If we are alive right now , isn't that proof that our dna has continuously existed since the beggining ?

If we are alive right now , isn't that proof that our dna has continuously existed since the beggining ?

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    You said yourself that when youre in a box your word is god , and here you are claiming to know X or Y . Never claimed to have proof or be an academic biologist yet you only want to talk about this jargon , well played athiest you've owned another libtard!

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Never claimed to have proof

      https://i.imgur.com/DctdSvG.jpg

      If we are alive right now , isn't that proof that our dna has continuously existed since the beggining ?

      >isn't that proof

      I answered your question
      no, that isn't proof
      it's compelling evidence, but not at all proof.

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >another potentially interesting thread ruined by an autismo
    welp

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      oh no, I ruined paleoschizo's 5,678th sophomoric tautology thread by pointing out his failures of thought.

      believe me, the failure to think is way more interesting than the thought he expressed. We could write books about his stereotypical failures to think.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      More like
      >another thread with an autistically phrased broad question that was bound to go nowhere

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    there's also the problem of the ship of theseus in considering continuity.

    horizontal gene transfer is a known and demonstrated mechanism of gene transfer that doesn't involve inheriting the gene from your ancestors. It has presumably happened millions of times in our ascent. So much or all of our DNA has discontinuity in that it came from something other than our direct ancestors.

    anyways, your observation is elegant, and you're not by any means the first person to express it. But it's not proven, nor is it provable.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Well if "our DNA" is taken as meaning the existence of these molecules that we have, or human DNA as a concept, the ship of theseus doesn't really come into play.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >the ship of theseus doesn't really come into play.
        it does if we're considering continuity and the fact that much or all of our DNA came from organisms we didn't ascend from.

        it's just that the foreign DNA was introduced in small batches at millions of different times.

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >proof
    no
    do you understand what proof is?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      we are alive right now, thats the proof...
      Where does your dna come from ?
      Where does your parents dna come from ?
      If we are alive right now then its pretty safe to say our dna hasnt failed to repoduce since the beggining. we are much more than 'human'

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        can you disprove any alternate scenarios? Interference from outside intelligences or processes? Can you prove aliens didn't invent our DNA last week and implant a bunch of memories in your head?

        your "proof" only works within a limited and unprovable construct of understanding. It isn't proof. It's probably true so far as we understand things, but it's possible there are things we don't understand. So it's not proven.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >um actually disprove the literal infinite number of scenarios
          That's not how it works, you get evidence for a theory (in OP's case the DNA thing) and it stands until someone comes up with a better theory that fits the evidence better or some new evidence changes key parts of his theory.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That's not how it works
            that's how PROOF works

            if you want to prove something, you have to disprove all alternatives.

            that's why OP's borrowed theory is not proven, and cannot be proven.

            the major error is a failure to understand what "proof" is, and thinking theory is the same as proof.

            • 5 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Can you prove aliens didn't invent our DNA last week and implant a bunch of memories in your head?
              Can you prove this??? OP doesn't have to disprove a theory that doesn't even provide evidence for itself.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                >OP doesn't have to disprove a theory that doesn't even provide evidence for itself.
                There are ways OP could prove his theory and disprove all others, but it would require time travel, and that alone would probably disprove his theory.

                you're confusing evidence with proof.
                so is OP.
                evidence has a much lower standard than proof.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                You might aswell be saying that whats happening right now isnt real and i disagree.

                Im looking at more as a relation between things , the entity that is you is always evolving so you isnt any specific dna archytype . so it doesnt really matter which dna is where only that we are alive right now and that logical observstion suggests we are the result of a lot of time + breeding . So if you were to look at yourself as the life form that is reproducing , your dna , when exactly have you ever died ?

