I make statements like "evolution doesn't work like that" because i'm educated in the multiple pieces of research that proves it. This below pratically makes this a whole post worth of explaininnnn ugghhhhhh your going to make me find this aren't you.... what pisses me off the most about stuff like this is you use ted talks while to prove my theories I actually have to do RESEARCH to find citations and shit for u to read which you could just do yourself. SO YOU BETTER ***ING READ THIS So, one of the first things you learn when studying evolutionary biology in university; the main misconceptions and flawed concepts that lead to the development of the modern theory of evolution. One such concept is often attributed to Jean Baptiste Lamarck and was an attempt to explain how evolutionary adaptation occurs through generations. Lamarcks hypothesis was that PARENTS ADAPTIVE TRAITS had direct result on the way offpsrings expressed their phenotypes. This cornerstone and often vocal point of this concept was the giraffe, which he believes to have stretched its neck conciously in a search for food, slowly generation by generation growing out it's neck, t'll where it is at now. [Link](http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_09) & [Lamarckism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism) THIS IS WRONG. In the last century we through the Weismann experiment and gregor mendel, the scientific community has refuted Lamarcks proposed model and have adopted the mendelian model of inheritance... Which was the re-discovered work of gregor mendel who did some of the most detailed early work in inheritances and coined huge genetic terms like recessive and dominant expression while describing evolution and genetics and having the reproducible results and plants to back it up.
Like, to even dive deeper into this crap would take more then a couple wiki links and require me to actually go over some of their findings and work. But this is what I'm saying, I know your going to just go around this whole text blurb and just ignore my words anyways. Tell me I'm wrong for some reason when you have no background in evolutionary biology. I honestly keep it short because its too much effort and tires me out. Its pretty exhausting to look through all this crap I just can't be bothered, kinda gave up half way even looking this stuff up for you. It is obvious now that this post is perfect for you, because it may have cut out a couple of the minor misconceptions you hold. all I'm going to end with is, what proof do you have of LITERALLY ANY of the stuff u say happening, Hof is not an example, he doesn't have kids born with genetic anomally immune system, if he does hit me up.
RE: Proving Evolution
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
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.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
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.Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit