That’s correct, but we’re not discussing the cutting edge here but relative basics. I’m clearly not articulating myself well but I can assure you that this discussion wouldn’t take place between two biologists because there’s nothing here.
> It should be noted that I never said directional -- I actually made it explicitly clear in my first post that I was not arguing for a direction
You did say that, but, respectfully, you implied directionality — otherwise it would be completely unclear what your initial comment wanted to say, because it seems to specifically have objected to my assertion that no directed changes of the germ line exist.
> Do we agree that random mutations of the germline can result in differing rates of change across subsets of the genome?
Not within a single generation, no. Across evolutionary time, by virtue of selection, yes (that’s in fact the very basis of evolution). But this is irrelevant in the context of this comment thread, started by my initial comment: I asserted that there is no mechanism to encode learned behaviour in the germ line. This would require a direct mediator of mutations on the molecular level, not across evolutionary time but in the here and now. A molecule in the gametes (or their precursor cells). Such a molecule does not exist. Stochastic variation that shapes patterns of mutation across multiple generations is fundamentally a red herring here.