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You might aswell be saying that whats happening right now isnt real and i disagree.
                yes, but neither of us can disprove it.

                the error is using the word, "proof."
                OP's statement is reasonable within the context of the modern biological knowledge construct. But it's certainly not proven. It could be disproven, but never proven. Because proving it would require disproving a nearly infinite array of alternate possibilities.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                You cant 'disprove' it but is it necessary when everything you have to interact with the universe is telling you it is real ? Ideas or even visions can be manipulated , but there are certain things that always remain objective, again everything is relative, but objectively no matter what your mind creates you are still tethered to the physical realm

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                >is it necessary
                of course not.
                It's not even wise.

                OP used a word that indicates a very basic misunderstanding of biology as a science and logic itself. Science cannot be proven, and if it is proven it instantly ceases to be science.

                that is all. OP's mistake isn't the idea that DNA is immortal and continuous, but that anything about the past can be proven. It's an extremely broad failure. A very basic failure to understand reality and his relationship to it.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                You can prove things about the past , quite easily at first and then exponentially harder , for example you could prove the dna life continuity by looking at your parents and grandparents if you still have them , or just having someone like a relative witness your parents birth and then yours . There are plenty of old artefacts out in the wilderness whose origin and date are beyond knowing and we can only say 'damn we are not the first humans ' . To me it seems more likely that life evolved , since it is present today and doing it currently, than that one of the infinite possible alien insemination program/matrix computer simulation theories be true. Which one is easier ? I mean there are even apes that look exactly like us in form , you have to swallow a pretty big blue pill to deny evolution when faced with that + the tottal logical sense of the thing . If evolution is the way we all appeared then we could have been here for hundreds of thousands of years just like millions theres no way to say since animals stop evolving when they hit their neiche and we tend to kill anything that poses threat

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm afraid you're not cut out for this if you can't see how that proof only exists within your knowledge construct, and can't imagine anything outside of that construct

                you're in a box. Yes, within your box you can prove stuff. But nobody else is in your box, so they're not likely to accept your idea of proof.

                Science in general certainly doesn't accept your idea of proof, because the instant you decide you know everything you stop looking for other ideas that might be more right. You stick yourself in a thought box.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                >artefacts
                wat

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                >for example you could prove the dna life continuity by looking at your parents and grandparents if you still have them , or just having someone like a relative witness your parents birth and then yours .
                not proof that DNA even exists, or that it's responsible for the similarities between you and your parents, let alone that it's continuous between you and your parents, let alone that that continuity exists all the way back to the beginnings of life.

                Basically you just have no idea what "proof" is.

                and that's fine. It's not important for you to understand the differences between proof and evidence and probability. These concepts aren't going to help you clean sidewalks or collect disability checks or whatever it is you do in life.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You cant 'disprove' it but is it necessary
                this is the beginning of understanding science

                it cannot be proven
                but it doesn't need to be proven.
                it isn't necessary to prove it.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                >it cannot be proven
                >but it doesn't need to be proven.
                >it isn't necessary to prove it.
                in fact the opposite is true

                science can only be disproven, never proven
                it is necessary to try to disprove it and fail.

                trying to disprove an idea and failing produces science, not proof.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                >trying to disprove an idea and failing produces science, not proof.
                OP's conjecture cannot be proven.
                it also can't be disproven

                thus it is science, not proof.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                >it also can't be disproven
                or more correctly,

                it CAN be disproven but hasn't been.
                it is falsifiable, but it hasn't been falsified, so it stands as a scientific hypothesis. Perhaps a scientific theory.

              • 5 months ago
                Anonymous

                Anyways, OP's observation is fairly deep for someone with absolutely no education or interest in biology.

                it's been expressed hundreds of times by at least that many biologists ever since DNA was discovered, and probably well before that.

                This guy got an entire best selling book out of OP's idea, it's as thick as the bible. So OP's a bit late to the table. But if he's able to synthesize this understanding without knowing anything about biology, perhaps he can reinvent other much more subtle understandings? And in time maybe even come up with some nobody else has ever thought of.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          have a nice day

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *