Yes, another stumbling block to evolutionary theory based on mutation, as epigenetics proves the stability of heritable traits, even while genes might be mutating
Perhaps, my understanding of it is that different genes are turned on and off in response to environmental conditions. It's the nurture arm of the nature/nurture debate.
Given that we only use a very small proportion of our chromosomes, it could be that significant changes in environment and opportunity cause large shifts in morphology due to options available throughout the unused portion of the genome.
That we possess so much "junk DNA" was mentioned in the alien autopsy reddit post which asserted that the shortness of the chromosomes were a feature of "its" genetic engineering.
There was a similar pseudo-science in the USSR promoted by Lysenko, that caused the famine death of millions with the gist of this - planting wheat in tundra etc. This was a variety of
Lamarckism - which was an enlightenment theory. Bizarrely, it has some grounds to it although nobody knows how it works - they just have instances of it.
So, somehow there is some consciousness directing evolution - a feedback mechanism that we have no idea of - directing responses in biota at all levels.
The theory of evolution as popularly advertised is a blind theory - it relies wholly on mutation and attrition. The theory as presently defined is thoroughly inadequate, and that's why it is being reworked.
Whatever conclusion they come to, the brutishness of the original theory is false - and its uses in moral justification is therefore unsound.
Ideologies that dispatched the ethical question through the use of evolutionary theory are thus demonstrated as spurious.
