As for the personal stuff, it began with things like 'delusional' smarmy, fool and wanky troll. My comments stand.
Your misunderstanding of epigenetics and even Lamarck is shown by the 'I can't practice...' post. Lamarck's theory was of evolution by acquired characteristics and he is less ridiculous if his original words are read instead of those written by people ridiculing him. Nor does epigenetics work by 'practicing' so that highlights either a preference to use misguided argument tactics or a lack of knowledge about what epigenetics actually is.
I've hinted a couple of times about the grandmother research. What they found was women who were in high stress situations had 'different' babies. High stress tends to breed (for want of a better term) athletes. Low stress and comfortable environments tend to breed Einsteins.. (again, for want of a better term)
The research showed that the original stress situation affected the baby, which could have been predicited with a little thought, but what it also found was the daughter ALSO had high-stress babies and so did the granddaughters. The epigenetic changes stayed that way and the traits carried forward even after the stress was removed. (wars are apparently good for some things. :D
The invention of inflation was distinctly a 'tweak the universe' thing. Big Bang theory has not changed since they came up with it, but the models failed to reproduce the universe we see. So they decided the universe had to undergo Inflation so the Big Bang theory would survive. Then galaxies didn't work right so they invented Dark matter. Then the RS showed some strange results so they invented Dark Energy. That's not how Science is supposed to work. If the evidence disagrees you are not meant to invent new forces so your theory is kept alive.
The only evidence for Inflation is that they need it for Big Bang models to make a universe that looks like the one we see. The evidence for Dark Matter is their models didn't give them galaxies like we see and also they needed something to fill in the lack of mass their model gives them. The evidence for Dark Energy is RS.
At no point did they go back and say, 'hm... the real world says no, so maybe we need a new theory. If we discard the Big Bang then maybe we can find a theory that has the current universe fall out of it as a natural thing, rather than using magic so we don't have to alter our model. And there ARE other ideas out there. General Systems theory proposes a steady state universe and even has practical mechanisms we can see to describe how matter and energy happen.
EU theory makes use of the vast energies involved in electrical and magnetic energies and has predictions that are proving out. One such was the detection of 'rogue' planets - a big surprise for conventional cosmology but predicted in EU.
In fact the recent history of Cosmology can perhaps be best described as a constant stream of surprises - which in Science, suggests your theory is wrong. Successful theory should predict at least most of the things you later find. Instead there's been any number of times they've had to try to work out ways to get observations to fit into their theory.
I gave you some evidence as to why RS is not just velocity. When High RS and Low RS objects are physically linked, RS cannot be just velocity. And without RS there is no evidence for a Big Bang because the galaxies are not necessarily moving apart at all.
I'm not claiming either of the alternative mentioned are truth, but they have better predictability that the Big Bang hypothesis. And if RS is NOT velocity, as would seem to be the case, then the entire Big Bang hypothesis falls on its arse and we don't need Inflation, Dark Matter or Dark Energy at all.
Evolution is, according to consensus, random, and it has to be or the door is wide open for ID and Creationism. What ISN'T random is survival which is a separate process to the one making changes. It may be splitting hairs but Evolution's results are not the same thing as the Evolution events. A failed mutation is still Evolution in action. Only once the organism breeds is there 'survival of the fittest' occurring.
The steady tick of mutation is also problematic as there are periods where fossils tell us there has been an explosion of forms. ELE aftermaths led to the idea of Punctuated Evolution to try to explain exactly this. And mutations can't 'build up' waiting for environment to change; they are either beneficial right now and improve survival chances or they get lost in the mix. And if they are beneficial NOW for the organism, then they are highly unlikely to open new opportuniy for the organism when an ELE drastically changes the environment.
