This is an excellent point. The inheritance of acquired characteristics was assumed by Darwin.

“The results of the experiment clearly argue against Libet’s assumption that a veto process can be consciously initiated. He used the veto in order to reintroduce the possibility to control the unconsciously initiated actions. But since the subjects are not very accurate in observing when they have not stopped, the act of vetoing cannot be consciously initiated.”

In the same New Scientist” article “Free will is not an illusion after all,” psychologist Frank Durgin (Swathmore College) says that “Brass’s results do “seem to undermine Libet’s preferred interpretation”, though they don’t contradict it outright.” Also, the same article explicitly states that the interpretation that Libet’s experiment proves that free will is an illusion has always been controversial because “there is NO proof the RP represents a decision to move (emphasis mine).”

But let’s talk about the results of experiments conducted by Brass, Haynes, Soon, and Heinz. They are claiming that decisions are made 7 to 10 seconds before they reach our awareness (see links below for sources). Seven to ten seconds? What does this imply? It implies that every home run Barry Bonds hit was determined before the pitcher threw the baseball. Even with the illicit employment of steroids, that’s freaking amazing. The bottom line is that Brass and company not only have provided evidence that our subconscious processes are actually “conscious,” but also that they are endowed with ESP!

“Machines detect our decisions before we know them.”

“Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain“

In other words the subconscious brain makes the decision (the RP) before the conscious brain becomes aware of it.
They claim some importance for the fact the size of the RP is no different when the action is vetoed. But why would that matter? If the RP represents the subconsious brain’s decision and it occurs before the conscious brain becomes aware of it, that is all that matters.

I have already provided you an explanation why this matters. In fact, the explanation is within the very paragraph you parsed.

“While there was an RP before volunteers made their decision to move, the signal was the same whether or not they elected to tap. Miller concludes that the RP may merely be a sign that the brain is paying attention and does not indicate that a decision has been made.”

(source: “Free will is not an illusion after all” ) by Anil Ananthaswamy Sept 2009 of “New Scientist”)

To repeat…”the signal was the same whether or not they elected to tap.” IOW, the same signal was being generated when there was NO decision to tap! That’s why Miller concluded “that the RP may merely be a sign that the brain is paying attention and does not indicate that a decision has been made.”

Also, you are refusing to acknowledge that Miller and Trevena performed a second experiment in which they did not find any subconscious decision-making process whatsoever!

BillyJoe7: “It’s just my habit when reading these things to ignore the experimenters take and concentrate just on the data he obtained. The reason for this is that experimenters often have a bias which they wish to promote and which is not born out by the data produced by their experiment .”

It would appear that your habit is to blatantly disregard any experimental results that do not comport with your own bias.

I think Steven has wisely removed you off his radar.

Lamarckism?
Give us a break!

When I read the following, I tried hard to make sense of it…

You would understand it even better if you realized that all such instincts were originally crafted from the experiences of the organisms themselves and not from selective forces that went about it blindly. In other words, there are no first instincts in evolution, but there are first experiences.

I couldn’t.
You know why?
I couldn’t imagine that anyone is still a Lamarckian!

Okay, so now we have the name of your pseudoscience.
Now, pray tell, what is your motivation?
What is the crackpot philosophy that underlies your acceptance of the discredited pseudoscience called Lamarckism?

And if you still want to say I’m all alone out on a lunatic’s limb here, check out some articles like this:
Why everything you’ve been told about evolution is wrong,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong

‘Steven writes: “I understand why it might be disconcerting to think that our own behavior, especially our deepest emotions, were crafted by blind selective forces maximizing genetic transfer into future generations.”
You would understand it even better if you realized that all such instincts were originally crafted from the experiences of the organisms themselves and not from selective forces that went about it blindly. In other words, there are no first instincts in evolution, but there are first experiences.

The question remains as to the genesis of the instincts that we have found are heritable.
Selection simply doesn’t go about it blindly. It involves life forms’ use of experience to take advantage of random accident.
There is no magical creation of a first instinct without some prior experience involved.’

Of course I received no reply from Steven, who’s never seen a problem with the first instinct being blindly crafted. Nor apparently with the second, third, ad infinitum.

And again you have betrayed that error by inferring that that the adaptive process that I’m confident is involved would be Lamarckism, and thus not evolution. But the better biologists, and again I have to drop Shapiro here, now realize that a Lamarckian type of process most certainly occurs, and have produced papers up the gazoo to give their evidence for that assertion.

I see that where they see it, and the problem you have is that you simply can’t. No Lamarkianism allowed? Well sorry, but you don’t get to make the rules.