Thank you for informing me about "macro" evolution . I'll have to check with my biology/genetics geek for a further explaination;)
"Thousands of experiments with different types of chemicals (a.k.a. drugs) have shown that a given substance will have similar enough effects on mice, primates, and humans) that scientific experiments can be done as to the efficacy and safety of those substances. If Darwin's theory was disproven, none of these experiments would be invalidated, would they? So they don't depend on the theory, even if the original science that allowed the use of animals in experiments related to humans (60+ years ago) was essentially allowed because the theory was accepted as a possibility. (re: the Scope's Monkey trial)."
Science formulates/models/ of reality as theories. Theories are proposed and tested against over and over to see if they are consistent with measured reality. While it will take many tests over a long amount of time to "accept" a theory (or to even graduate from hypothesis to theory), any one measurement can break it. That is the business of science: proposing theories and trying to break them. Evolution has held up very well as a pretty good model. So far it hasn't been broken. While there may not be explicit evidence to support "macro" evolution, as you say, general evolution holds up pretty well, and nothing is flying in the face of it. As the "best-practice" it is entirely permissable and expectable to be taught in public schools. After all, public schools prepare children for the future, and all future biologists will be well prepared by learning evolution. What students need to know, as a prerequisite to any scientific teaching, is that science is the best approximation. Once that assertion is made, it is/unnecessary/ to then, also teach all alternative systems of belief. They can get their alternative systems of belief elsewhere so long as they get the science from school. Evolution and science does not explicitly refute any one person's personal beliefs. It is that individual's responsibility to seek alternatives if he/she chooses, not public schools to offer them (we can't teach/everybody's/ religion can we?). As long as children know that we are not trying to force them to belief this IS the ONE and ONLY correct way, we don't need to explicitly give them arbitrary alternatives.
"Actually no. It was to permit teachers the freedom to teach evolution as a more theoretical construct, as opposed to an exclusive, 100% factual construct. What it allows is a teacher to say in effect "Charles Darwin's theory on the Origin of Species was and continues to be an important scientific question."
Teachers should be teaching science as it is. They should already be saying this. Allowing them to teach arbitrary alternative curricula does not promote this. And as we both know, regardless of the pretense, segregated schools, bathrooms and water fountains/weren't/ really for the altruistic benefit of blacks, e.g. The pretense is to "liberate teachers", but the only/real/ reason it was passed is because people wanted to teach creationism and not evolution.
"Which IMHO would be the same thing as saying "Communism is superior to free market capitalism" and expecting a student to accept it as fact without a shred of evidence to support it."
Schools shouldn't (and aren't in my experience) saying science (or evolution) is/better/ than any one person's beliefs. They just teach it. You don't have to accept or believe it, but you have to know it. In school they [should] teach/what/ communism is. They don't/shouldn't teach whether it is "bad" or "good".
Well I don't know what "macro" evolution is, but why do you think evolution is less factual than any other of the sciences (physics, chemistry, etc.)? Scientific rigor is applied equally to all fields. A theory or fact in one field isn't more qualified to be a theory or fact than any one in any another field.
"So I would ask you how a more scientific approach(analyze both sides of the argument [evolution or other]) diminishes the ability of public education to fulfill (as you put it) "...the responsibility for enabling people to be productive in society and the economy.""
A more scientific approach/doesn't/ diminish the ability of public education to fulfill its responsibility. It increases it. Religious dogma of any sort has no place in public schools (learning/about/ religions, yes, promoting any one of them, no). As long as the constitution holds that church and state must be separate, religious teachings have no place in public schools, and/shouldn't/ be an option. If you don't like that, your argument is with the constitution.
Well, he spent some of his adult life at least as a basketball player. Only later was he drawn to a political career by his personal interest in social issues, etc. My impression of Gore on the other hand is the son of a senator who when to college to follow in the footsteps of his father and explicitly to "study" government and become a politician. Bill Bradley seems to be more true to the original conception of a politicial...namely an ordinary citizen, with concerns, originally for his local community, and later for the broader national community. Bill Bradley seems to be a peoples' politician while Gore seems a politicians' politician. Bradley seems a bit more level heading and less hypsterish.
