For a few years now I've been of the opinion that epigenetics is likely a better explanation of adaptation and evolution, more so than "random mutation". Especially given that it has been demonstrated to reinforce in populations where multiple generations are subjected to the same pressures. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there's also a feedback between the epigenetic mechanisms and the encoding (not just expression) of genes.
Discussion
I'm pretty sure that you are correct. It makes sense.
A bit too simplistic of an explanation. I say that because the mechanisms of adaptation and evolution vary wildly depending on the lineage. Microbes, especially bacteria, have very plastic genomes where they take up and shed genetic material depending on the environmental conditions. The same is true for fungi to an extent, but there are other mechanisms at play in their evolution, like segmental duplications and mobile elements. Plants on the other hand can easily undergo whole genome duplications so they can end up with many copies of the same genes that change over time, of even the duplication itself leading to unforeseen new traits through novel recombinations. Potatoes come to mind, for example. Plants and animals generally have expansive genomes that are seemingly "empty" but could actually be a pool of protogenes that are expressed en masse that provides tinkering material.
I don't know what you mean by epigenetics being a "simplistic" explanation. Lateral gene transfer is another interesting mechanism, I'm glad you brought it up.
I'm not ruling out that random change has a role to play, but I'm not convinced that it is sufficient. I also don't know that the plant genome duplication/recombination process is properly described as "random". I think there's likely an organizing principle that isn't yet understood.
My point is that I don't believe we have a full picture, or that the standard explanation is entirely on the right track. This isn't my field, I've read about genetics and epigenetics on my own, and in college have done labs on DNA sequencing. But my intuition tells me it may be related to the superconductive nature of DNA, which we never hear about in mainstream science.
If there CAN be an organizing principle relating to superconductivity of DNA, I think it would likely be a common factor to each the paradigms discussed (epigenetics, lateral gene transfer, and recombination).