Excellent Darwin Vs. Intelligent Design Video

Neither theory have been both scientifically proven no matter how much either clan claim. They're both theories heavily based on philosophies of belief that people choose and adhere to - most the time irrationally (emotionally) without hearing counter arguments or understanding them or considering them. Ben Stein challenged Richard Dawkins to the question of advance aliens creating life and who created them and his response conceded to a form of intelligent design as a possibility. My question is what are the limits to evolution? If an organism continually evolves for infinite time, what will it look like in the end and what would be it's abilities. Perhaps "God" like beings is the final stage in the evolutionary process. Beings that are incomprehensible to us and have extraordinary abilities to design and create life, galaxies and universes from scratch. What a concept. Hell we're almost there and we're no where finished evolving - apes we are I say ! There are elements of truth in both like Intelligent Design + Evolution = Real Evolution.

reply to post by CantSay
Most excellent video friend, star and flag for you and I'm sorry it didn't get more attention (or that everyone who caught it quietly sneaked out the back door...).

While I can't agree with your closing statements due to my personal views and how I see the evidence, I greatly appreciate you bringing this to my attention. As far as your question goes regarding ongoing evolution...eh. Signs seem to indicate that IF it's actually occurring (and I love the bacterial example provided in the video), it can sometimes decide to *apparently* stop at a certain point...which would seem to argue against the theory, or otherwise suggest that some species can effectively become perfect in the eyes of evolution and require no further change (as also evidenced in the fossil record - generally sudden appearance, stability, and then disappearance) - great white sharks as we know them are extant at about 16 million years ago, crocodiles as we know them go about as far back as the dinosaurs, and coelocanth about 400 million years ago, give or take a few million years.

Either these are all effectively examples of the pinacle of their evolution or...well, make of it what you will.

Thanks again!

Sorry, but that was not a excellent video. That was a man, who had no knowledge of the topic of evolution, and had no interest in defending it properly. Propaganda(including some lies) to try to level the playing field and make it seem like there's a real controversy.

I'm not gonna address every point in the video, because that'd be top time extensive for me right now, but I'll say, even the most well done pro-IT video, or pro-evolution video will get mostly likes. It's only when a video has so much misinformation that it's as unliked as that one, that you know to be on alert.

~
I would say though, it takes a lot more thought to mesh the two "theories", than to just verbally say it. That'd have to be thoroughly thought out and presented as a new hypothesis.

Also, Intelligent Design isn't a theory. In science, a Theory is a widely accepted, explanation for a phenomenon that is consistent with all the facts, and is the most reliable explanation given the current information. These explanations can't be made into laws, laws describe different things, theory is the highest stance evolution could ever attain.

Intelligent design, is only accepted amongst unscientific groups, is inconsistent with the facts, hasn't managed to be supported in a single peer reviewed paper, and is easily not a reliable explanation. It's not a Scientific theory, it's an outdated hypothesis. Just a little pet peeve when people amount them both to being only 'theories'. That's like saying gravity is "only a theory".

~
I've studied both sides rather well, and my conclusion is obvious. I'd say, study them yourself before making topics with claims though, as you need to know what there is before building on top of it.

And, not just one-sided sites either, not good to learn from. Forums like this, with a diverse range of educated people, offer great debate where invalid points are destroyed. Leaving only what either side really has to stand behind.

Scientific, peer review journals, are also great. Fallacious support for anything tends to be filtered out, so you can take what's being said as serious. Only if it's peer reviewed though.

Be careful though, some things, like that video, can be tricky by trying to hide the bias, it's still there.
~
I'll also add, my beliefs aren't emotional. They're based on evidence and reasoning. If something somehow managed to disprove evolutionary theory, I'd accept it with clarity. it's just that I use the same clarity seeing that mountain of facts currently supporting it, and relatively no facts supporting IT.

If your studies take you a different route, that's fine. I may even debate you on it if that happened(I do debate people, not to prove I'm right, but to let them prove me wrong if they can). But you really need to develop a strong understanding of it if you're going to involve yourself in the Evolution VS IT debate.

reply to post by CantSay


1. Its not about Darwin Vs God , the theory of evolution by natural selection does not comment God one way or the other because its not relevant to the theory. It only comments on how life has evolved on this planet , not how it started and a scientific theory cannot include things that cannot be observed and recorded.

2. Intelligent design and creationism are not theories. They have no factual, recordable, observed scientific peer reviewed evidence. None.

3. Did aliens seed the planet? Well first you'd have to prove that aliens exist for that to be a valid theory otherwise your theory would be based on a rather large assumption.

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx

Scientific, peer review journals, are also great. Fallacious support for anything tends to be filtered out, so you can take what's being said as serious. Only if it's peer reviewed though.

Peer Review is flawed. How good is published academic research?
Here is a blog about it.

The unspoken rule is that at least 50% of the studies published even in top tier academic journals – Science, Nature, Cell, PNAS, etc… – can’t be repeated with the same conclusions by an industrial lab. In particular, key animal models often don’t reproduce.

A first-of-a-kind analysis of Bayer’s internal efforts to validate ‘new drug target’ claims now not only supports this view but suggests that 50% may be an underestimate; the company’s in-house experimental data do not match literature claims in 65% of target-validation projects, leading to project discontinuation.

Only positive findings are typically published, not negative ones. This pressure creates a huge conflict of interest for academics, and a strong bias to write papers that support the hypotheses included in grant applications and prior publications.

The part where it says "A first-of-a-kind analysis", really irks me. You would think the Peer-Review process would constantly be monitored, or risk spending money on dogmatic hopes, breed laziness, or retard science for a long time.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by addygrace


Do you know how much garbage gets passed off in the non-peer reviewed world? Especially with such a, motivated, claim as intelligent design, you can't trust anyone's claims if it's not verified by other scientists or at least scanned over for fallacies.

Having to have things verified in other labs, trying to get rare repeats, and all the other difficulties of peer review, go against papers supporting evolution too. There are evolutionary findings that get marked as proper and get through though, but intelligent design can never get through, and it's not because of some scientific bias. It's from a lack of objective evidence.

~
What I was saying wasn't even promoting evolutionary theory there. I was giving the advice to know if what's being published is verified. Not asking for a debate on evolution in this topic, nor a debate on the value of peer review. My message was you have to be well versed in the topic before building on top of it, if you want to be taken seriously. I don't want to derail any further, by going into either of those debates that have been done many times.

reply to post by Praetorius


I don't disagree with you, but whatever circumstances that evokes a random mutation which is then tested in the environment to experience if it is beneficial to survival, it can't be ignored that that process will occur countless of times. My question would be what evokes a random mutation? Figure that out than perhaps evolution will take on a new light. For example, as I read somewhere not too long ago, random mutation may in fact be induced by the will of the organism in it's need to survive and excel. I tend to believe this. The will of the animal causes minute mutations to occur in it's DNA that by themselves a single mutation may not be noticeable but significant in continuous compounded mutations which are more noticeable after a certain length of time. These mutations are then passed onto their offspring which in turn they will continue experiencing incremental minute mutations. The reason I believe this is because certain people are more genetically dispositioned to higher intellect and/or physical fitness due to the animals innate desire to selective breeding. In the human race, physical prowess and then intellectual prowess increased changes of survival in our society. The problem with evolution is that we are suppose to believe that purely random mutations lend to increased intelligence. I believe that it was willed mutations in the form of the will to learn and excel to increase survival. Given this as a possibility, all animals attempt to follow the path of least resistance meaning natural tendency to be lazy therefore not evoking their will to excel either because they have no need as they're survival is not being challenged or because the resistance appears too overwhelming. This is why I think crocs haven't evolved beyond their current state. This may also explain why bacteria don't evolve into a higher form of life because their challenge is to survive a limited set of challenges in a test tube. For example, getting a PhD is very difficult and is a long process throughout which you live a relatively poor existence financially and socially where in the end it may or may not give you a high paying job, so many opt for a quick education in order to get into the workforce of a job with routine tasks (jobs that don't challenge). It is my belief that the PhD student exposes him/herself to continuous intellectual challenges and will himself through learning, because it was required to achieve an end goal, into a genetically dispositioned higher level of intellectual capacity through willed genetic mutations affecting the intellectual areas of this biology (brain). These mutations then again are passed down to his/her children upon which these children have less difficulty learning and have higher intellects relatively to children from parents who didn't challenge themselves in the same light.

Nevertheless, evolution by itself, random or willed, does not exclude the possibility that external and designed mutation of DNA can also advance an organism. Nor does it exclude the possibility of a higher life form, one which has advanced itself for billions/trillions of years, from designing and creating life forms "artificially" from their perspective but not from the perspective of the artificial life forms.

I believe in both intelligent design and evolution.

reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx


Peer-review does not mean verification. Verification means verification, and you can publish without verification otherwise scientific journals would be very slim. Publishing invokes verification by other groups. Peer-review in journals only review the content of the paper to see if it follows their own preselected guidelines and beliefs (which is not scientific).

Don't fool yourself, peer-review is a means to filter content from the scientific community and the way it is done is highly subjective and dispositioned to the beliefs of the reviewers. Try challenging a belief (beliefs are not scientific), and you'll see your paper rejected. That's plain and simple.

All content should be made available and allow the readers and experimenters to disseminate and verify. No content in pursuit of scientific truth should be filtered. The problem lies in truly understanding what it means to be objective, scientific and what is belief. Most people, including many scientists, blur all this in a subjective soup.

Originally posted by CantSay
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx

 

Peer-review does not mean verification. Verification means verification, and you can publish without verification otherwise scientific journals would be very slim. Publishing invokes verification by other groups. Peer-review in journals only review the content of the paper to see if it follows their own preselected guidelines and beliefs (which is not scientific).

This is quite untrue. If it were true, the views of the scientific community would never change because the existing belief would take out the new revelations. Though, the process is admittedly sometimes slow when a new idea is radical.

Also, supposing that were true, why couldn't a scientist with irrefutable evidences supporting intelligent design manage to sway other scientists beliefs with it, so it would be in accord with their beliefs and guidelines. Refutable, unconvincing evidence that peer review would take out, could still sound convincing to an uneducated common man, but if there were true evidence supporting it, it would convince fellow scientists.

I'd drop some links explaining the peer review process, and how it is far more objective and reliable than some people propose, but It's late. I also already said that what I meant as advice wasn't suppose to turn into a debate topic. So how about we leave it to the Original Poster to, if he's even interested, decide on what he thinks of peer review from his own study? Fair enough?

reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx


The reason I took a very small part of your post and quoted only that , is because it gets tiresome for me, to hear only peer reviewed info should be counted on. With that link I provided, there was a rare analysis of peer reviewed material in which 65% of the material wasn't reproducible. While I don't think the idea of peer-review in it's most innocent form, is bad, I do find it troubling. The growth of science can be stunted when some of the shenanigan's we see going on in peer-review take place.

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx

Originally posted by CantSay
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx

 

Peer-review does not mean verification. Verification means verification, and you can publish without verification otherwise scientific journals would be very slim. Publishing invokes verification by other groups. Peer-review in journals only review the content of the paper to see if it follows their own preselected guidelines and beliefs (which is not scientific).

This is quite untrue. If it were true, the views of the scientific community would never change because the existing belief would take out the new revelations. Though, the process is admittedly sometimes slow when a new idea is radical.

Also, supposing that were true, why couldn't a scientist with irrefutable evidences supporting intelligent design manage to sway other scientists beliefs with it, so it would be in accord with their beliefs and guidelines. Refutable, unconvincing evidence that peer review would take out, could still sound convincing to an uneducated common man, but if there were true evidence supporting it, it would convince fellow scientists.

I'd drop some links explaining the peer review process, and how it is far more objective and reliable than some people propose, but It's late. I also already said that what I meant as advice wasn't suppose to turn into a debate topic. So how about we leave it to the Original Poster to, if he's even interested, decide on what he thinks of peer review from his own study? Fair enough?

Sorry my friend, but you've been brainwashed. A lot of people have. I'm an extremely educated individual I know first hand irrefutable evidence can always be refuted. If it's radical, it WILL be resisted and that's unfortunate. The first step is to state the data has errors. The second is that the experiment has been contaminated. The third is to attack the credibility of the scientist, and the list can go on. All this are just means to suppress work that the establishment, or the indoctrinated, wish to suppress because it either contradicts their own work or validates something they has tried to invalidate feverishly for years.

There is a culture within the scientific community that IS based in belief and NOT science, yet these individuals preach the merits of science as if they know what it truly is or that they actually adhere it themselves. There are clubs of hierarchy where money is central to their motives, power and control. One of these beliefs is that no evidence will ever verify the existence of a god-like entity who may have created us. Another belief is that the scientific method is all powerful and perfect. Well let me enlighten you. The scientific method is not perfect, and better yet, it is a philosophy and a belief that is constantly debated amongst philosophers.

When it comes to scientific journals, the more established the journal the more subjective (100%) in their selection of material to publish. What they choose to publish must fit within the belief systems of the those in power in the scientific community directly or indirectly out of fear of being ridiculed by those individuals affecting their public reputation and funding. Science is not based in subjective feelings or social-economic pressures, but people make it so which in turn no longer makes it science. AND journals DO publish a lot of nonsense that is not verified everyday!! Others use this info to then verify it or refute it, but then their also subjected to the subjective nature of the journals in order to publish their findings. Theoretical physics is one such branch of science where almost everything gets pulled out of thin air and is hardly ever verified yet the journals are full of nonsense. Take ugly string theory for example. A highly theoretical theory with absolutely no verification of anything for decades but has been indoctrinated into university courses as a requirement of theoretical physics. Why string theory above all other ridiculous theories? Power and money and that's the bottom line.

It is in my educated opinion that intelligent design holds experimental and logical merit as much as standard evolution theory. To reject it because those who developed it might or might not believe in a supreme creator entity is subjective and 100% definitely not science. Objectivity is paramount!! To deny intelligent design theory has merit is to be ignorant! To deny evolution has merit is also to be ignorant!

Originally posted by kokoro
reply to post by CantSay

 

1. Its not about Darwin Vs God , the theory of evolution by natural selection does not comment God one way or the other because its not relevant to the theory. It only comments on how life has evolved on this planet , not how it started and a scientific theory cannot include things that cannot be observed and recorded.

2. Intelligent design and creationism are not theories. They have no factual, recordable, observed scientific peer reviewed evidence. None.

3. Did aliens seed the planet? Well first you'd have to prove that aliens exist for that to be a valid theory otherwise your theory would be based on a rather large assumption.

True the theory itself mentions nothing of God, but I completely disagree with you that a theory cannot have elements that are not observable and recorded as it is treated today by the scientific community. That's completely false and observable and recorded examples are everywhere to prove that (string theory for one).

I agree with number #2, but disagree with the definition of theory. A theory has to be logical in order to explain an observable, but in the case of evolution or intelligent design all observables are many steps removed from the logic of the theories. What I mean, for example, humans are said to have evolved from apes, but we weren't there to see this actually happen so we fill in this gap to support an assumed observable conclusion with logically deduced ideas that need to be tested. As much as I agree that evolution if not a theory by current defined standards, it has logical merit!! And so does intelligent design! Therefore perhaps the definition of theory has to be revised to include such works under the scientific umbrella - works that need verification but are logically possible.

#3 falls under my states of theory with my reply to #2 above.

reply to post by CantSay

I agree with number #2, but disagree with the definition of theory. A theory has to be logical in order to explain an observable, but in the case of evolution or intelligent design all observables are many steps removed from the logic of the theories. What I mean, for example, humans are said to have evolved from apes, but we weren't there to see this actually happen so we fill in this gap to support an assumed observable conclusion with logically deduced ideas that need to be tested. As much as I agree that evolution if not a theory by current defined standards, it has logical merit!! And so does intelligent design! Therefore perhaps the definition of theory has to be revised to include such works under the scientific umbrella - works that need verification but are logically possible.

But one of the ways that a scientific theory can be tested is by the predictions that it makes. For example, if the theory of evolution is correct in its implication of common ancestry, it predicts that there should be some observable genetic explanation for why we're the only members of Hominidae that only have 46 chromosomes. And, sure enough, after that prediction was made, we found that human chromosome 2 has two centromeres and telomere regions, usually only found at the ends of chromosomes, in the middle of the chromosome -- just like if two chromosomes had fused together. And, sure enough, if you look a the chimp genome, our closest living relative, almost identical sequences to those found in human chromosome 2 are found in chimp chromosomes 2a and 2b. Evidence for evolution.

