Evolution is BS and based on guesses

Post Reply New Topic

First of all: who says scientist dismiss the idea of alien's seeding life? They consider it-but find it wanting .

-for a number of obvious reasons for starters (aliens are an unknown, and if they exist- then how did THEY originate? From evolution? From OTHER aliens? And why would aliens start a project that would take four billion years to complete? and- there is the little problem of :there isnt a shred of evidence to support this alien preprograming idea)

Second - so you're saying that if I refuse to entertain the idea that the Moon is made of cotten candy -and that smurfs are at work faking the evidence to make it appear to be made of rock- then my refusal to entertain the idea is an act of religious faith? Isnt that backwards?

Wouldnt believing in this smurf theory (against all evidence- just like your demand that scientist take the premise of that movie seriously-which would be against all evidence) be faith of a religious type?

And in those numbers above - you're admittting that evolution has by far the most evidence supporting it. So if you essentially accept evolution why do you fault scientists for accepting it?

Where I am "going with this" is trying to pin down where you are going with your nonsense. Your hollywood theory is like my cotten candy theory-defies all evidence.

But you demand folks take it seriously against that evidence- which means you are engaged in religous faith. Not the folks who dismiss your idea (which you yourself ALSO dismiss-but you fault other for dismissing it)

The fact that it is unlikely is why scientists dont adhere to the theory. Whether we can know their intent or not is irrelevent. Given present knowledge-there is no reason to adhere to your theory (which you yourself dont take seriously either). Its not for everyone else on the thread to find faults with your theory. Its for you to find evidence to argue FOR it. You steadfastly refuse to do that. And indeed even admit to finding it unlikely yourself.

Science has a hypothesis that life on Earth originated from "extraterrestrial life". It is called "Panspermia".

As I stated much earlier, on the second post, the premise of Prometheus is evolution. It is just pre-determined evolution. Through the whole thread, people said it was wrong, but no reasoning was put forth.

And now we see this ...

Evolution Is Deterministic, Not Random, Biologists Conclude From Multi-species Study
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 123929.htm

BACKGROUND: A surprising amount of developmental variation has been observed for otherwise highly conserved features, a phenomenon known as developmental system drift. Either stochastic processes (e.g., drift and absence of selection-independent constraints) or deterministic processes (e.g., selection or constraints) could be the predominate mechanism for the evolution of such variation. We tested whether evolutionary patterns of change were unbiased or biased, as predicted by the stochastic or deterministic hypotheses, respectively. As a model, we used the nematode vulva, a highly conserved, essential organ, the development of which has been intensively studied in the model systems Caenorhabditis elegans and Pristionchus pacificus.

RESULTS: For 51 rhabditid species, we analyzed more than 40 characteristics of vulva development, including cell fates, fate induction, cell competence, division patterns, morphogenesis, and related aspects of gonad development. We then defined individual characters and plotted their evolution on a phylogeny inferred for 65 species from three nuclear gene sequences. This taxon-dense phylogeny provides for the first time a highly resolved picture of rhabditid evolution and allows the reconstruction of the number and directionality of changes in the vulva development characters. We found an astonishing amount of variation and an even larger number of evolutionary changes, suggesting a high degree of homoplasy (convergences and reversals). Surprisingly, only two characters showed unbiased evolution. Evolution of all other characters was biased.

CONCLUSIONS: We propose that developmental evolution is primarily governed by selection and/or selection-independent constraints, not stochastic processes such as drift in unconstrained phenotypic space.

This study has absolutely *nothing* to do with the Prometheus claim you keep pushing...

This study has absolutely *nothing* to do with the Prometheus claim you keep pushing...

Did you read the scientific research I cited above? You think those scientists and their research are nonsense ?

Their research shows the premise of Prometheus that evolution is deterministic.



I never demanded anything. I asked penetrating questions, so penetrating that people had to resort to insults.



Science has a hypothesis that life on Earth originated from "extraterrestrial life". It is called "Panspermia".

"... the hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, distributed by meteoroids, asteroids, comets, planetoids, and also by spacecraft, in the form of unintended contamination by microbes".

source,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

I am not "pushing" anything. I keep getting asked questions, and pointing out that Prometheus is not inconsistent with science theory that has been presented so far. Others think so, however, apparently.

Lying doesnt help your cause.
Denying that you're demanding to be taken seriously when in fact you ARE demanding to be taken seriously is a lie.

And while we are on the subject: how come you dismiss the idea that the moon is made of cotten candy and inhabited by my little ponies with smurfs faking evidence that its made of rock? Are you disturbed by my "penetrating questions" about your "religious beliefs"?

In Prometheus, just as in Christian mythology, we are banished by our creators to wander alone, even as everything that we are comes from them/Him. But Prometheus not only reiterates this mythology, it also does that other quintessential job of SF: it ponders the autonomous (alienated and fetishized) product.

It's no shock that SF continually tells stories which reiterate Genesis while also thinking about the alienation of humanity from the produce of their labour. Genesis is about the alienation of humanity from nature brought by the rise of agriculture, surplus and class. SF reiterates Genesis because it is the modern cultural genre that most directly addresses the unprecedented alienation brought by capitalism, modernity, industry and technology. Genesis is about the relationship between humanity and nature, altered by tools. SF is about the constantly changing and decaying and threatening relationship between humanity and the tools themselves as they careen out of our control.

That isn't how science works. You need to provide evidence that your claim is correct, not just say "my claim is not inconsistent with what we know". Your claim also isn't supported by what we know, so there's no reason to believe it.

The movie tells us nothing about how life may have come to exist on earth. But it tells us a lot about how (agrarian culture) humans tend to think about the world and the things in it. As biology, it is silly. As sociology, it is rather interesting.

You apparently never saw the movie. It shows us precisely how life came about. The black goo + xenomorph are the primordial goo in the opening sequence. And it shows how this "primordial goo" formed life. I even showed the picture in my original post.

I did see the movie. And I greatly enjoyed it. But as others have pointed out, "fictional narrative that doesn't require discarding existing evidence" is not at all the same as "what we can infer from the existing evidence".

It isn't a tactic, I'm just sick of reading and responding to your BS. Maybe your are right, maybe ET shoved his glowing finger up your ass and you are the next evolutionary leap forward! Anyway, I've better things to do with my time...

I am not a biologist. This does not show cellular deterministic evolution as stated in the headlines on many of the science websites ? It appears what you highlighted does come to the conclusion of cellular determinism. I am sure you realize that "stochastic processes" are random, and so the alternate observation is determinism.

primarily governed by selection and/or selection-independent constraints --> appears to be determinism ?
not stochastic processes such as drift in unconstrained phenotypic space ---> randomness ?

Genetic determinism is the premise of Prometheus.