrared (IR) electromagnetic radiation causes vibrations in molecules (wavelengths of 2500-15,000 nm or 2.5 – 15 m)

We could relate this to early earth, if the magnetic field of the earth combined with a certain electrical impulse on a particular wave length was sufficient to create a vibration appropriate for certain molecules to bond, then that could explain also why certain people that have certain varying degrees of electrochemical and electromagnetic influences contained within the chromosome, then would that be a possible explanation for mutations? Cymatics are patterns that develop from sound. I think therefore sound, as an audio energy wave, is very possible. But does it have direct effect on the chromosome?

We know that Classical Music has a positive effect on students who are studying, and many students do use music while studying. And the earth itself hums along at Bb, 12 octaves lower than human hearing. With all the radio signals in the universe, I think they have an effect on the chromosome.

People who are exposed to high electric lines have higher chances of getting cancer, and the electric lines do pop and hum.

I'm exploring all different possibilities. If we included all the different sciences together, there are many possibilities.


Now certainly just because patterns are formed does not mean evolution is the result of this, but I think it should be considered. At the molecular level, could sound be a factor in causing the vibrations?

Thank you for your input though. I do read your responses and I do appreciate them.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Are you talking about "speaking" a species into being through cymatics?

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: TzarChasm

If I have demonstrated that mutations are not random, where do we go from here?

I don't think I have ever said that I don't think all facets of evolution are wrong. But I have demonstrated that this one particular thing had no evidence because new evidence has shown that my point was valid.

I don't think you can say that it is complete, young scientists are working very hard now to find the multiverses and Russel's Teapot. Let's never say it is complete, what if everyone said it was complete in Michael Farraday's day?

I don't care about what if's, I care abouy what are's. It wasn't complete in his day, its not complete now. Although it is closer. I don't think you have proven mutations are guided, but maybe you can bump up the relevant sources for us to look at.

a reply to: TzarChasm

At least you didn't say I never presented any evidence. That's good enough.

I haven't gotten anywhere close to saying they are guided, but we could say that there is certainly something going on within the cell and genome that isn't random.

I am talking about energy in the form of audio, where that audio comes from is from somewhere that isn't simply a natural origin, because we should have found it by now, at least.

It seems that it may be sequence guided

Yes, I include quotes from the abstract because that is the summary of the experiment.

The original pcaG1102 deletion appears to have been guided by pairing between slipped DNA strands from nearby repeated sequences in wild-type pcaG. Placement of an in-phase termination codon between the repeated sequences in pcaG prevents growth with quinate and permits selection of sequence-guided deletions that excise the codon and permit quinate to be used as a growth substrate at room temperature.

As there were some random, but more were guided through slipped DNA strands.

Natural transformation facilitated introduction of 68 different variants of the wild-type repeat structure within pcaG into the A. baylyi chromosome, and the frequency of deletion between the repetitions was determined with a novel method, precision plating.

And what is fascinating is that by 5 days, they were capable of metabolism.

After inoculation, thousands of nonmutant colonies growing nonselectively on succinate appeared, reaching their full but tiny size by 2 days. At this time, slightly larger colonies were observed. By 3 days, the larger colonies on the precision plates became more evident and a distinctive brown tint indicated metabolism of quinate into protocatechuate. At 4 days, the tint became stronger and the mutant colonies were clearly evident. At 5 days, they were all easily distinguishable from the nonmutant colonies in the background. No new mutant colonies appeared after 4 days

I would have to question a billion years now, because it seems to indicate that if these colonies can mutate through DNA guiding of having a DNA template that gives the information, that prevents deleterious mutations and occurs within 5 days to be able to metabolize, where does the information come from?

But there are things to consider, the experiment was performed by intelligent beings who placed them in the petri dish.

Fig. 4, the relationship is not linear, and curves to fit the data could be exponential or polynomial. In light of variations attributable to sequence variation, it would be unwise to place a mechanistic interpretation on the curves. Second, deletion between repetitions of constant length falls off sharply as the distance between them increases (Fig. 5).

What they have provided is a colony of mutated genes capable of metabolizing within 5 days, that is sequence-guided by template DNA.

You did ask for guided, this is merely one explanation of that.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I don't know what to tell you about that. This is what I do know: I have never met a divine intelligence. I have never heard of a repeatable experiment eliciting consistent verifiable influences from a divine intelligence. I have no reason to believe in such an entity except as an easy answer to hard questions. I have no intention of shortchanging myself or anyone else with BS answers that are designed to stonewall rather than inform. And I appreciate your efforts to inform the forum. Your right, you have presented a good amount of evidencr and I have no immediate defense or argument to refute it. I will continue to be skeptical until concrete answers are provided one way or another.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: WarminIndy

I don't know what to tell you about that. This is what I do know: I have never met a divine intelligence. I have never heard of a repeatable experiment eliciting consistent verifiable influences from a divine intelligence. I have no reason to believe in such an entity except as an easy answer to hard questions. I have no intention of shortchanging myself or anyone else with BS answers that are designed to stonewall rather than inform. And I appreciate your efforts to inform the forum. Your right, you have presented a good amount of evidencr and I have no immediate defense or argument to refute it. I will continue to be skeptical until concrete answers are provided one way or another.

And you should remain skeptical, that is your right.

I am not forcing you into an opinion or statement, but I simply ask that you at least see that not all Christians are the same and that some of us are willing to look at evidence that amazes us as well.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Well, thank you for your time - and I know, you've put quite a bit into this exhaustive headbutting contest. The mystery, I think, exceeds both of us and perhaps everyone on this planet. Maybe one day we will find an answer that makes everyone happy.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Here, if you want to pay for a scholarly journal, you can read this Evidence suggesting non-random mutations

And here Trisomy 7-harbouring non-random duplication of the mutant MET allele in hereditary papillary renal carcinomas

And here Evidence of non-random mutation rates suggests an evolutionary risk management strategy

I have only read the abstracts of these papers, but I don't get the idea from them that they are suggesting non-random mutations.

The first link and the third link are clearly discussing the RATE of mutation, not mutation itself. Certainly, biology depends on being able to determine an average rate of mutation in a population in order to determine how long ago mutations happened. If that mutation rate is not random, then the way of averaging the mutation rate may be more complicated than it is already.

Link two, seems to be discussing a cancer FORCING a mutation on its host. That is interesting, but is hardly a cause for throwing out the whole random mutation model. What is interesting about it to me is two things: (1) if that cancer can force a mutation in the host, how does that benefit the cancer cell? Remember mutations happen at generation boundaries. How does the cancer in a parent benefit from changing the DNA of the offspring? And (2) can this process somehow be harnessed by 'us' to provide a vector to fix genetic probelms? Could we engineer a "domesticated" cancer cell that could, lets say, 'fix' color blindness?

a reply to: rnaa

Again, like I said, all open to interpretation according to the filters you choose to use.

It was many pages ago that I presented the first papers on non-random mutations, the recent ones are of guided mutations. Those were two things that were asked of me to provide and I have.

As the cancer cells were guiding the process, then how did the cancer cells get the information to do so? Is information inherent? And because the cells are communicating, then information is being shared, so they not only have the information, they collaborate.

Pathway Analysis Using Information from Allele-Specific Gene Methylation in Genome-Wide Association Studies for Bipolar Disorder

Epigenetic changes, one of regulatory mechanisms, can modify gene activity or gene expression without altering the genomic structure,

Quite some time ago, I had reached the conclusion that we have genetic memory, and people told me I was nuts for that. In fact, there was a thread created by me where I talked about this very thing. Criticisms came then, so I expect it now, but the more research performed is leaning toward that very idea.

Grandma's experiences leaves it imprinted in your genome. And the following is not usually talked about among the general population when they talk about random mutations.

Since the 1970s, researchers had known that the tightly wound spools of DNA inside each cell’s nucleus require something extra to tell them exactly which genes to transcribe, whether for a heart cell, a liver cell or a brain cell.

Epigenetics provides evidence that it is not random

Like silt deposited on the cogs of a finely tuned machine after the seawater of a tsunami recedes, our experiences, and those of our forebears, are never gone, even if they have been forgotten. They become a part of us, a molecular residue holding fast to our genetic scaffolding. The DNA remains the same, but psychological and behavioral tendencies are inherited.

Inherited behaviors do indeed influence epigenetic information, so it is environmental.

The mechanisms of behavioral epigenetics underlie not only deficits and weaknesses but strengths and resiliencies, too. And for those unlucky enough to descend from miserable or withholding grandparents, emerging drug treatments could reset not just mood, but the epigenetic changes themselves. Like grandmother’s vintage dress, you could wear it or have it altered. The genome has long been known as the blueprint of life, but the epigenome is life’s Etch A Sketch: Shake it hard enough, and you can wipe clean the family curse.

Heritable changes occur because the genome either protects itself or allows the change. It does this from environmental factors, and shares the information within the genome across all the genomic systems. If the changes occur from heritable traits, then why is it possible within the genome to change it within the life of the individual?

Then our genetic code is influenced by our own behaviors. And we consciously do this through my earlier statement on selective breeding being a conscious effort.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Again, like I said, all open to interpretation according to the filters you choose to use.

Filters don't have anything to do with it; these are Scientific Papers, not Editorial Opinions.

A Scientific Paper discusses exactly what it says it discusses, no more. When a paper is discussing the RATE of mutations occurring, it is NOT debating whether the mutation itself random or not random.

Suppose we do an experiment: we put a monkey into a room with a piano, wait for him/her to figure out that the piano can make an interesting noise when the keys are pressed, and record the results. Now lets analyze the results to determine if the monkey has any concept of rhythm.

Clearly in order to answer that problem, we are not interested in whether the monkey has any artistic intentions behind his choice of WHICH notes to play, we only want to know whether there is a discernible rhythm in his key presses. The notes may or may not be random, for THIS study we don't care, and we are not going to make any conclusions about them one way or another.

In the same way, those two papers are referring to the rate of the mutation, not the mutation itself.

The mutation caused by the cancer cell is (in my opinion pending further study) probably just happenstance of the chemistry of how that virus works. Different cancers work in different ways - some destroy the lungs, some the liver, some are apparently benign parasites - it would appear this one affects the reproductive cells as part of its life cycle.

Until it can be shown that the cancer cell itself gets some benefit from causing a mutation in the offspring of its host, it cannot be said that the cancer cell has any 'information' about that mutation anyway - anymore than a cosmic ray has any information when it zaps some gene. The fact that it is 'caused' by the cancer makes it non-random, but that doesn't mean that the cancer has some 'ulterior motive'; most cancers cause sickness of one kind or another, this is just a variation on a theme.