You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Proving Evolution
unfortunately, i'll have to disagree, that being one of the misconceptions about evolution. It is 100% a random chance of survival in a heartless world with only some who survive, please I urge you to watch the last video in the post, it really addresses exactly this misconception. Thanks for reading though :) appreciate it
the last video shows successful adaptation to environmental toxicity, it does nothing to demonstrate the causation of that adaptation and certainly does nothing to rebutt my comment. i am not clear why you think it does.
Well I guess if your consideration is that it "CAN" be initiated through will, but the video I referenced definitely proves that these bacteria do not and are not consciously aware or in control of their evolution over multiple generations. The relevance here is that this follows with any other species or population, individuals don't evolves, populations do. The causation of the adaptation is explained in the video, it is the toxicitiy which causes unfit lineages to die off, not concious thought or free will, were this mega plate not set up as a barrier, the bacteria would have no need to evolve. I think it does completely write off your comment because it is a clear example of evolution taking place without a need for a consciousness or free will, which Is why I cannot see how you think it doesn't address your comment.
the video does not prove any presence or lack of presence of consciousness - it simply shows bacteria replicating, dying and adapting. why do you think it proves an absence of consciousness when consciousness is never even mentioned in the video?
my only explanation is that you are assuming that bacteria are not conscious and assuming that i must also already think that, when i don't.
individuals DO evolve - i assure you. a 'population' is nothing but a collection of individuals - so your logic is flawed in numerous ways.
Example: If everyone around me is dying due to food poisoning and i figure out a way to meditate and access my cellular function internally, then consciously adapt my body to meet the problem - then I have personally evolved - while the population has not and indeed they WILL not until I teach them how to evolve.
the fact that individuals are so out of touch with their own capacity to evolve does not mean that individual evolution and individual will are not relevant.
Because bacteria don't have consciousness, I honestly didn't think this needed explaining. If you are trying to get me to believe bacteria are conscious on any level than we've already come to an bridge I will not cross. It doesn't need to be addressed in the video because there is no conceivably REASONABLE way to intepret bacteria as having a conciousness. You are right I AM assuming you believe that, but I am not assuming they do not have conciousness I KNOW they do not and will never have the capacity to display what is considered conscious thought.
My logic is not flawed in any way, this is a common mantra in fields of phylogenetic classification and population genetics. Individuals do not undergo evolution, populations do. It is clear cut and simple as that. I obviously must dive a little deeper into this topic because I thought these examples would be a more straightforward way to cut through these misconceptions, but there are obviously still many misconceptions in the theory.
The biggest issue with that last example, is that's not evolution. Your as missinformed in whatever notion of what it may be but if you have personally grown immunity to thisfood poisoning you speak of, you have done exactly what you referred to at a point, adapted. This adapatation is not genetic, and therefore the adaptation itself is sexually limited, as it will not be passed down to children. You may educate them in future generations, and continue to teach every single child the ways of meditation, but they will never physically evolve to retain this trait on birth. If you believe a child could ever be born with a this trait, because their parents meditated enough, is down right wrong. That is not the way traits are inherited and just fundamentally flawed compared to the way evolution has been observed to occur.
what evidence do you have to prove your assertion that internal conscious decisions can never effect inherited DNA programming?
Because if you ever took biology classes, you would understand that isn't the way heritable traits function. If you were born fat, work out your whole life till your buff.... your kids are still gonna be born fat. I don't really need to look up evidence because I know it exists......... but I don't believe there are any proven ideologies or research studies that prove that parents are able to consciously inflict change on their genetics that is expressed in the offsprings genes.
I'm suggesting there has also never been any reputable evidence of this effect either, not just that it can never happen. When I say that I mean multiple reproducible results with large groups.
