This article shows a newly-discovered defense mechanism, adding methionine in a random fashion to newly produced proteins, confusing the invaders:
> > 
> > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091125134701.htm
> David, 
> 
> Going deeper into the article, it talks a little more about epigenetics as a whole--and this underlines a point I've tried and failed to make in the past: epigenetics is a mechanism for change, but that change only gets transferred to future generations in one way. How does epigenetics then "prove" Darwin wrong? (Science isn't about "proving," i hate that word in any non-math context.) -It doesn't prove Darwin wrong. It shows that organisms come provided with self-protective genetic mechanisms that can respond much faster than waiting for a chance mutuation; the epigenetic trick, such as point methylation in DNA, didn't just pop up recently. It has been there all along. Again, designed to be present or developed by the ususal chance mutation and natural selection theory? 
> 
> Classical theory simply states that genetic changes are passed to offspring in one way... epigenetics would provide an elegant solution to the perceived speed problem. Perceived because I haven't actually seen a substantial argument to dictate what the "speed" of evolution *should* be. -Of course you are referring to mutation rate vs. time. Epigenetics helps is quickly need minor varfiations. Nothing explains the Cambrian Explosion or the Plant Bloom.

I have to ask on this one; as any time chance is invoked it piques my curiosity. 
> 
> The mechanism in question works by random selection; so is the randomness designed or is it truly random? How on earth could you tell the difference?-The real question is whether the mechanism that creates the random placement of methionine is designed. Random placement confuses the attackers; it is effective? Did it develop step by step, or was there a pre-coded message in DNA to start the random mechanism up when needed?

This article shows a newly-discovered defense mechanism, adding methionine in a random fashion to newly produced proteins, confusing the invaders:
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091125134701.htm
David, -Going deeper into the article, it talks a little more about epigenetics as a whole--and this underlines a point I've tried and failed to make in the past: epigenetics is a mechanism for change, but that change only gets transferred to future generations in one way. How does epigenetics then "prove" Darwin wrong? (Science isn't about "proving," i hate that word in any non-math context.) -Classical theory simply states that genetic changes are passed to offspring in one way... epigenetics would provide an elegant solution to the perceived speed problem. Perceived because I haven't actually seen a substantial argument to dictate what the "speed" of evolution *should* be. And before you (or anyone else) jumps on me about calculated mutation rates, I will remind that those are always specific to a particular species, thus, there's enough mathematical variation that we cannot infer back to the beginning of life.