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 ?
If we are alive right now , isn't that proof that our dna has continuously existed since the beggining ?
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!
>Never claimed to have proof
>isn't that proof
I answered your question
no, that isn't proof
it's compelling evidence, but not at all proof.
>another potentially interesting thread ruined by an autismo
welp
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.
More like
>another thread with an autistically phrased broad question that was bound to go nowhere
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.
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.
>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.
>proof
no
do you understand what proof is?
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'
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.
>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.
>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.
>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.
>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.
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 ?
>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.
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
>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.
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
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.
>artefacts
wat
>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.
>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.
>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.
>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.
>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.
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.
have a nice day