"if you ever took biology classes, you would understand that isn't the way heritable traits function"
you are referring to a pattern of thought that exists in classrooms, but that itself is not the be all and end all of the subject. science is a journey and must always remain open to evolution itself - i do not find it a random occurrence that those who limit the possibilities of evolution often also limit the possibilities of the science they hold so dear.
"If you were born fat, work out your whole life till your buff.... your kids are still gonna be born fat."
there may be metabolic parameters involved which you as an individual do not affect as you grow and thus your children continue the imbalance that you also began with - however, again, where is the proof that it is impossible for such actions on the part of the parent can never yield a change in the offspring?
"I don't really need to look up evidence because I know it exists"
then we are not really dealing with science here at all, but only with unsubstantiated propositions.
" I don't believe there are any theologies or research studies that prove that parents are able to consciously inflict change on their genetics that is expressed in the offsprings genes. "
since most people have no concept of consciously doing that it is not surprising that there is not much research done. as far as theology goes though, i can assure you that there are direct teachings from the broader consciousness that some have called 'god' which point in exactly that direction.
"I'm suggesting there has also never been any reputable evidence of this effect either,"
there are billions of souls incarnating as humans and none of us has all the information from all of us.
Hey man, sorry but there's no way I can go anywhere with this comment. Exactly what I said would happen, I provide science and links and you somehow dismiss them. "where is you proof".... WHERE is YOUR proof. I don't understand how people can just blindly dismiss "classroom science".
Obviously Scientific fields and study are lost on you... There is a difference between leaving room for a field to grow, and asserting ideologies (idk why i said theologies cause thats about religion) that have already been dissproven decades earlier.
I'm not going to sit here and listen to this advocation for a completely ridiculous and misconstrued version of evolution, that has never been recorded or demonstrated in study. When that happens, and YOU have some proof, maybe we can talk again.
""since most people have no concept of consciously doing that it is not surprising that there is not much research done."
How is THAT true? People have been reaching enlightenment for literally centuries, and attempting to attribute supernatural abilities to spiritual capability. However in all of scientific progress we've come through since then conciousness has never been empiracally proven to effect the gene pool. That is, it has never been demonstrated to change the gene pool of a species population. It has only ever shown effect in the individual, which as I explained early, does not contribute to evolution of the species itself. There are no speciation mechanism that have ever been detailed that constitute a species changing their own genetics through conscious manipulation passed down to offspring. You're essentially argueing the world is flat, I'm giving you the information that proves it's round, and you continually defy the notion.wim hof is a recent example of someone who you could say has demonstrated an evolution through his own will:
ooo 20 minutes so long but im watching for you :P
there are many videos with wim hof in them, but i just picked the TED one since people are conditioned to think that TED = intelligence. there are better videos of him available where the experiments are shown in more detail regarding his conscious ability to alter his immune systems.
lmaoooooooo, TED does not equal intelligence hahaha. Maybe we're on the same page there, because as soon as I saw this I was like; oh god don't tell me all this guy has is a ted talk...
I generally find TED talks to involve people addressing intelligent topics but in a low detail way - or worse, they are just repeating what they heard somewhere else and don't really add anything (while attempting to 'take credit').
That said though, they do sometimes have decent speakers.
I do generally avoid them, but since I didn't know much about you - I took the 'lowest common denominator' approach ;)
Finally, I finished the video I can make the comment.... what does this have to do with evolution? His children will not be born with any of the ability he exhibits, UNLESS they are trained to do so. So even if we all attempted to follow his teachings and learn these abilities... our species hasn't evolved in the traditional sense.
