RE: Proving Evolution
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.