"Any novel change/mutation in `` expression `` at the organismic level that can not be directly linked to a novel genetic mutation can only be EAM , aka Devo-Evo , ( that is , developmental evolution ) , a neo-lamarkian phenomenon . Why ? Because such a phenomenon nothing whatsoever to do with the darwinist , `` ToE `` , that is , that such novel trait changes/'expressions ' originate from -- `` Random Genetic Mutation `` , coincidentally expressed as some lucky organismic trait that `` Natural Selection `` does not eliminate before it is inherited by offspring . And there simply is no genetic mutation here . What it does show , empirically , are that organismic tyraits are not determined by genetic chemicals , but by the organism 's usage of those chemicals to its own purposes and advantage ."
"I will stop quoting here . Do n't want people to have too big a read . Actually ToE is n't all that random . To a certain degree yes . But Sexual Selection aka a part of the ToE . Dictates that when there is a benificial/attractive change . That change will be enhanced almost exponentially . Because the female of the species will be programmed to search for that and will carry the gene herself so will give it to her off spring . And the male will be more succesfull so produce more off spring . So no instant eyes or anything like that . I think that 's what you were implying . Sorry for responding in Kronus 's stead . I 'm sure he can defend himself but I found it unjust the way you replied to his post and attacked it on foundations that you did n't have ."
"Because such a phenomenon nothing whatsoever to do with the darwinist , `` ToE `` , that is , that such novel trait changes/'expressions ' originate from -- `` Random Genetic Mutation `` ,"
"degree yes . But Sexual Selection aka a part of the ToE . Dictates that when there is a benificial/attractive change ."