Evolution is BS and based on guesses

Post Reply New Topic

What I highlighted did not come to the conclusion of "cellular determinism", nor "genetic determinism" for that matter. It comes to the conclusion that "developmental evolution is primarily governed by selection and/or selection-independent constraints, not stochastic processes such as drift in unconstrained phenotypic space." (as previously quoted).

And neither of the mechanisms in the study (selection or selection-independent constraints) have anything to do with your Prometheus claim. You apparently haven't the slightest idea of what these two concepts even are.

You are hijacking a scientific study - that you obviously haven't read a single word of - and misrepresenting it as evidence for your silly Hollywood claim using childish word play, sloppy definitions of terms and a non sequitur.

I might as well cite a study demonstrating the natural laws governing the electrical conductivity of clouds as evidence that a man struck by lightning has incurred the wrath of God.

It seems "brain shutdown" as observed by many frustrated forum members is not merely the common denial by those believing in spiritual origins of mankind, but a reaction which essentially includes rejection of Scientific Method and it's conclusions which don't agree with their deity based beliefs.

This evidences a lack of and fear of scientific understanding which might refute some part of their holy training; they're very serious about this. When they were little children their parents told them so and by golly they hold those beliefs dear, and always will; this is a "fixed belief."

So showing these people an organism that has survived for billions of years............and which helped to create the first oxygen bearing atmosphere....would be a waste of time because any such "evidence" is automatically rejected as being not consistent with the teachings of the Bible. Some people believe so strongly they would rather die, and let their children die, than take medicine for illness; this is a "very" fixed belief beyond any scientific discussion or appeals to change.

There are tribes in jungles that still have not seen outside human contact. I do not feel the need to rush amongst them to praise and pass the light of science. In the same way I do not feel it's necessary to educate every person I meet. They're entitled to their "beliefs" just as much as I'm entitled to mine, even though I feel my position is more correct (in this modern scientific world).

But then this is just one aspie's view.

It wasnt aliens that preprogrammed it all.

It was obviously trolls that did it.

It was published in the Journal of Current Biology and the National Science Foundation, with the title of "Evolution is Deterministic, Not Random" and summary to explain deterministic evolution was happening, not randomness.

It states right on the published site I cited: "For example, they concluded that the number of cell divisions needed in vulva development declined over time -- instead of randomly increasing and decreasing. In addition, the team noted that the number of rings used to form the vulva consistently declined during the evolutionary process. These results demonstrate that, even where we might expect evolution to be random, it is not. These results demonstrate that, even where we might expect evolution to be random, it is not"


They expected a probabilistic outcome, and they got constraints determining outcome (i.e., a deterministic outcome). This is why the research titled "Evolution is Deterministic, Not Random"

You disagree with this ? The NSF website is publishing false information ? How is this not "cellular determinism?

science daily:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 123929.htm

nsf source:
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=110761



Yes, I do. They are stated as constraints in the document you cited. That is why the researchers came to the surprise, and conclusion of determinism, rather than stochastic processes (probability) as the the determination for outcome. One would expect probability generally, not constraints.



I was told that deterministic evolution represented in Prometheus is "ridiculous", "absurd", "nonsense" and yet, I find research that the scientific principal of deterministic evolution that appears to show it is not "ridiculous", "absurd", "nonsense".

I am not a biologist so I am doing my best. Sorry. However, but you don't explain why the National Science Foundation and Journal of Current Biology, and the Science Daily would post the title and summary of a nonsense idea?

So, the concept of deterministic evolution is silly to you? Can you explain why ? NSF payed millions of dollars for such research.

What "childish word play"? I made it clear from the second post that Prometheus is evolutionary, and the difference is only pre-deterministic evolution (i.e., the aliens could put say "constraints" or whatever mechanism in the DNA to control the evolutionary process)? I repeated this assertion many times looking for an answer of why it is being refuted. This is what the premise of Prometheus is about - that the alien "engineers" who are known as fantastic genetic engineers could of programmed the DNA in the "goo" to direct evolution. So we get as I stated in the second post, pre-determined evolution. This is why in the movie they want to know why the aliens created and guided humanity to only destroy it later.



I am not saying this proves anything, and perhaps the science is bogus. I only cited it as refutation to the argument that deterministic evolution represented in Prometheus is "ridiculous", "absurd", "nonsense". If it is such nonsense then why do I find research claiming otherwise? Do you hold that deterministic evolution is nonsense ? I find biology websites that say the belief is contentious among researchers, yet, everyone here seems to dismiss it out of hand with no thought , and with no explanation.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V_2r2n4b5c[/youtube]

Evolution is a lie, because if it were true there would be no heaven and 72 wives waiting for me at the pearly gates and most of my life would be a waste because of believing in something not true so it has to be true. so I reject your claims,

ALSO, My GOD is the right god, all of yours are just fantasies you tell your selves and others and your children, there can be only one right god and he is MINE! so you better brush up on my god and pray to him or your all going to be losers and burn in ever lasting hell!

And lastly I couldnt have evolved, I am too perfect and there has to be a god that cares for me. and there has to be justice after death for all your crimes against me and mine! and the people I love that died are not just gone, their waiting for me, and I refuse to believe there is nothing left of me after death!

Last edited by AspergianMutantt on 01 Aug 2014, 4:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dxpMTFBg48[/youtube]

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