I am in no way an expert on the subject but what little understanding I have I believe it is all far more subtle and constant than you are portraying it, given the amount of genes we posses and their state of mutation. I saw a documentary recently relating to gene and epigenetic expression suggesting that the best time to try to reproduce was at the hight of fairly intense exercise, due to the state of expression I imagine, of course you can not have sex while running 100m sprint but they were just making a point. They also pointed out how trauma can be passed down from one generation to the other genetically, a simple life event impacting all the way down the chain.

I was not implying it is an upward process, it can just easily be quite the opposite, just look at the current state of diets, obesity, diabetes and sedentary lifestyle, which was also an example of what I was getting at about being too sheltered from the external environment too much. But it would seem an easy upward trend based in the right environment, with the right resources (ideal diet), safety and emotional stability, the right tools to develop intellect, if you can continue it over many generations. How are these scenarios not evolution, which is clearly much more individually based.

Saying I am not going to grow wings is a serious exaggeration, maybe this is how you are view evolution though? Very obvious physical changes? I think you will find it is much more complex and subtle. I guess what it comes down to is how much the constant of gene expression, epigenetics and potential mutations directly have on what you actually pass down to your offspring. This field is so young anyway this might be a very open ended question.

" I believe it is all far more subtle and constant than you are portraying it, given the amount of genes we posses and their state of mutatio "
- extremely subtle, not constant at all, amount of genes are irrelevant, and rate (assume you mean rate) of mutation is semi relevant, genetic mutations are not utilized if an organism does not have offspring to proliferate said mutation, and if this mutation is not isolated it will simply be rebred back into the populace.

you literally just said "i wasn't implying it was an upward trend" and then proceeded to imply that it is an upward trend (apparently affected by a good clean jenny mcarthy diet), look i don't know how to say it without offending you so i will just say it: evolution doesn't care what diet you eat or how strong you get, whether you wear a jacket or not, if you reproduce, your done. you can breed the most purebreed thickblooded humans you want but if they bang one fatty you just screwed up the whole process. the only way the genpool improves is if the fatty can't run fast enough to get away from the lions and dies before he gets a chance to bang one of your arian offsrping. (apologies for the anology, but it makes me laugh)

ok, some genes are inheritable and some are not, why do you think this is the basis of evolution? who cares which genes were inherited if the genes you inherited did not (for lack of a better word) get you laid. Evolution is simply change in allele frequencies across a population over time (a process guided by natural selection), you can try to complicate it all you like, but its just going to lead you to silly conclusions like wearing a jacket is hurting evolutionary progression.

I don't know how to say it any clearer, you don't get to pick what natural selection selects for, unfortunately "too stupid to wear a condom" is a very favorable trait for natural selection, the only way "properly planned parenthood" is ever going to outbreed "soon to be on jerry springer" is if you start hitting up every trailer park on earth with a shot gun (and even then good luck)

This post was edited by dude_927 on Dec 5 2014 07:39am

First, my argument is that creative intelligence is the most valuable attribute a species can develop.

Secondly, that there is no reason to believe any other species should develop this same adaptation.

Thus, intelligence has opened us up into a new form of evolution, which is intelligently directed evolution of our environment and ourselves through technology.

This post was edited by PixileDust on Dec 5 2014 04:26pm

I did not originally imply any trend at all, then said it can go either way based on circumstance, wrong? I am amazed you do not seem to think diet plays any part in all of this, or how strong you get, it is all incredibly relevant up until you procreate and will likely reflect the partner you choose; athletic healthy people I would think are more likely to choose a similar mate. There is a good 15+ years (many more for intelligent people these days) of environmental and behavioural factors that lead up until producing offspring, you just can not separate your genes from all these influences, without the environment and resources you and your genes do not exist, evolution does not exist.

Sorry but you seem to just keep generalising, maybe because you are seeing evolution over a much larger time scale and scope? This might be the general definition of evolution I would like to know how you separate it from the daily factors of life, which is where it all takes place. I see you also did not address at all my comments about epigenetics, the suggestion about the ideal time to procreate, trauma being passed down genetically. Again it all comes down to the proposal in my last comment, simply if epigenetics and gene expression play a part in what genetic material you pass down to your offspring then all these details I am going over are relevant to evolution.

Flamingo's get their colour from carotene's in blue green algae, the better fed the deeper the colour the more desirable a mate. A simple example of a certain dietary compound entering a species, changing their colour which would have slowly started to genetically modify this species the day it was introduced into their system, no?

both of your assertions are patently false. We beat other species which did acquire intelligence, and the best attribute is environment specific.

the ability to manipulate our environment is only an advantage if we manipulate it for the better. As it stands we've both manipulated it to our advantage and disadvantage without realizing it. Time will tell whether our ability to manipulate our environment is advantageous or not but for now even with all of our abilities to manipulate our environment we are still beaten in the adaption race by simple bacteria

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Dec 6 2014 01:09am

Well we really are only hosts for bacteria

i like this guy




i don't understand the first paragraph (just woke up, my deciphering skills are not at their best) but it is irrelevant if your offspring bangs a "fatty" as previously stated (i don't care if you think they won't desire fatties, eventually one will ruin your breeding chain if the option is in the gene pool)

i did address your "epigenetics" claim, it is irrelevant which genes get passed on if they are not seeded in the gene pool (an organism capable of proliferating), you can pass on 100% of your genes, but if your genes do not get him laid, he has not contributed to evolution. This is my field of study, we can go into it in depth if you want, but as i said before, it is irrelevant to evolution.

yes, the brighter flamingo's are more desirable, so the ones with the propensity to stay well fed reproduce, this is common in every species almost, perhaps i am not understanding the objection, you are saying eating algea is what turned them pink? i hope you realize that the actual turning pink is not evolution, it's the propensity to survive the change to pink which is the byproduct of evolution.




This post was edited by dude_927 on Dec 6 2014 10:27am

^clarify that the ability to turn pink may have evolved/be evolving (is most certanly in the process of becoming seeded if the claim that the pink ones are more desirable sexually is true) , but the process of doing so in a single lifetime is not a process of evolution

This post was edited by dude_927 on Dec 6 2014 11:26am

I guess I am having a hard time separating what goes in within a lifetime to evolution here, because I can not see how they can be separate. While you seem to think all the factors that exist within the real day to day survival of people are not relevant at all? In the short term this may be the case to some extent, but over generations how these factors maintain or fall away has to be incredibly relevant. An example of this might be when farming first appeared, of wheat in western Europe I believe, they relied on it far too much as a food source leading to smaller bodied offspring down the line; how is that not some form of evolution? Not genetic but dietary? This is not influencing underlying genes? Sourcing and finding difference ways to harvest or maintain resources has to be part of evolution in itself.

I think my point is if the process of evolution is not happening on some level within a single lifetime then it is not happening at all, when else is it happening? There is only single lifetimes or there is nothing at all, evolution is not a state of collective consciousness or something, it is literal and can only be here and now, no? Otherwise where is it?

You are saying evolution is only defined as some kind of change over an extensive period of time? It takes a long time for a gene to make an obvious change?

I do not quite get this, you are muting my points with a scenario where maybe procreation fails and the passing on of genes stops? That has no relevance at all to whether epigenetic's influence the genetic material you pass down to your offspring or not, if it does epigenetic's influencing genes is relevant to every successful procreation, here and now and forever. Not that I have even looked into this at this point, but if the documentary I watched is correct many factors leading up to conception are relevant to the genes you pass on, or the quality thereof.

This post was edited by Psychonautica on Dec 6 2014 10:38pm