Still evading the issues CTD.

Quote
Out-of-context quoting? How low are you willing to go? (Here's the original.)
Yes, and here is all of what you posted on that message:

Quote
If I read the dates correctly this second "theory" is posted when the first is only 2 days old. As this one contains nothing resembling a coherent hypothesis, it would seem to have little value. Claiming observations can be explained, isn't that simply restating the goal of science?

If you think this is an example of how science works, I don't know exactly what to suggest... It doesn't help that time is so short; if the pattern holds, the next "theory" is due within 36 hours, and that doesn't give us much time to work. Your might wiki "science", "empirical science", "inductive reasoning". Google some more sources if wiki doesn't cut it, I guess.
Can you point out the part where you address the message and not attack the messenger? Saying something is not coherent is not demonstrating that it is, as that woulod require you to show that the conclusions do not follow from the observations. This is just another of your flat assertions that you have failed to support.

Quote
What I bolded was "Macroevolution requires that organisms' morphologies have changed throughout evolutionary history" You know, unstasis.
No, for we can see macroevolution -- speciation (that is the way evolutionary biologists use the term) -- with and without "stasis" (ie "stassis" is irrelevant to whether speciation occurs), and yes, for speciation we do require evolution to occur, that is how populations become different from generation to generation. The fossil evidence for the transition from reptile to mammal for instance, shows several stages along the way, including several intermediate stages where the organisms had double jointed jaws.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm
Quote
The earliest therapsids show the typical reptilian type of jaw joint, with the articular bone in the jaw firmly attached to the quadrate bone in the skull. In later fossils from the same group, however, the quadrate-articular bones have become smaller, and the dentary and squamosal bones have become larger and moved closer together. This trend reaches its apex in a group of therapsids known as cynodonts, of which the genus Probainognathus is a representative. Probainognathus possessed characteristics of both reptile and mammal, and this transitional aspect was shown most clearly by the fact that it had TWO jaw joints--one reptilian, one mammalian ...
...
In a slightly later group, known as the ictidosaurians, the mammalian part of the double jaw joint seen in Probainognathus was strengthened, while the old reptilian part was beginning to become reduced in size. In describing a member of this group known as Diarthrognathus, paleontologists Colbert and Morales point out: "The most interesting and fascinating point in the morphology of the ictidosaurians (at least, as seen in Diarthrognathus) was the double jaw articulation. In this animal, not only was the ancient reptilian joint between a reduced quadrate and articular still present, but also the new mammalian joint between the squamosal and dentary bones had come into functional being. Thus, Diarthrognathus was truly at the dividing line between reptile and mammal in so far as this important diagnostic feature is concerned." (Colbert and Morales, 1991, p. 128)
.

The therapsid-mammal transition was completed with the appearence of the Morganucodonts in the late Triassic. ...
...
Thus, the fossil record demonstrates, during the transition from therapsid reptile to mammal, various bones in the skull slowly migrated together to form a second functional jaw joint, and the now-superfluous original jaw bones were reduced in size until they formed the three bones in the mammalian middle ear. The reptilian quadrate bone became the mammalian incus, while the articular bone became the malleus. The entire process had taken nearly the whole length of the Triassic period to complete, a time span of approximately 40 million years. Since the determining characteristic of a mammal in the fossil record is the structure of the jaw bone and joint, all of the therapsids up to the Morganucodonts are classified as reptiles, and all those after that are considered to be mammals. As Romer puts it, "We arbitrarily group the therapsids as reptiles (we have to draw a line somewhere) but were they alive, a typical therapsid probably would seem to us an odd cross between a lizard and a dog, a transitional type between the two great groups of backboned animals." (Romer, 1967, p. 227)
No major sudden (unless you consider 40 million years "sudden") change, nothing beyond the degree of variation we see in dogs, is necessary to explain the gradual evolution from one fossil species to the other, and often they blend so well that it is hard to distinguish where one species leaves off and another begins.

Quote
I never said it didn't sound like Lamarckism; but until I have evidence one way or another it wouldn't be prudent to make a call.
And that would be laudable if this was your normal approach to all information where your knowledge is incomplete, but it isn't.

Epigenetic effects are environmental, and they only affect the organism while it is in that environment, but it is also necessary that they have a direct effect on the development of the organism - change it from normal development - to be of any importance, otherwise it is not liable to selection. Remove the environmental factors and the epigenetic effect goes away.

Consider thalidomide and the marked effect it had on offspring during development, yet did not effect offspring when not taken during pregnancy. Nor is the effect of the offspring passed down to their offspring, because there is no effect on the genes, and their children develop normally.

http://www.acpoc.org/library/1992_01_003.asp
Quote
...
Even though the majority of the Thalidomide population are severely disabled, one's profession cannot be the only important fact for the quality of life. Marriage, children, hobbies and special interests are important. There are many examples of excellent ways of life, but there are also some tragic circumstances. Those having severe limb deficiencies combined with deafness have frequently been found to have severe psychological problems. All of the victims are now beginning to fear secondary degenerative changes in their joints. They want to know how will these changes impact on daily life. This will be the challenge for the clinic team in the future. All of the Thalidomide victims who are now parents have had normal children. I end on this obvious optimistic note for the future.
Tanning and muscle development are behavioral, rather than environmental, and the acquired effects are easily lost by the individual. There is no mechanism to change the genetic code by tanning or muscle development, and thus they are not passed on to the offspring, nor do these behavioral factors necessarily apply to offspring.

Certainly it is possible for the offspring to acquire the same traits with the same behavior, particularly if that behavior has a selection advantage (again see Evolution Theory Explains Diversity again), but it is equally possible for them to be avoided.

The major difference between evolutionary effects -- change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation -- is that the changes can keep occurring until there are variations that are not in the original population, while all the effects of behavior and environment are static: an individual with developed muscles cannot have offspring with greater and greater muscle development, and a chemical "X" child that uses chemical "X" when they are bearing offspring will have chemical "X" children and not chemical "X*X" children.

What we see in the fossil record is that change is sometimes continuous and sometimes variable, but that overall there are continued trends that cannot be due to environmental or behavioral effects.

I'll stop here to see if any of this has an effect.

Enjoy.