And fyi, I don't read puff pieces from Time Magazine...I watch PBS and CSPAN.
If somebody was using tempest on me I wouldn't attempt to arrest them. I would get a shield for my monitor/whatever. Second of all, I am not SELLING my monitor emissions. If I were I wouldn't find it strange that somebody would actually use them to reconstruct information. If I were selling my monitor emissions, willfully distributing them, it would be MY responsibility that they were safeguarded in some manner. It would be silly and unproductive for me to attempt to arrest everybody in America who could possibly obtain information from my willfully distributed emissions.
Also, wiretapping is highly regulated and controlled, and only government agencies are able to do it. If I/were/ sending information that was very important it would only make common sense to safeguard it.
Since you/can't/ catch all the criminals, the only sensible recourse is to examine your/own/ safeguards.
This is great to play on Simpsons. Hank Azaria is Moe for one. Kelsey Grammar is Sideshow Bob. Phil Hartman I'm sure was Troy McClure and many others until his tragic death...never been the same since...they changed the meow mix commercials too:'(
UGH...these colors are putrid...OSOnline does a good job of making color schemes for their sections, but short of a redesign of the whole slashdot interface, I don't think slashdot is going to do this very well...
""The Wizard of Oz" was originally written to promote the coinage of silver in the late 19th century."
And Frank L. Baum was also a racist (as many were of his time). He actively promoted and supported the idea of extinguishing all Native Americans to "put them out of their misery" so to speak.
It's sort of funny. People put locks on things so others can't get in. If you have a crappy lock, you can't blame the/theif/ for getting in: you get a new, better, lock so he can't. Duh. If you could prevent the theif from getting in without the lock, why have a lock?
"(such as, it proves that God does not exist). That's just crap. It's not Science as a system of rational thought, it's Science masquarading as a religion. It's Science claiming to have all the answers mankind needs and will ever need. Look around you at the utopia mankind has created. That should be enough for anyone."
I can guage your ignorance by these statements. If you had hoped to escape looney bin reserved for militia and conspiricy theorists you have just lost it now. Evolution does not attempt to prove that [any] God does not exist. Science is agnostic of any God. Science explains observed phenomena. Science may not give use all the answers you claim we need, and neither is anybody proclaiming it has provided a utopia, or was "meant" to. Your defensiveness suggests you are a reactionary who is just looking for enemies.
"It borders on non-rational faith in Science, and preaches that we can replace God with our own ingenuity...But there are some principals that I believe strongly in, that some scientists seem to want to quash; the concept of a free will, the concept that religion is an important and necessary part of some people's life."
No, this is a fiction fabricated by scared and desperate theists who cannot concieve of a world in which both rational science and their spirituality can exist.
"When people try to force this evolution agenda on the masses, it's just as bad as forcing Christianity, because it's just as much the mixing of religion and government as the Holy Roman Empire. "
What you call "forcing" and "evolution agenda" other people call education. What about those wacky "physics", "mathematics", and "chemistry" agendas./What/ are we thinking with that? The point is, public education has the responsibility for enabling people to be productive in society and the economy. This productivity requires some knowledge. This is what public education provides.
VNC does not use the X protocol...it merely sends a remote view of the screen. It uses some algorithms to increase performance and decrease latency, etc., but it does not use X at all. Applications live entirely on the host, and only their graphic presentation on the screen is sent over the wire.
"or in what form the theory of evolution would be taught."
You bold/theory/ as if it didn't hold much weight. In fact, the only thing keeping evolution a/theory/ is people like you bandying around the term. Evolution is for all intents and purposes NOT a theory. It is proven fact. It happens. Go to the Galapagos for a few months for undeniable proof with your own eyes. Call it "change over time" or whatever euphamism makes you feel ok, but it is certainly NOT controversial and is FACTUAL.
"Very few of the sciences actually have any direct relation to do with Darwin's theory, e.g.,"
Hmm...well, I'd say the whole field of biology is predicated on it. Any biologists worth their weight want to quibble on that?