The problem with creationism and intelligent design (creationism 2.0) is that any predictions they claim to have made have either been after the fact, and therefore fall into the category of post hoc rationalizations, or are identical to those predicted by evolution.

reply to post by CantSay


Congratulation, you have absolutely no understanding of the peer-review process! It amazes me how people can just talk out of their *** and act as if they know what they're talking about.

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by CantSay

 

Congratulation, you have absolutely no understanding of the peer-review process! It amazes me how people can just talk out of their *** and act as if they know what they're talking about.

Than explain it to me. Enlighten me. Enlighten others. Teach us what peer-review actually does.

I'm not acting like I know. I know! Because I've been around. Take it or leave it. All I ask is open your eyes and mind.

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by CantSay

 

I agree with number #2, but disagree with the definition of theory. A theory has to be logical in order to explain an observable, but in the case of evolution or intelligent design all observables are many steps removed from the logic of the theories. What I mean, for example, humans are said to have evolved from apes, but we weren't there to see this actually happen so we fill in this gap to support an assumed observable conclusion with logically deduced ideas that need to be tested. As much as I agree that evolution if not a theory by current defined standards, it has logical merit!! And so does intelligent design! Therefore perhaps the definition of theory has to be revised to include such works under the scientific umbrella - works that need verification but are logically possible.

But one of the ways that a scientific theory can be tested is by the predictions that it makes. For example, if the theory of evolution is correct in its implication of common ancestry, it predicts that there should be some observable genetic explanation for why we're the only members of Hominidae that only have 46 chromosomes. And, sure enough, after that prediction was made, we found that human chromosome 2 has two centromeres and telomere regions, usually only found at the ends of chromosomes, in the middle of the chromosome -- just like if two chromosomes had fused together. And, sure enough, if you look a the chimp genome, our closest living relative, almost identical sequences to those found in human chromosome 2 are found in chimp chromosomes 2a and 2b. Evidence for evolution.

The problem with creationism and intelligent design (creationism 2.0) is that any predictions they claim to have made have either been after the fact, and therefore fall into the category of post hoc rationalizations, or are identical to those predicted by evolution.

I agree the chromosomes in humans and chimps have similarities which is why I believe in evolution. But even with that observable we are taking a leap of faith to conclude that it was only evolution that bridges the gap between humans and chimps. For example, and I'm going out on a crazy limb here, what if intelligent aliens came to Earth and generically modified a chimp into a human? What if that was the actual truth. Science would have no clue that an intelligent alien species designed the leap between apes to human. Why because there is a disposition by most in the scientific community that all circumstantial evidence in the DNA between apes and humans must have been without any external interference from anything intelligent because we assume, or have assumed, that we are the only intelligence in the Universe. Science has not proved that aliens exist yet, but we can't deny that they do or do not. It is an unknown and a possibility, therefore alien intervention of animals on this planet is also an unknown and a possibility. Science is not about absolutism, it is about possibilities. Belief is about absolutism. There is a clear distinction and we have to watch out for innate assumptions that are rooted in absolutism because they're not science and can influence our scientific minds.

Just to add, I don't care how intelligent design theory came about. I'm not a creationist. What I do see objectively is that intelligent design has merit, just like evolution theory. I am a secular thinker who assess the evidence and logic irrespective of people's opinions and I form my own conclusions. What I've concluded are that Creationist and Evolutionist are wrong and right. Both have scientific merit. Of the two there is less supporting evidence of intelligent design (even though man has already designed and created artificial life), but it cannot be dismissed. Similarly, evolution theory has a lot of holes, like the random in random mutation and what are the extremes to evolution. Can evolution give rise to an all powerful entity with incomprehensible intelligence and creative ability ... you know like humans but x infinity?

reply to post by CantSay

I agree the chromosomes in humans and chimps have similarities which is why I believe in evolution. But even with that observable we are taking a leap of faith to conclude that it was only evolution that bridges the gap between humans and chimps.

No, we’re commenting on what’s observable. If there’s a gap, science says, “We don’t know. We can conjecture this, this, or this. But we don’t know. Not until we find some evidence.”

For example, and I'm going out on a crazy limb here, what if intelligent aliens came to Earth and generically modified a chimp into a human? What if that was the actual truth.

And the first step to making that a scientific explanation would be to objectively show that the aliens exist.

Science would have no clue that an intelligent alien species designed the leap between apes to human.

What we’re really getting into here is parsimony. We have a scientific theory based on natural processes that makes certain predictions which can be tested. Then we have a hypothesis that makes the same predictions but claims a combination of the same natural process as the theory of evolution along with some external guiding intelligence. But we don’t have any objective evidence for that intelligence.

Why because there is a disposition by most in the scientific community that all circumstantial evidence in the DNA between apes and humans must have been without any external interference from anything intelligent…

Correct.

…because we assume, or have assumed, that we are the only intelligence in the Universe. Science has not proved that aliens exist yet, but we can't deny that they do or do not.

Incorrect. I would argue that most scientists believe that we are not the only life, or even the only intelligent life, in the Universe. I don’t have any kind of numbers to back that up, but I’m a scientist and a majority of the people I work with on a daily basis are scientists and the when the topic has come up in casual conversation, I have yet to hear someone say that we’re the only intelligent life in the Universe.

It is an unknown and a possibility, therefore alien intervention of animals on this planet is also an unknown and a possibility.

A possibility, yes. But, given the absence of evidence, hardly enough of one to give it serious consideration at this point in time. Keep in mind that if you’re willing to accept that alien intervention is a possibility, then you have to accept that all assertions with the same lack of evidence are equally possible. Therefore I’d like to throw my hat in the ring as being the external guiding intelligence that altered human DNA.

Science is not about absolutism, it is about possibilities. Belief is about absolutism. There is a clear distinction and we have to watch out for innate assumptions that are rooted in absolutism because they're not science and can influence our scientific minds.

No, science is about possibilities that are supported by evidence. The theory of evolution, as it stands now, has it. Intelligent design doesn’t. Prove that aliens exist objectively and then we can think about adding them to the mix.

Intelligent design does not seem so intelligent. Quite redundant, if you ask me.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by CantSay

 

I agree the chromosomes in humans and chimps have similarities which is why I believe in evolution. But even with that observable we are taking a leap of faith to conclude that it was only evolution that bridges the gap between humans and chimps.

No, we’re commenting on what’s observable. If there’s a gap, science says, “We don’t know. We can conjecture this, this, or this. But we don’t know. Not until we find some evidence.”

Here's the problem with the observable of apes to human connection. Not that I don't believe it, but We didn't observe it happening and we haven't replicated an ape evolving into a human as difficult as that might be to do. This leaves room for many unknowns where circumstantial evidence only offers a clue which is far from 99% certainty that no other process took place, like external intelligent interference. The gap here in evolution of ape to human is in between the circumstantial evidence and what actually happened if we were able to observe it while it was happening. Perhaps we are correct. There is a high possibility in that direction, but it's not conclusive given the data we have. We don't know for sure because complete data of the process is missing and that's the problem.

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by CantSay

 

For example, and I'm going out on a crazy limb here, what if intelligent aliens came to Earth and generically modified a chimp into a human? What if that was the actual truth.

And the first step to making that a scientific explanation would be to objectively show that the aliens exist.

How do you propose that we prove aliens exist? It's a trick question because many turn a blind eye to UFO evidence and don't support the research of that phenomena.

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by CantSay

 

Science would have no clue that an intelligent alien species designed the leap between apes to human.

What we’re really getting into here is parsimony. We have a scientific theory based on natural processes that makes certain predictions which can be tested. Then we have a hypothesis that makes the same predictions but claims a combination of the same natural process as the theory of evolution along with some external guiding intelligence. But we don’t have any objective evidence for that intelligence.

I agree, but not having any objective evidence for the existence of higher intelligent life in the Universe should under scientific reasoning diminish the possibility that evolution solely exists in an environment free of external intelligence interference. Coming down to Earth, we humans have been intelligently interferring with other species genetically for years now directly affecting their theorized "free of external intelligence interference" evolutionary process. If anything this is circumstantial evidence that it is possible, even though we're doing it and not aliens, and for a necessary alternation to evolution theory as a distinct possibility.

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by CantSay

 

Why because there is a disposition by most in the scientific community that all circumstantial evidence in the DNA between apes and humans must have been without any external interference from anything intelligent…

Correct.

Thank you