Page 5 of 12 [ 172 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 12  Next

GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,139

31 Jul 2014, 7:13 am

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

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


_________________
Our comforting conviction that the world makes sense rests on a secure foundation: our almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance.

- Daniel Kahneman


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,088
Location: USA

31 Jul 2014, 7:25 am

TallyMan wrote:
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.


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

TallyMan wrote:
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.


OK.

TallyMan wrote:
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.


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

TallyMan wrote:
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.


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 ?


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,088
Location: USA

31 Jul 2014, 7:32 am

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

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


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.


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


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

TallyMan
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,833

31 Jul 2014, 7:35 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
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.


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 ?


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... :P


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,673
Location: temperate zone

31 Jul 2014, 7:40 am

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

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


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

I never said "prove me wrong".


For us to 'disprove' what you're saying we first have to know what exactly it is that you are saying.

So...

Apparently you're claiming that (a) Creationism is wrong, and (B) "Evolution" in the general sense (ie "gradual change over time as opposed to instaneous creation as portrayed in Genisis) is true. But (c) it was not naturalistic evolution-through-natural-selection as postualted by Darwin, but preprogramed evolution by space aliens ala that movie you saw.

Is that what you are claiming?



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,502
Location: Reading, England

31 Jul 2014, 7:43 am

LNH, there are several problems in the hypothesis you are presenting.

Firstly, you made a big thing about paternal mitochondrial DNA not being passed on, and that this was somehow a problem. It isn't - mitochondrial DNA is passed maternally.

Secondly, yes, it would make sense for a designer to use the same genes to design the same proteins for the same function in different organisms. However, not only is this not what happens - check out the differences in haemoglobins for an obvious, and fairly dramatic, example - but the similarities between the DNA of different species are in the non-coding regions. There does not seem to be a reason for them to be similar, but they are. Common descent would explain that, because mutations accumulate from the ancestor's DNA.

Thirdly, using DNA to infer evolution does not start off by assuming evolution. It starts off by assuming the DNA of offspring resembles that of its parents, and the closer an individual's DNA resembles another shows you how closely they are related. We know this is true from testing it.



trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,920

31 Jul 2014, 9:16 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
TallyMan wrote:

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.


This is only mitochondrial DNA, not our regular human DNA. We get our mitochondria from our mothers, so they can be used to establish whether someone is a female ancestor through the female line. For male ancestors they use the Y-chromosome.
So parental DNA is passed down, it's just that our mitochondria are transmitted through females.
edit: I just saw Tallyman gave a much more comprehensive answer and I'm just being redundant 8)



Last edited by trollcatman on 31 Jul 2014, 9:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,985
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

31 Jul 2014, 9:19 am

yournamehere wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Or these guys
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFc3DDTPXXo[/youtube]


Nice.

Really though, seriously. We have people right now that are doing some pritty crazy experiments with DNA. Laws are the only things to keep them from doing more. We have horses that people evolved. They were smaller than a goat. Turned dogs into nothing more than a crap toy that can't live in the wild for more than a week without getting killed by a bald eagle. Cats too. All of which domesticated, and evolved from humans. Neanderthals gone. Evolved. Interbred into a different species. New stuff going on here and there. Small amounts, but noticable. The ways and the means are probably wrong, but it exists none the less.

I dunno why I waste time on this. Soo unimportant to tell. Look at your family tree, that should give it away right there. Your momma was a -------------. :lol:


wut? :shrug:


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,088
Location: USA

31 Jul 2014, 8:33 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Apparently you're claiming that (a) Creationism is wrong, and (B) "Evolution" in the general sense (ie "gradual change over time as opposed to instaneous creation as portrayed in Genisis) is true. But (c) it was not naturalistic evolution-through-natural-selection as postualted by Darwin, but preprogramed evolution by space aliens ala that movie you saw.

Is that what you are claiming?


I said initially it is "complete fiction". I don't see why it is not possible.

LNH wrote:


I can see why evolution science is not taken seriously.

Promethus fan: "Is the premise of Promethus possible?"

Evolutionary scientist: "No!"

Promethus fan: "Why?"

Evolutionary scientist: Waves hands, thinks for moment, "well, my theory is the only one supported by facts at hand, so it must be the right one!"

Are they so closed minded that they are unable to consider obvious possible alternatives to their ideas ? After this discussion I would presume evolutionary science is a made up religion. It sounds like a whole lot of assumptions, guesswork and "connecting the dots" to fit one's theory, and then labeling it a "proof".


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


Last edited by LoveNotHate on 31 Jul 2014, 8:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

AspergianMutantt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,773
Location: North Idaho. USA

31 Jul 2014, 8:39 pm

I do not see why people find it so hard to believe we evolved on our own, even if there were aliens they too would have had to have a beginning and evolved. so if you can accept that then why not us too? and the truth of it is, unless there is actually a way for us to fold space and time, it would take us thousands of years to travel to any star, so would most likely be machines we would send that would out live us and evolve into their own races. and most any aliens out there would have to do the same.


_________________
Master Thread Killer


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,673
Location: temperate zone

31 Jul 2014, 8:43 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Apparently you're claiming that (a) Creationism is wrong, and (B) "Evolution" in the general sense (ie "gradual change over time as opposed to instaneous creation as portrayed in Genisis) is true. But (c) it was not naturalistic evolution-through-natural-selection as postualted by Darwin, but preprogramed evolution by space aliens ala that movie you saw.

Is that what you are claiming?


I said initially it is "complete fiction". I don't see why it is not possible.

LNH wrote:


I can see why evolution science is not taken seriously.

Promethus fan: "Is the premise of Promethus possible?"

Evolutionary scientist: "No!"

Promethus fan: "Why?"

Evolutionary scientist: Waves hands, thinks for moment, "well, my theory is the only one supported by facts at hand, so it must be the right one!"

Are they so closed minded that they are unable to consider obvious possible alternatives to their ideas ? After this discussion I would presume evolutionary science is a made up religion. It sounds like a whole lot of assumptions, guesswork and "connecting the dots" to fit one's theory, and then labeling it a "proof".


So you ARE admitting that there is no evidence for Young Earth Creation. And you are going to say that the only alternatives are: naturalistic evolution, or alien engineered evolution that mimics the evidence for naturalistic evolution.

Have I got it right?

And you admit that "evolution is the only one supported by the facts". So if your hypothetical scientist adheres to the only thing supported by the facts then how can that be "close minded"- its the only thing supported by the facts- so what else IS there to adhere to?



Last edited by naturalplastic on 31 Jul 2014, 8:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,088
Location: USA

31 Jul 2014, 8:47 pm

No. I am only saying that it appears the premise of Promethus is possible, and it is human arrogance to think otherwise.


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,673
Location: temperate zone

31 Jul 2014, 8:53 pm

But you admitted that "evolution is the only thing supported by the facts". So how is it arrogant to dismiss it. You admit there is no reason to consider it. So why should scientists consider it?



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,088
Location: USA

31 Jul 2014, 9:58 pm

I don't dismiss it.

Perhaps ....

50% chance life evolved based on science theory
25% chance based on religious creationism
10% chance of alien GODs
15% chance of alternate theories

I have an open mind. Would you bet your life that evolution theory is right? I wouldn't. "Evolution theory" may be vastly different in a hundred years. Scientists in the future will say, "it was foolish but scientists a 100 years ago actually believed ....".


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,069
Location: Victoria, Australia

01 Aug 2014, 12:11 am

^ you have an open mind, really? if you seriously give creationism a 25% chance of being correct then I would say your mind is open to just about all forms of nonsense and bullshit. I have not taken much notice so far in this particular thread because I am simply sick and bloody tired of repeating the same facts to the same sort of religious minds.

You lot use Faith to completely ignore the facts whenever it suits you, its pathetic. stop being so bloody stubborn and stupid, admit that genesis is nothing more than a series of stories written in a time of abject biological and geological ignorance, and it is all wrong.

Its really kind of sad, here we are with the repository of the worlds knowledge literally at our fingertips, and here you are ignoring all this wealth of information, instead preferring the opinions of people who were writing before the wheel had been invented. Educating people like you is a waste of resources.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx