Isn't evolution....?

[Willum]

So usually scientists are mocked for evolution because no one has even seen an ape transform into a man.

Though this would be countered by watching caterpillars transform into butterflies, antlions into lacewings, grubs to beetles, tadpoles to frogs, and so on, if science didn't point out to Jews and Christians that these were the same animal.

But if we examine this with the "giving the religious what they want," approach:
Isn't simply learning something an example of evolution? Putting on muscle mass - is that not an evolution, in the broadest sense?

Is not Joe Piscopo a very different animal now than when he was on SNL?
As we learn and grow in response to the environment, are we not evolving exactly as a religious person would say we must, in order for evolution to be true, according to their standards?

Even, in some sense, by scientific standards? Animals have adopted with different characteristic within regions, and remain the same species.

So isn't all of this really, all part of the same picture. Adaptation leads to advantage, advantage leads to acclimatization, acclimatization leads to evolution in the technical sense... but are they really different?

I propose that learning and musculature are both an example of and a result of evolution.

Counters?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 1 by Willum]

Sure if we were to give in and change what is actually meant by biological evolution those who oppose the concept will be happy. They won't be right, but that doesn't seem to ever enter into the picture.

Can we change what we mean by Christian while we are at it? I propose Christian means worshipping chins, specifically the chins of those named Chris. Let's all band together and start exclaiming that Christians don't know what they are talking about when they mention Christ, since it's really all about chin worship.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 2 by benchwarmer]

Well, Christianity is a definition, at best.

However, I am reading now that our DNA changes even during the course of our lives.

Thus this conjectural pawn move on my part in this OP has yielded excellent fruit. Our DNA may indeed change in our own bodies - evolution, biological evolution as a result of our environment, without changing what we mean.

So, isn't evolution...

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 3 by Willum]

Germline cells are the ones that carry the most "weight" when discussing evolution, because these are the cells whose DNA will be passed onto the next generation (with some chromosomal swapping). Somatic cell methylation is actually unrelated to evolution, except insofar as it influences reproductive success for the specific individual.

Think of it this way: I could suffer some kind of unrealistic, near sorcery level of alteration to my body that causes all the DNA in me, and all my differentiated cells to become grotesquely altered. But if my sperm cells don't get altered by this, then the effect on the rest of me is negligible: it's not what passes on, should I have kids.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 4 by Neatras]

I am not sure what you are saying.
Are you putting up dividing lines in evolution?

If the DNA is changing, why do you not assume, as a default, that it is part of evolution for these changes to occur?

There would have to be an express reason to believe, other than just immaturity of the theory, that evolution isn't a part of dynamic life. Methylation, oxidation causes DNA reproductive changes, in DNA and reproduction, and these would both be methods of both natural selection.

In short, the theory is really about natural selection, and if our DNA changes, maybe even improves to adapt to an environment (as our bodies will get a Sun-tan, or develop muscle mass), why should we assume it isn't integrated?

Because of a definition?
Well , I see the point... but Evolution, in the broadest sense doesn't care how we define it, any more then the Sun does.

So, isn't evolution...

[Neatras]

In short, the theory is really about natural selection, and if our DNA changes, maybe even improves to adapt to an environment (as our bodies will get a Sun-tan, or develop muscle mass), why should we assume it isn't integrated?

You're going on about how acquired traits in a single generation get passed on. Which is Lamarckian evolution. Scientists have not observed Lamarckian evolution in nature, and concluded that it does not have a basis in reality. If you have evidence you can provide to support the idea that a suntan or developed muscle mass can be passed on entirely based on physical activity during a single person's lifetime, I would love to see it. It would open several new avenues in biology that will assist humans in the long-term.

You can, with great ease, look online about Lamarckian evolution and epigenetics. And you're free to find whatever data you want for your argument. Just be aware that attempting to defend your proposition that "changes in our body over a lifetime are integrated into biology somehow" will be met by a much wider body of evidence to the contrary. Because it has no basis in reality, by what we observe.

[Willum]

[Replying to Neatras]


Thanks Neat' I'd never heard of Lamarckian evolution. But it isn't exactly what I am describing.

I am speaking about, or at least I am talking about now, environmental effects and even responses to environment being evolution.

http://dukemagazine.duke.edu/article/bi ... e-your-dna

So the thing is, even if it were random, it would occasionally produce positive adaptations.

And those who believe evolution, aren't exactly the target audience - folks who disbelieve evolution, and need an intermediate bridge are the targets.

Because if genes change during your life-time, even if not evolution, it does open the floodgates to acknowledging it.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 2 by benchwarmer]

Well, Christianity is a definition, at best.

However, I am reading now that our DNA changes even during the course of our lives.

Unless that change happens in the reproductive cells of a human (sperm or egg) then it cannot be passed along to the next generation.

Thus this conjectural pawn move on my part in this OP has yielded excellent fruit. Our DNA may indeed change in our own bodies - evolution, biological evolution as a result of our environment, without changing what we mean.

So, isn't evolution...

Since evolution is the change in populations of animals over time, I don't think the stuff happening in any one person's body that cannot be passed along can be defined as evolution as it is commonly thought of.

[Willum]

[Replying to Kenisaw]

DNA is within sperm and eggs. Unless evidence is to the contrary, it may be different between any two procreation events.

"Over time" includes the lifespan of any given creature.

If DNA changes over the course of one person's lifetime, doesn't that fulfill the "evolution," a creationist desires to witness?

One animal changing into another?

If a creatures' DNA changes over their lifetime, it is no longer exactly the same creature it was born as... so, even though this is not evolution as described in the textbooks (thanks Neatreas!), it is evolution as creationists desire it to be described, and indeed do describe it, therefore creationists should accept evolution.

am I wrong?

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to Kenisaw]

DNA is within sperm and eggs. Unless evidence is to the contrary, it may be different between any two procreation events.

"Over time" includes the lifespan of any given creature.

If DNA changes over the course of one person's lifetime, doesn't that fulfill the "evolution," a creationist desires to witness?

One animal changing into another?

If a creatures' DNA changes over their lifetime, it is no longer exactly the same creature it was born as... so, even though this is not evolution as described in the textbooks (thanks Neatreas!), it is evolution as creationists desire it to be described, and indeed do describe it, therefore creationists should accept evolution.

am I wrong?

Yes. Evolution is the change in the inheritable characteristics of populations of animals over time periods. The lifetime of a single member of that population is not a sufficient time period, nor is the genetic change in one member inheritable to the next generation (unless their germ cells are mutated and that germ cell helps create an offspring). Genetic change does most definitely happen in the vast majority of each of us over the course of our lives. But those changes to not get passed on, and do not constitute evolution for the species. And genetic mutation in, say, your liver does not get passed to the DNA in your sperm, or to a woman's ovum.