Quote
If you can't demonstrate that the logic is faulty then the logical conclusion is that the logic is valid and the problem is with the receiver. Of course cognitive dissonance plays a role here -- a normal intelligent person can seem to be stupid when confronted with contradictory evidence for a basic belief, because they just can't fit it in to their world view.
An hypothesis isn't evidence. You just like to repeatedly abuse terms. And although you claim you're not like Dawkins, your abuse of the term "cognitive dissonance" is perfectly in keeping with his program: lie and say anyone who doesn't follow your religion is mentally ill. Who can fail to see your intolerant intentions?

Quote
Change in morphology with and without stasis: ergo stasis is irrelevant, no matter what you think or what you think other people think (you do know that the appeal to popular opinion is a logical fallacy don't you?)
I think the evolutionist is forced to be intellectually dishonest when confronted by the fossil record. The "prediction" says one thing, and the record shows the opposite. Of course none of the phony "predictions" are intended to be falsifiable; they simply mock science. All I did was point out the inconsistency in the policy. That you are, or pretend to be, blind to this isn't a surprise. That you think you can fool anyone else with such nonsense is somewhat insulting.

Quote
Quote
And what you say is the exact opposite of
Quote
The knowledge that the environment changes the expression of genes, and that these changes in expression are heritable validates Lamarck’s original thesis.
First off, this is equivocating Lamarck's original thesis - that environment has an effect on organisms - with "lamarckism" , the theory that acquired traits are heritable (a theory that Darwin also included, btw).
Funny how you snipped out the parts that were directly opposing what you said, and chose to focus on this sentence instead. Coincidence?

Quote
Heritable as long as the organisms remain in the environment and subject to the effect. What this means is that the effect keeps happening, generation after generation, while the organisms are in that environment, not that the effects are permanent. It is possible that neutral mutations that cause similar effects occur and are selected for along with the epigenetic effect. If so then when the population moves or the environment changes some of the effects remain, but it isn't necessary.
A mutation could potentially screw up the epigenetic mechanisms? SO WHAT? A mutation could potentially screw up anything to do with genes. This doesn't make epigenetics a non-factor.

You seem dead-set on downplaying, distorting, and just plain misstating everything to do with gene expression. I suppose you could be genuinely ignorant, but in that case it would be in your interest to follow some links and learn a thing or two. Your behaviour is not consistent with this. One wonders what you see in these things that frightens you so.

Could it be that you're unable to imagine a way for these things to have evolved? I have to say it is very difficult. It might seem to require true junk DNA to evolve as a precursor, and then mutate until it finds a use. But how could selection choose in favour of extra, useless, ineffiecient clutter bogging down the metabolism of every cell in the body? And make this choice continually for who knows how many generations... until enough accumulated & mutated to start doing something which in all probability wouldn't be worthwhile on the first try, or even the first billion tries.

Even then, how could this junk evolve the knowledge to supervise the rest of the DNA properly? Would it not see the subordinate parts as either doing their job or not? How could it learn that some adaptations are better in some situations, when to apply them, when not to apply them?

Yes, that is a tough question. Anyone who could truly answer would have to know how to build an autonomously self-programming computer (and then some). But evading it won't answer it. You should face epigenetics and recombination head-on, and lie through your teeth. Study Huxley if Darwin's examples don't inspire you.

Quote
Quote
I think I'll continue to wait. The anti-Russ position still looks risky to me.
As I said before, being skeptical is laudable, if you are universal in your skepticism rather than use it to mask your bias. You choose not to be skeptical of the "Russ position" because it suits your bias just as you choose to be skeptical of the "anti-Russ position" because it suits your bias. Thus this isn't being skeptical, it is being biased.
You misunderstand the situation. When Russ said
Quote
Adaptation is based on very complex mechanisms that are "built-into" the organism requiring vastly-increased complexity in it's original design. This mechanism is not "error-based" like classic "evolution". Adaptive processes require a design incorporating the concept of anticipation ("looking ahead") which matter simply does not have.
This indicated to me that he's looked into the matter. The anti-Russ argument is knee-jerk call it "Lamarckism" and write it off.

You then proceeded to make statements which directly contradicted the information in my links, doing just what Russ said you must.

Now any educated person (and at this point, with the links & all there's no need to be otherwise) can see that although Russ' examples resemble Lamarckism, one cannot be certain that they are of the type that's been demonstrated not to occur. We have 3 evolutionists & a cheerleader who still haven't produced any evidence that they are of this type rather than epigenetic.

Surely I cannot be expected to conclude either way until I have evidence. Even more surely, if anyone does expect this of me, I intend to disappoint.

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson