How does evolution make expressions which are not part of natural selection?

Titling this thread is difficult, what I'm trying to say is if evolution is largely driven by sexual reproduction and natural selection, not excluding the possibility of mutation and etc, how does evolution make gene expressions not part of that system?

For instance, humans, we subsist off a natural diet of scrounging as hunters and gatherers, and we look like emaciated twigs.

And yet, very obviously, if we nutrition ourselves properly, exercise a specific way, we become massive muscular demigods.

So how did the genetic expression to become so muscular sneak in when our ancestors had no possible way to breed it into us through any selective process? Is it a mutation?

It is doubtfully the only example of such a thing.

reply to post by FreeMason

For instance, humans, we subsist off a natural diet of scrounging as hunters and gatherers, and we look like emaciated twigs.

Really? You seem to basing that on some sort of stereotype. Are you talking about people in Ethiopia for example? People who suffer from overpopulation and famine? People who, in fact, are not hunter/gatherers?

These guys look pretty fit.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Phage

They do have muscular arms, but quite a few of them also have big beer bellies.

i thought i knew what you were getting at, but i was so off-base it wasn't funny.
to answer your question regardless, i'd say it's less to do with genetics and more to do with better nutrition providing more of the building material of bodies - proteins and minerals and so on.
there's probably a limited genetic prediliction towards more efficient body building but that's just a slight variance and not the sort of thing you're talking about at all.

reply to post by Phage


Indeed, as many explorers and discoverers (Darwin among them) have noted, successful hunter-gatherer tribespeople tend to be magnificent specimens of humanity. Natural selection got the weaklings.

OP, I was rude to you in an earlier thread. I'll try to make it up to you in this one.

reply to post by FreeMason


Taking any example of human behavior as some sort of confirmation of evolution or renunciation of evolution is silly. Humans are the only animal not subjected to instinctual urges. We think about what we are going to do then do it. The result of doing certain things causes us to look one way and doing something else makes us look differently. The drive to look a certain way pertains from what is more pleasing sexually to our eyes. If looking muscular is something that females enjoy looking at, they will pursue more men who are muscular. The result would be more men striving to be muscular so that more females will desire them. This is all social behavior and has nothing to do with evolution.

FreeMason
Titling this thread is difficult, what I'm trying to say is if evolution is largely driven by sexual reproduction and natural selection, not excluding the possibility of mutation and etc, how does evolution make gene expressions not part of that system?

Where did you get the idea that gene expression wasn't part of the system? For example, the reason why our morphology differs from that of chimps is almost exclusively due to gene expression, i.e. we have the same genes, they're just expressed differently..

FreeMason
Titling this thread is difficult, what I'm trying to say is if evolution is largely driven by sexual reproduction and natural selection, not excluding the possibility of mutation and etc, how does evolution make gene expressions not part of that system?

For instance, humans, we subsist off a natural diet of scrounging as hunters and gatherers, and we look like emaciated twigs.

And yet, very obviously, if we nutrition ourselves properly, exercise a specific way, we become massive muscular demigods.

So how did the genetic expression to become so muscular sneak in when our ancestors had no possible way to breed it into us through any selective process? Is it a mutation?

It is doubtfully the only example of such a thing.

Added muscle is a reaction to the environment. An adult male can only add about 5 lbs of muscle per year and that's using professional weight training techniques. Females add even less because of lower testosterone levels. Many of the extremely muscular "demi gods" as you put it use drugs/supplements to change hormone levels.

The human body is healthiest when it is lean, which is what happens when you go on a ketogenic diet(similar to a hunter gatherer protein/carb/fat ratio). In a state of ketosis, unless you are adding unnecessary weight to your everyday routine you'll be quite thin.

Also when it comes to natural selection the only thing that matters in the realm of propagation is can you make long enough to mate?

It doesn't matter if you have one eye and a missing leg, if you are able to mate and pass down your genes and your offspring can survive to do the same sometimes ridiculous traits get passed down. (Appendix please).

reply to post by FreeMason

Oh... look... yet another straw man argument against evolution thread. I know this advice will go unheeded, but please take some time and actually learn about the claims made by the theory of evolution and the facts supporting those claims. Conversations that take the following rough form do a service to no one, neither the OP, nor people reading the thread, nor the people participating in the thread:

OP: Here's what I think evolution is, and here's some facet of it that I think is wrong, therefore evolution is false, therefore God.

Respondant: Actually, that facet of evolution is wholly consistent with what evolution really claims, and here are links to some information that might help you understand what evolution is and why it's consistent.

OP: Let me change the subject to something else I disagree with.

There are other variations on this, but I think I've distilled it to its essence.