"the airplane flies because of aerodynamic principles,"
Yes, and creatures change over time according to evolutionary principles. Saying aerodynamic principles are "controversial" and that somebody's god made it that way instead, is not only ridiculous, but unproductive.
"not because of a useless debate over whether man descended from monkeys or was created (okay, you may now start the obligatory "creation vs. evolution flamewars").""
I find the debate useless also, because it is typically one-sided: people who don't like the "idea" of it attempting to discredit its fact.
"But to call a group of individuals "dolts" because they chose to return the power to decide how things will be taught to a local level?"
Superficially this sounds logical. Unfortunately the people/implementing/ it aren't. The reason this was done was not for the false pretense of broadening options or liberating teachers. This decision was made only to remove evolution from the classroom. I'd like to see how many teachers/CHOOSE/ to teach evolution after this supposedly liberating decision. If all teachers choose to teach evolution then my argument is moot. If they don't, well, it will be directly BECAUSE of this verdict.
"Sounds like you might be the type of person to vote for Gore after all under the theory that Washington D.C. knows best."
Well, unlike free-for-all politics,/science/ was founded on the very principle of rational deduction, peer review, scrutiny and skepticism. So while I may not vote for a career politician because he/she "would know best", I/would/ listen to a scientist because by definition scientists know science.
Maybe I'm not getting it. I thought the transmeta patent sounded awesome...a quasi-chip which could run foreign instruction sets...really cool stuff. But a embedded/mobile chip? What gives? Progress in any field is great, but I don't need yet another chip to enable me to do/more/ useless things. I guess I'm not "getting" the embedded/mobile phenomenon. Palms seem boring to me. Hyped up address books...yay. Put a cell phone, address book, and web browser together and what do you get? Yet another useless piece of junk which will allow you to do other things which you could have done better before. Where is mobile/embedded/going/? If the answer is that in the future we will all be carrying around powerfull microcomputers to yak at each other and view dribbles of web pages I give a apathetic *yawyn*.
Right...Moore's law won't break when you add more hardware. The density will still be the same. But the cost won't. These systems should be compared on equal footing. If my $5000 system runs at 70% of the speed of your $10000 system, I win, because I have a better performance to cost ratio. Theoretically, add another of my $5000 systems, and my composite $10000 system beats your $10000 system. That's how things should be compared. It makes no sense to say my $X K7 beats your $.5X Celeron. It's bang for the buck that matters (more bang per buck indicating better design).
I see Microsofts transgresses as a/behavioral/ problem. Many proposed solutions, such as opening their source, or breaking MS into smaller MSs, do not address this central problem, and thus will not be successful strategies. Are there any legal mechanisms by which Microsoft can be restrained from/behaving/ in the detrimental way it has in the past (coercing OEMs, making exclusionary pacts, "blackmailing" other companies, embracing-extending-extinguishing technologies), but at the same time not hamper its, and its competitors', ability to innovate and compete in the computer industry? It seems to me, we have to pick the lesser of the two evils of Microsoft's bad behavior and (possibly misguided) government intervention.
In fact there is a wealth of documentation on governments' and military responses to strange phenomenon. It might not be aliens per say...but it's weird sh*t for sure. E.g. funky/traceable/ objects on radar which make precise >90 degree turns at over Mach 3...that is not usual...weather balloons also don't do that. With the history of government cover-ups, etc., it is not hard to believe that governments know more than they are telling the public (search for MAJIC, MAJESTIC, Blue Book). Something is uncanny...if it's not aliens, then it's something else equally weird.
And remember, MS is not the only one who knows how to use FUD. Big brother has been doing it for decades;)
"After all, it's hard to fake something like a skull. You'd need to have a cheap way of forming convincing bone tissue, find a way to age it, and break it in a way that looks natural..."
If you want to find explanations of biblical events by alien visitation I suggest you read Zecharia Sitchin's Earth Chronicles.
Biologists are finding every day, more and more organisms living in environments we had no clue things could live in before. If we find just one speck, just one microbe, just one bacteria, anywhere that blows the whole thing open. If we find just one thing, it will be inevitable that extraterrestrial life either has evolved intelligence before, is intelligent now, or will be intelligent in the future. Io is a big sphere of ice, but observations show cracks which could possibly be formed by thawed underwater. If this is so, this would be a perfect candidate for life. Venus has a surface temperature over the boiling point of water. Life could still exist on it.
