Evolution is BS and based on guesses

Post Reply New Topic

^ Both of your conjectures are pure fantasy with no supporting evidence. Evidence for evolution on the other hand, particularly that relating to humans, is so strong as to constitute a mountain of proof. You just have to look at our DNA and compare it in detail with other animals.

My "conjecture" is the premise of Prometheus movies, which is why the aliens are called "engineers". Sure, it is complete fiction.

However, you are the one adamantly asserting it happened the way you say, so you are the one with the burden of proof to show that it could
not have happened per alien "engineers".



Why couldn't our alien "GOD" create it that way ? Perhaps, he didn't see the need for a huge divergence in DNA.

There is still evolution in Prometheus, just pre-determined evolution.

Analysis of DNA shows that humans are part of the family tree of animals that have evolved from each other sharing common ancestors going back many millions of years. Humans just didn't suddenly appear from nowhere with our own specific DNA, unconnected to any other animals. Early humans also cross bred with Neanderthals and Denisovans and we have remnants of their DNA in our own. Looking slightly further away in our family tree, we share 95% of the same DNA as our cousins the chimpanzees. Evolution is a slow, ongoing process; assuming humanity survives, we will likely have changed and evolved into other forms of hominids in a few more million years.

This "analysis" is just spotting similarities in the DNA, and then making the assumption that similarity must mean ancestry?

That is no proof. That is assuming what you intend to prove - a fallacy.

It is a case of connect the dots, with millions of dots there to draw the picture and conclusions from. I'd definitely call it proof. It is either proof or an incredibly massive coincidence of unbelievable proportions. That is before even factoring in mitochondrial DNA which passes down the maternal line.

It would be an inductive argument.

I am not a biologist, however, it does not seem like they can show that similarity means ancestry. Especially when I read this ...

"In human mitochondrial genetics, there is debate over whether or not paternal mtDNA transmission is possible. Many studies hold that paternal mtDNA is never transmitted to offspring".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_m ... ansmission

Without parent mitochondrial DNA being passed down, then "DNA evolution evidence" is lost, right ? All you would have left is "connecting the dots" with similarities, and assuming similarity means ancestry. A possibly very good inductive argument at best.

No, of course not! Mitochondria evolve and continue to evolve as living organisms in their own right. The fact they are passed down the mammalian maternal line is irrelevant to their evolution. What we do see from mitochondrial DNA is that they have evolved and their genetic make-up changes over millions of years and this produces yet another family tree that runs parallel to that of the evolution of each animal and plant on the planet. On the more recent scale, the analysis of evolution of mitochondrial DNA has been used to show the paths taken by early man after leaving Africa and spreading to all parts of the world.

The family tree evidence in DNA showing evolution of all plants and animals (including humans) is impossible to deny. It isn't simply down to a few vague similarities between species as you seem to be implying. We are talking about a massive amount of DNA data showing the relationships in the most minuscule detail. In conjunction with the fossil record we have time scales too. The amount of information showing evolution to be a fact is absolutely overwhelming.

Not only that but hie is actually ADMITTING that all of the evidence is for evolution, and none is for creation.Hie argument is based solely on concocting a convoluted scenario to explain why that evidence is somehow fake.

Yes, indeed. By way of analogy it is like trying to say the Mona Lisa painting is not related to an identical painting where she has a single hair painted differently. Either the second painting is "related" to the first (i.e. an imperfect copy / derivative) or it is an entirely original work and it is a massive coincidence that the second painting looks almost identical. Sure you could say the second painting isn't based on the first but I ain't buying it!

The tracing your ancestry is not reliable the problem is the assumptions have too many errors .....

"... most of the frequencies of DNA markers have known error rates"
http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/20 ... y-testing/

Isn't the truth, that this is all "connect the dots", guesswork and assumptions ?




What you mean by "family tree evidence" is DNA similarity.

However, you are only assuming similar DNA things must have evolved from each other. You are assuming evolution and then saying, because of this assumption, you have proven evolution.

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 31 Jul 2014, 6:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

I never said it was fake. I stated the premise of the Prometheus movies.

Nothing said so far disproves the premise of alien "engineers" pre-determining evolution to make humans.

Of course mitochondrial DNA is passed down from one generation to the next! How otherwise would you expect mitochondria to continue to exist in the next generation of plants or animals? The main difference is that mitochondria pass down the mammalian generations by hitching a lift inside the mammalian mothers egg. Humans. other animals, plants and many singular celled organisms are hosts to vast cities of these tiny critters. We live in a symbiotic relationship with them. They are dependent upon the plants and animals as hosts and we are dependent upon them for metabolising sugars and providing energy for us. Mitochondria are extremely old creatures, their origin going way back in time and they are amongst the earliest organisms to have evolved on the planet. We have studied their DNA and have followed their ancestry back tens of thousands of years in the humans who left Africa.

Your link to the arstechnica article, while interesting, is talking about how inaccurate cheap tests may be that are offered to people for tracing their ethnic origins using only a handful of genes as markers. The article is not related to the detailed study of DNA across all genes regarding the comparison of human DNA to that of other apes and other animals.

The family tree exists. You can deny it all you want and for some weird reason claim that each part of the tree isn't linked, but that would be silly. The image presented by DNA and fossil evidence is very much that of a tree, with new animals and plants evolving from older species over vast periods of time. Are you really suggesting that each and every new species suddenly appeared from nowhere - maybe created by a god or put here by mischievous aliens at multiple times over millions of years? Are you also suggesting that the "ancestors" of those new species aren't really their ancestors at all, despite each "new" species having DNA that is almost identical to its precursor? If this is what you are suggesting it is beyond ridiculous.

Hmm, I specifically recall posting this link on page 1 in this thread...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

This strengthens the inductive argument, however, I am still open minded, life is more fun that way.



OK.



I don't deny it. I am sure DNA similarity exists, and scientists have made classifications based on DNA similarity.



There are a lot of possibilities. Aliens may have dropped off different species over time - which we see in the fossil record. These species have common DNA because it was the same alien GOD who did the genetic engineering.

It may seem ridiculous, however, it is possible, and the blockbuster movie Prometheus 2 will have the world wondering if it could be true. What if the fossil record is the order of the different species GOD put on the Earth ?

I presented the premise of the movie, and was challenged. I did not do the challenging.

Prometheus is consistent with the evolution presented. The idea of "pre-determination" has not been discussed, so whether it is non-sensical is indeterminate.

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 31 Jul 2014, 7:49 am, edited 2 times in total.

As we know the mechanisms by which evolution works at both the causal level and the biochemical levels then postulating an external entity (be it aliens or gods) as the cause is unnecessary and there is no evidence to support it anyway. If I throw an apple at you and it hits your head, you could also speculate that an alien plucked the apple out of my hand using their (Star Trek) transporter technology then made it appear again at the side of your head with an added horizontal velocity. I of course deny all responsibility... it woz the aliens wot dun it... honest...