Replies

" The room for radical revision of Newtonian physics was even smaller. But it did happen."

It was a lot bigger with Newton. There is far less room for the inheritance of acquired characteristics.

"Things tend to be "less frequent" when we do not look for them."

Scientists DO look for the rates of ERV insertions; they are a lot less common then mutations.

"That something is not proposed does not mean that it is not there. Actually I think that number of things we do not know and we do not imagine or propose is much larger. The world is a wonderful wast place."

In order for something to be examined by science, there has to at least be the hint that it exists.

" Why do you expect the directed variations to be obliged to see the future?"

In order to be useful they would have to be. The designer would need to know what to design for. Otherwise, the changes would be indistinguishable from random mutation.

"Random mutations/selected models reacts slowly to the present changes."

Sometimes they don't react fast enough (extinction).

"I doubt that such research (excluding any interraction between spermoplasma and egg) was done."

It has been.

"But even so, the DNA modifications or switches could be done before combination."

By what?

Scientists DO look for the rates of ERV insertions; they are a lot less common then mutations.

Do you have sources for this comparison?

"I doubt that such research (excluding any interraction between spermoplasma and egg) was done."

It has been.

Interesting. Could you list the sources, if it is not too much work?

"Why do you expect the directed variations to be obliged to see the future?"

In order to be useful they would have to be. The designer would need to know what to design for. Otherwise, the changes would be indistinguishable from random mutation.

It is strange what you are saying. Let me give the example - the new toxin enters the environment so:

Then the new generation of organisms get their DNA modified accordingly to provide the resistance and different species share the solutions.

Or random process of mutations has to take place until some lucky organisms gets it and than the descendants of this one organism are lucky to survive and take over. Other species have to do the same or die out.

Which is more efficient? Why the more efficient way would be prevented from being the norm? Mind you - this did not require knowing the future!