"what if DNA is some sort of universal structure that exists in all living things, including aliens?"
And what if DNA is just something incidentally developed here on Earth. Nothing says that all life MUST use DNA. DNA just describes a bunch of enzymes. We could be just one of the myriad ways life could be constructed. Remember, "life" is little more than automated reproduction. Biological viruses only barely skirt the definition of life (not sure why). If, for example, we find some strange gaseous phenomenon out in space which develops and replicates itself, then it would not be invalid to call it "life". Let's not limit the way we think about life to the way biological creatures are constructed on earth.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for informing me about "macro" evolution . I'll have to check with my biology/genetics geek for a further explaination ;)
/models/ of reality as theories. Theories are proposed and tested against over and over to see if they are consistent with measured reality. While it will take many tests over a long amount of time to "accept" a theory (or to even graduate from hypothesis to theory), any one measurement can break it. That is the business of science: proposing theories and trying to break them. Evolution has held up very well as a pretty good model. So far it hasn't been broken. While there may not be explicit evidence to support "macro" evolution, as you say, general evolution holds up pretty well, and nothing is flying in the face of it. As the "best-practice" it is entirely permissable and expectable to be taught in public schools. After all, public schools prepare children for the future, and all future biologists will be well prepared by learning evolution. What students need to know, as a prerequisite to any scientific teaching, is that science is the best approximation. Once that assertion is made, it is /unnecessary/ to then, also teach all alternative systems of belief. They can get their alternative systems of belief elsewhere so long as they get the science from school. Evolution and science does not explicitly refute any one person's personal beliefs. It is that individual's responsibility to seek alternatives if he/she chooses, not public schools to offer them (we can't teach /everybody's/ religion can we?). As long as children know that we are not trying to force them to belief this IS the ONE and ONLY correct way, we don't need to explicitly give them arbitrary alternatives.
/weren't/ really for the altruistic benefit of blacks, e.g. The pretense is to "liberate teachers", but the only /real/ reason it was passed is because people wanted to teach creationism and not evolution.
/better/ than any one person's beliefs. They just teach it. You don't have to accept or believe it, but you have to know it. In school they [should] teach /what/ communism is. They don't/shouldn't teach whether it is "bad" or "good".
"Thousands of experiments with different types of chemicals (a.k.a. drugs) have shown that a given substance will have similar enough effects on mice, primates, and humans) that scientific experiments can be done as to the efficacy and safety of those substances. If Darwin's theory was disproven, none of these experiments would be invalidated, would they? So they don't depend on the theory, even if the original science that allowed the use of animals in experiments related to humans (60+ years ago) was essentially allowed because the theory was accepted as a possibility. (re: the Scope's Monkey trial)."
Science formulates
"Actually no. It was to permit teachers the freedom to teach evolution as a more theoretical construct, as opposed to an exclusive, 100% factual construct. What it allows is a teacher to say in effect "Charles Darwin's theory on the Origin of Species was and continues to be an important scientific question."
Teachers should be teaching science as it is. They should already be saying this. Allowing them to teach arbitrary alternative curricula does not promote this. And as we both know, regardless of the pretense, segregated schools, bathrooms and water fountains
"Which IMHO would be the same thing as saying "Communism is superior to free market capitalism" and expecting a student to accept it as fact without a shred of evidence to support it."
Schools shouldn't (and aren't in my experience) saying science (or evolution) is
Well I don't know what "macro" evolution is, but why do you think evolution is less factual than any other of the sciences (physics, chemistry, etc.)? Scientific rigor is applied equally to all fields. A theory or fact in one field isn't more qualified to be a theory or fact than any one in any another field.
/doesn't/ diminish the ability of public education to fulfill its responsibility. It increases it. Religious dogma of any sort has no place in public schools (learning /about/ religions, yes, promoting any one of them, no). As long as the constitution holds that church and state must be separate, religious teachings have no place in public schools, and /shouldn't/ be an option. If you don't like that, your argument is with the constitution.
