[GodGunsGuts]

==I asked for an animal whose offspring differed from it in a way unattributable to genetic variance.

The offspring did differ from the parent in a way unattributable to genetic variance. As you said yourself, the underlying gene sequence of the agouti mice remained the same, and yet the change in their diet/environment produced changes to the phenotype that were non-random and heritable. And as for whether or not epigenetics is Lamarckian, one of the researchers (Douglas Ruden from the Univ. of Alabama) quoted in The Scientist article says just that: “Epigenetics has always been Lamarckian. I really don’t think there’s any controversy.” If this is all true, the neo-Darwinian synthesis is falsified.

[js1138]

The genome is smart. It can respond to selective conditions

Then you will no doubt provide an example of this happening.

[UndauntedR]

The offspring did differ from the parent in a way unattributable to genetic variance.

I hope you understand that genetic variance includes changes in gene expression levels as well, which this is.

And as for whether or not epigenetics is Lamarckian,

Well... like I tried to explain, it's borderline. In the sense of being an inheritable trait cause by the environment, yes. In the sense Lamarckian "desire", or acquired physical characteristics, no. Regardless, it's a an interesting case.

If this is all true, the neo-Darwinian synthesis is falsified.

Riiight... it's just another mechanism of evolution, that all.