This in a way is a whole other argument because there is some debate over whether this constitutes evolution for our species going forward, such as transhumanism and the likes. However, even if every single person on the planet in knew his teachings, everyone could control their immune systems and such, every child born would still be born with the immune system we have right now. Evolution doesn't work in that if enough generations meditate, children will be born with pre-meditated enlightenment, that just doesn't follow in the evolutionary model. What Hof pretty much describes is talents individuals can learn to adapt themselves, but nothing that will ever pass on to children or become heritable widespread through the global population... therefore not evolution.
he is demonstrating the reality that we have been disconnected from significant aspects of self. VERY significant aspects are mostly unconscious in most people - sitting latent and waiting to be felt and used again.
to make such blanket claims as 'evolution doesn't work like that' - is quite short sighted. as short sighted perhaps as saying "we cannot modulate our immune systems through consciousness" ;)
so i am asking again, what proof is there that children do not receive inherited patterns that have been initiated through consciousness of an ancestor?
i appreciate you taking the time to respond even though you don't feel comfortable doing so. i only asked for scientific evidence because you made a concrete claim about 'what is true' without backing it up. i hate dogma and i challenge any concrete claims that i think are incomplete, so that i can examine the details. that is not wrong, it is very much a part of the scientific process in fact.
i only asked for proof because you rejected my proposition purely on the claim that 'evolution doesn't work like that'. I'm sure you can agree that as a rebuttal to an idea, that response alone was never going to 'hold water'.
what you are not grasping about wim hof is this:
he has demonstrated that we have abilities that were previously scientifically undocumented (despite many ancient and modern psycho-explorers noting similar things - and teaching how to do them). this, to me - IS evolution - using the pure form of the word 'evolution':
" A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
n.
The process of developing.
n.
Gradual development."
it is only when a rigid dogma is place around the word 'evolution' that conflict arises. Evolution in it's pure form is not inherently connected to inherited change.
however, returning to the thread pertaining to inherited change, what i am saying is that despite there having been a few noted individuals who have altered their systems sufficiently to repeatedly demonstrate 'uncommon' human ability - the numbers are sufficiently low that it is not surprising that there are no noted studies into them and their children/dna. the absence of studies is not proof of the absence of a discoverable phenomena.
To be clear, I am not saying "I can prove to you that consciously directed evolution is inheritable through DNA". What I am saying is that the nature of the methods that are used to activate the extended abilities in us is such that they include the bridging of a gap between the conscious self and the unconscious self. By making this connection it is possible to effect the body and it's cells directly - which obviously also allows for DNA manipulation internally - provided the intention and understanding is present within the one doing the manipulation.
I am simply pointing to how i perceive the situation and that, due to my own experiences, I am pretty clear now that this is possible. I would certainly support scientific testing of the idea - but that might be a major challenge since it would theoretically require groups of evolving beings being monitored over more than one generation. Totally do-able, but not a short term project.
I guess what you are saying is true, when we apply rigid dogma to Evolution, Hof not longer fits. However I would argue that this is exactly what we need. If you want to hold onto that definition, you are somewhat justified in doing so, however this is definitely not the definition in the scientific field of biology.
In biology, the definition is : Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules.
Note the key concepts in this definition; that "Evolutionary processse give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organization". In this definition it is not the biological organisation of individual organism that gives rise to evolutionary process, but evolutionary process that gives rise to biodiversity of biological organisation.
Addressing this final claim : "What I am saying is that the nature of the methods that are used to activate the extended abilities in us is such that they include the bridging of a gap between the conscious self and the unconscious self. By making this connection it is possible to effect the body and it's cells directly - which obviously also allows for DNA manipulation internally - provided the intention and understanding is present within the one doing the manipulation."
Where does it follow in this argument that this allows DNA manipulation. You say "obviously" as if there is some *obvious* reason to believe this. But there isn't? The placebo effect is often highlighted as one of the more intriguing examples of mind over body, but I have never read any reputable studies that suggest that the placebo effect ever induces permanent change to DNA structure. Even If I give you that Hof has "evolved" and improved his immune system, it STILL doesn't give any reason to believe that this immune system change is inherent to his genetics. If you could've mapped Hofs genome before and after his training, and prove that particular bases had been change in his DNA that directly corelate to the transcription of expressed genotypes in his immune system.... now THAT would be a good read.