Yes, and here is all of what you posted on that message:

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.

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.

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
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.

1st Epigenetic link says:
In recent years, evidence has accumulated showing biological phenomena that are as different as the reprogramming of the genome during development and differentiation, genomic imprinting and the inactivation of the X chromosome, developmental disorders of embryos following nuclear transfer, RNA interference, posttranscriptional gene inactivation in fungi and plants, as well as the inheritance of acquired traits can all be traced back to related molecular mechanisms. The investigation of these phenomena is of equally great importance for medicine, pharmacology, animal husbandry and plant cultivation.

3rd Epigenetic Link:
Discover Magazine’s November 2006 issue’s cover article DNA is not destiny shows how parental behavior, DNA methalation and a host of other environmental effects change the behaviour, phenotyping and susceptability to disease of mice and other animals, and that at least some of these changes are heritable.

The knowledge that the environment changes the expression of genes, and that these changes in expression are heritable validates Lamarck’s original thesis. That it was easier to show that Mendel’s genetic patterns were stable and easily reproduced hid the truth of Lamarck’s observations for hundreds of years. Perhaps this example will show that rarely is there truth in only one viewpoint. All visionaries see part of the truth, and rarely see it all.

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.