Evolution is BS and based on guesses

Post Reply New Topic

In my second post on this thread I asserted that pre-determined evolution is the distinction between the Prometheus's premise, and the scientific theory of evolution. This is why the aliens are called "engineers" (i.e., they engineer species). I was told repeatedly that deterministic evolution is nonsense. So, far no one has established why the concept of deterministic evolution is nonsense. That is the fundamental question to Prometheus, of whether evolution can be made to happened deterministically (i.e., "engineered").

I will ask again, can you substantiate why deterministic evolution is nonsense when I have found that it is contentious among researchers ?

Note: Planetary scientist Kevin Hand of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., was a science adviser to Prometheus,

"Without spoiling the movie for those who haven't seen it, one idea central to the movie was the notion of aliens "seeding" life on Earth. "We talked about that a lot," including the idea of "conducting experiments with microbes on other worlds and what happens when experiments go 'wrong,' " Hand says. For similar reasons, NASA and Russia's space agencies have carefully sterilized past missions to Mars, fearing just this kind of contamination.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/sci ... 55476010/1

You have supplied no evidence and I am not about to try and substantiate a negative.


There is a massive difference between microbes coming to earth via meteorites and aliens deliberately seeding the planet with microbes engineered to evolve into particular species.

Design has absolutely NO evidence and you have shown none. The only evidence you have shown is that of your own ignorance and gullibility on the subject.

I'm am now finished with this discussion, you have proven yourself to be either unable to grasp fairly simple concepts or that obstinate that nothing will make you see reason.

That right there is the semantic problem I wrote about earlier. You think that deterministic evolution means evolution that was engineered/designed/steered down a path consciously. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT!! ! It just means going down a particular path once that path has been established by previous life.

Right, however, it does not exclude pre-design. If you go back to my first post I presented the premise of Prometheus, and made no assertion that I had proof of the premise. I heard a lot of arguments, people are stating their opinion without facts as to why pre-determined evolution is nonsense. On my second post, I stated that it is consistent with evolution, except for the pre-determined aspect.

We do see some local evidence of evolutionary biasing ...

1. Genetic determination appears to be well established (i.e., genetics bias outcome).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_determinism

2. Natural Selection is an abstraction of the phenomena of DNA seeking "preferential" other DNA (i.e., a biased outcome)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

3. Cell fate determination
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_fate_determination

And questions about non-local evolutionary biasing ...

1. Are DNA mutations really random?
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles. ... y-random-/

Note: I am not even citing the arguments that PHD scientist creationists make that DNA is not randomly formed.

All I have heard is that "no evidence" means nonsense. However,

I showed before, on wikipedia, it is reported that ...

"There is still no "standard model" of the origin of life".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Some science conjecture, err .. hypothesis purports alien-created-life. See source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Primitive extraterrestrial life

Why isn't science nonsense for not having evidence ?

By definition, there?s no way to study scientifically anything outside of every possible human experience (including experience obtained using any kind of sophisticated equipment), so the question about the existence of a conscious entity outside or universe who created or engineered it, but who does not currently interact with it in any way which would allow us to deduce consequences testable by experiment, is not a scientific one.

There?s nothing special about evolution in this regard. An omniscient being who created our universe would have chosen the laws of nature and would know from the beginning exactly what would happen when everything within this universe followed them, during its whole history. Unfalsifiable hypotheses about such a creator are not science, and science doesn?t need to deal with them. The observable consequences of the laws of nature are the same whether they were engineered by this kind of entity or not, and they?re no more or less deterministic in either case. We can only speculate about anything that might exist outside our universe?assuming we even agree what that means?unless somehow it becomes possible to experiment with it.

Just because evolution doesn't mesh with biblical stories doesn't mean that there is not God. The bible is a human record and mythology. It has nothing to do with God. Natural laws and evolution are God's work. Expressing them in scientific terminology to gain greater understanding of our environment brings us closer to God, not farther from.

It does mean that the Biblical God doesn't exist. If you have some other concept of it, I would ask why you thought so.

She is a Deist, what I find interesting is that some deists also claim to be Christians, which to my understanding should be mutually exclusive, yet some of them see Jesus as the Son Of God, and believe in the scriptures.

To my mind Deism is the only sensible course for the religious to take, so much of the bible has been shown to be errant, the only real gap for God to fill is the creation of the universe. And this gap is in serious danger of being filled by new understandings regarding the natural laws.

Georges Lemaître told Hannes Alfven that the Big Bang theory "was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo." Unless something can come from nothing, which I am totally convinced is impossible, we're pretty much left with an eternal universe in which the alleged Big Bang could have been a local event, if it ever happened.

Thank you DentArthurDent, I did not know there was a term for it.

With regard to Christianity, I certainly don't believe in Jesus being the son of God. Although I think there probably was a historical figure about whom the writings were inspired. Kind of like Homer didn't necessarily write the Iliad and Odyssey, but the stories are collected under that name. I think that many of the traits ascribed to Jesus are desirable for a functioning society, though.

I'm an agnostic.

It's an appealing idea: the notion that God created evolutionary conditions.

Appealing why? The conditions are simply the existence of elements.

Elements comprised of particles that seek a particular biased outcome by way of forces:

gravitational force
electromagnetic force
strong nuclear force
weak nuclear force

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

Evolution tells us that the amalgamation of molecules to start life is based on this bias, however, why this bias? Why a life-permitting bias ? Matter has preference, but who gave it preference ?

Or rather "what" gave it preference. There does not need to be "who".
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/ ... FN20100902



Of course he wasn't there. But neither were any of the people who created the concept of God.

Who gave what its ability to give it preference. Who's mother next. Turtles all the way down.

In your citation, Hawkings does not address the reasons why matter has preference to form in particular ways though. A super-genius "GOD" would realize that matter would ultimately (re)assemble itself into a preferential form, due to bias preferences of the particles in matter. We can see this with basic chemistry, we can throw some chemicals together, leave it alone, and see the expected outcome.

However ....

Quoted: ... as Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Every step of the way, science is like "we got lucky! we got lucky! ". Like in Dungeons and Dragons, you roll a trillion sided dice and have to get a '1', and we got it.

Also, Hawking does not commit random origins of life. He just says that chances of non-random origin is small.

"The chances against a DNA molecule arising by random fluctuations are very small".
http://www.hawking.org.uk/life-in-the-universe.html