Evolution is BS and based on guesses

Post Reply New Topic

Yes but my god can piss further than your god and mine can do magic tricks too and he promises me 80 beautiful virgins in the afterlife! Besides my god's bigger than your god and could punch your god out easy, so there!

I believe in God and in evolution, so I'm the odd ball here.

My belief system is complicated, but it helps keep me in check.

Nothing wrong with that. The people who I tend to have issue with are those that deny the fact of evolution because they find it conflicts with their belief in god.

I posted a link to the *actual scientific study* in full. Here it is again:
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf ... 2193-8.pdf

Whatever you cherry-pick from secondary sources is completely *irrelevant* to the real thing.

And the title of the actual scientific study is *not* "Evolution is Deterministic, Not Random", it is "Trends, Stasis, and Drift in the Evolution of Nematode Vulva Development".

Science Daily is a news site, not a scientific journal. And even its summary of the conclusion still has nothing to do with your Prometheus claim.


This is *not* what the study states... You are misrepresenting the evidence... again. When the study refers to "deterministic" processes it is explicitly (see page 1925 and 1935) referring to processes which are directional and/or biased instead of purely stochastic (that is, with an average effect of 0).

What you are referring to is a pre-determined alien-induced genetic code which would need to go unaltered through more than a billion years to evolve into humans beings while being completely impervious to various other evolutionary pressures (including the very pressures described in the article) that would cause the organism to evolve in other directions than the one intended by the aliens.


Irrelevant, as stated above.


You do not find research claiming otherwise. You twisted a single word in a secondary summary of a research study to fit your narrative. The study itself has nothing to do with your Prometheus claim.

What is represented in Prometheus is actually intelligently designed evolution (by aliens rather than God). The opposite of "random" isn't "designed", it's "directional".

Troll.

But i never said I didnt believe in your alien theory either. The only person who dismisses it is you yourself- you proclaimed that its the least likely scenario. I'm more open minded to your theory than you are- and you call me closed minded. So why are you so bothered by your own theory?

Okay you found one article in which one group of researchers found one thing that tangently relates to what your saying. We get it. You have one lame piece of psuedo evidence. You dont need to keep flogging us.

But back to the subject.

What exactly is your point in all of this?


That scientists are practicing religion because...they dont give research grants based upon the plots of Hollywood movies?

Yes, determinism. "Directional / biasing" cell orientation/division is happening, and not the expected purely stochastic (probability) with an up/down average effect of 0.

they state right on page 1935 that ...
We thus conclude that for much or most of the variation that has been described as "developmental system drift" predominately evolutionary bias was observed.

As noted before on the summary of the Science Daily, they said they expect to see random increases/decreases in cell division, and that was not observed, rather they got as you point out "directional / biasing cell division" i.e., a non purely probabilistic mathematical outcome.

Determinism is "directional / biasing"; it would not be expected, rather a purely stochastic process with a random up/down probabilistic drift is expected. Thus showing a component of determinism in evolution. So, how is this not determinism? What you have done twice now is cite a passage, make no reasoning, and say, "see it is not determinism, it means something else".

Granted it might be "junk science", however, contrary to your assertions -- it appears to mean precisely what it says. Biological evolution is happening based on directional / biasing behavior, not stochastic probabilistic up/down drift. Non-random biasing/non-random directional orientation is what one would look for when looking for a deterministic system. Actually anything not random (direction, biasing, or otherwise)

If you are going to claim that Science Daily is wrong, then I think it is reasonable you provide an explanation per mathematics (which is the nature of this citation , and the earlier citation) of how this is not biological, evolutionary determinism. Thanks.



You may scoff at "aliens", yet science does have an "alien created life hypothesis" for the formation of life on this planet. I showed this earlier with the wiki link. The science hypothesis suggests microbes came from space on asteriods.

However, my insistence throughout this thread, has always been that the assertion of pre-determined evolution is consistent with science and the many disparaging remarks about pre-determined evolution as well as the many personal insults are not proper.

I find the specific research that shows biologically that science has seen directional biased outcome in a biological system (worm) vs the expected random outcome, thus giving credence to my insistence.

Your claim that deterministic evolution has nothing to do with the claim of Prometheus's deterministic evolution seems like you and I are not connecting. It has everything to do with it. We can sidestep all this, as I asked earlier, do you claim that deterministic evolution is nonsense?



Yes, far-fetched, I admitted that earlier when I stated my low probability in believing this. However , human evolution kept gradually getting closer and closer to looking like the aliens , for a specific reason - because their DNA was part of the original "primordial soup".

Initially, the alien "primordial goo" was shown as dispersed, thus, creating primitive creatures, however, over time, the DNA would recombine as these creatures cross-bred. Thus, producing a creature closer to what the aliens looked like.

Programming DNA to combine with other recognized DNA would not seem improbable at all. The aliens could of programmed the DNA to join so that particular DNA patterns are formed.

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 01 Aug 2014, 10:33 pm, edited 19 times in total.

The T-H-E-O-R-Y is massively backed not only by fossil evidence (which can only be partial) by by genetic laboratory evidence. The mechanisms for iheritence while not perfectly understood are reasonably well accounted for. The area of real hot study is epigenetics particularly where environmental factors can alter the way genes operate not only in the present by can have effects in future generations. It is conceivable that a Lamarkian mechanism may be at work after all.

Have a look here: http://discovermagazine.com/2013/may/13 ... your-genes

One thing for sure. The Genesis version of how we came to be is pure bullsh*t.

