RE: Proving Evolution
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.
you didn't provide any science against which to comment.
you didn't provide any science at all?
my previous comment was partially made in response to this thread, where you asserted that you didn't need to look up evidence because you know it exists. that is missing the point.
"Obviously Scientific fields and study are lost on you..."
no, actually i have a science degree from the top university in my field. it is common for people to make assumptions about what i say because i think differently to the mainstream and the assumptions usually claim that i am ignorant, without taking enough time to find if actually it is just that i think differently and that actually what i am saying is valid.
fyi, i have had such conversations probably close to 100 times in the last couple of years and my position has not changed - not because i am stubborn, but because i know what i am saying is valid. it will take me some time to spell it out more clearly here.
I DID provide links though to Lamarckism, Mendellian Inheritance and the Weismann Experiment. The first two being a unfunctional than functional model of inheritance, with the later being a method to discredit and disprove Lamarckism. You talked about 1 dude; hof; who has never been considered a scientist, or a valuable consideration in understanding the theory of evolution...... How does this not constitute proof? When you apparently don't even need links like this to support your ideas..
i did not see your comment in the other sub-thread with the links you posted - i will read that comment now and reply there.
""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.