Meanwhile Craig Venter and his gifted team has created a purely artificial life form that reproduces genetically. Pleas see

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010 ... -life-form

ruveyn

Sigourney Weaver in the Alien series, I do not see how they can bring her back for an Alien-5, unless they say they cloned her, or say she is a daughter (that looks a lot like her mother or grandmother) that years later ( to where the age of the actress fits the theme) goes investigating. like mother like daughter etc. But basically in trying they will ruin it because they already killed her off. they would need a new actress.

That is unless they do some tricky flashbacks and say in the last movie that she was actually a clone of Ellen Ripley that the company allowed to be impregnated by the alien hoping the alien would attempt to berth a new mother type alien through her because she would be the first impregnated, as the alien would want to produce a queen as quickly as possible, and if that didn't work they had a full crew of prisoners for the alien to produce one.., the corporation figuring they would just destroy the space station if it got to far out of hand or when they were done with it, or perhaps even consider letting the aliens go dormant once they starve for a long while then walk in... people may buy that, but be left unsure if any more Ellen Ripley's are supposed to be clones too, or they would have to do some assuring that she is the real thing.

odds are if they do anything they wont even mention the last movie, as if she never died.

As for Prometheus and the DNA concept. its pretty easy to reason that if life was to produce its self from the most basic elemental soups, that they would need to produce DNA chains that would become self replicating, and even though were related to all these other species on earth, only a small portion of DNA goes into those differences, and so a larger amount of that DNA its whats necessary to produce the functions necessary for life, as in breathing, eating, heart, basic instinct stuff. and as such I wouldn't be at all surprised if any aliens out there has similar DNA codes as our own, and just like were similar or related to our own planetary species with little DNA differences, it would be about the same with us and them. that is, unless their born without a heart or lung etc, although i can see a lot of flexibility in the design (as not all animal hearts are built the same.) I think those things are a necessary part for life's designs to be functional.

Now, if we discover any other intelligent life forms, I am willing to bet most of them would be sea dwelling, like our dauphins, just no means of stuff like metallurgy and things like that because of their environment. the reason i say this is that the odds are greater that we will find water worlds (or deserts because of lack of water, like mars). it only takes a few degrees to make that difference, and hydrogen and oxygen are actually quite abundant elements to be found in newly forming solar systems as ice, so water would be vary common. even the earth used to be covered at one time before the continents rose, but just because we formed continents does not mean others would, most would be so deep that they never surface, consider the moon Europa, or the gas giants.

Last edited by AspergianMutantt on 01 Aug 2014, 10:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I agree the aliens are not GODs per se, however, perhaps the reference of Prometheus refers to how he angered the GODS, and that is why in the movie they seem to want to destroy humans. The movie seems to represent that they are our GOD.



Well that explains the research I cited that "directional" is not random but does this not imply a bias i.e,, the direction is directional because it is being biased ?

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 01 Aug 2014, 10:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Good point. Well, some actors are signing "use of digital image" agreements to let their image be used in movies after their death. So, we could see her in a non-speaking part in a much future version of Aliens.

Good point, just she would no longer be that leading actress, or have that leading roll.

Or they can say this new movie was at a time before she died leading up to what happened next.

Seems like explanation is required ?

I posted about "alien creationism" theory represented in Prometheus, and I was told it was nonsense. I think it is reasonable to pursue inquiry into why it is nonsense, thus, the long back-and-forth discussion. It is hard to endure the many, many insults from people who are unwilling to state their opinion on qualifying the label of "nonsense" (and many other disparaging words).

The thread deviated because of having to respond to different people pursuing different angles of Prometheus. They asked questions, so I answered. However, overall Prometheus depicts predetermined evolution which is why I cited the Science Daily scientific research as merely to show that the idea of predetermined evolution should not be off-handedly labeled as "nonsense". Many prior posts I stated that it is not inconsistent with science theory, at least anything presented , so the indictment of nonsense bothered me.

Along the way, I learned of the apparent truth that science of evolution seems to be at best an inductive argument (i.e., one of reasonableness, not conclusiveness, per the wikipedia definition of "inductive proof"), and this energized my effort to pursue this. How come "reasonableness" enables people to label alternate ideas as nonsense ? It seems wrong, and then the personal insults kept coming in which bothered me more. My expectation that ASD people were like me, was put to an end today. I would of never in my life engaged people in conversation in real life or online through the use of insults.

So, "troll" seems like it fairly deserves explanation ?

In the nicest possible term, LNH, the issue is that you don't actually understand what you are talking about. For instance, you cited popular articles rather than the science behind them, and didn't recognise that the science didn't actually support your claim. It is fine to cite popular articles in this kind of discussion, but you should recognise the flaws in such articles when they are pointed out.

You also do not understand concepts like "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". OK, sometimes the vulvae of some species do not develop quite as we would expect. As things stand, you are claiming that means... aliens! You have a tiny (dubious) piece of evidence for an outlandish proposition. That simply is not enough.

As I said above, the issue isn't that your idea is implausible, it is that it is not actively supported by the evidence. There's no reason for people to choose to accept it beyond a desire to be edgy and controversial. We know no mechanism for how aliens could control evolution, we have no evidence for alien design, and the only thing you have to support your claim is one paper that doesn't actually support your claim at all and a bucketload of sci fi?

Evolution is conclusive. There is loads of evidence for it. Even if aliens did create life, even if panspermia is true, evolution still happened.