"So I would ask you how a more scientific approach(analyze both sides of the argument [evolution or other]) diminishes the ability of public education to fulfill (as you put it) "...the responsibility for enabling people to be productive in society and the economy.""
A more scientific approach
To be more specific that is over a decade in sports...and to be fair @19 years in political office, about the same as Gore.
For some reason Gore feels like a Republican in Democrat clothing to me...
Well, he spent some of his adult life at least as a basketball player. Only later was he drawn to a political career by his personal interest in social issues, etc. My impression of Gore on the other hand is the son of a senator who when to college to follow in the footsteps of his father and explicitly to "study" government and become a politician. Bill Bradley seems to be more true to the original conception of a politicial...namely an ordinary citizen, with concerns, originally for his local community, and later for the broader national community. Bill Bradley seems to be a peoples' politician while Gore seems a politicians' politician. Bradley seems a bit more level heading and less hypsterish.
And fyi, I don't read puff pieces from Time Magazine...I watch PBS and CSPAN.
If somebody was using tempest on me I wouldn't attempt to arrest them. I would get a shield for my monitor/whatever. Second of all, I am not SELLING my monitor emissions. If I were I wouldn't find it strange that somebody would actually use them to reconstruct information. If I were selling my monitor emissions, willfully distributing them, it would be MY responsibility that they were safeguarded in some manner. It would be silly and unproductive for me to attempt to arrest everybody in America who could possibly obtain information from my willfully distributed emissions.
/were/ sending information that was very important it would only make common sense to safeguard it.
/can't/ catch all the criminals, the only sensible recourse is to examine your /own/ safeguards.
Also, wiretapping is highly regulated and controlled, and only government agencies are able to do it. If I
Since you
This is great to play on Simpsons. Hank Azaria is Moe for one. Kelsey Grammar is Sideshow Bob. Phil Hartman I'm sure was Troy McClure and many others until his tragic death...never been the same since...they changed the meow mix commercials too :'(
Um...bewitched, batman, superman, james bond, fresh prince of bellair, they go on and on...
UGH...these colors are putrid...OSOnline does a good job of making color schemes for their sections, but short of a redesign of the whole slashdot interface, I don't think slashdot is going to do this very well...
""The Wizard of Oz" was originally written to promote the coinage of silver in the late 19th century."
;)
And Frank L. Baum was also a racist (as many were of his time). He actively promoted and supported the idea of extinguishing all Native Americans to "put them out of their misery" so to speak.
History differs a lot according to who tells it
along with several other posters, I think hate crime legislature may not make that much sense...
Should people who kill and do criminal things without hate get a lesser punishment than those who do? Dead people are dead people either way.
I still say Bradley...
He's not a career politician, he's in it for the people, he's not juat a "jock", he's a Rhoades scholar...
It's sort of funny. People put locks on things so others can't get in. If you have a crappy lock, you can't blame the /theif/ for getting in: you get a new, better, lock so he can't. Duh. If you could prevent the theif from getting in without the lock, why have a lock?
sorry, I'm 76 on the Slashdot seti team and I'm not giving up any cycles ;)
"(such as, it proves that God does not exist). That's just crap. It's not Science as a system of rational thought, it's Science masquarading as a religion. It's Science claiming to have all the answers mankind needs and will ever need.
/What/ are we thinking with that? The point is, public education has the responsibility for enabling people to be productive in society and the economy. This productivity requires some knowledge. This is what public education provides.
Look around you at the utopia mankind has created. That should be enough for anyone."
I can guage your ignorance by these statements. If you had hoped to escape looney bin reserved for militia and conspiricy theorists you have just lost it now. Evolution does not attempt to prove that [any] God does not exist. Science is agnostic of any God. Science explains observed phenomena. Science may not give use all the answers you claim we need, and neither is anybody proclaiming it has provided a utopia, or was "meant" to. Your defensiveness suggests you are a reactionary who is just looking for enemies.
"It borders on non-rational faith in Science, and preaches that we can replace God with our own ingenuity...But there are some principals that I believe strongly in, that some scientists seem to want to quash; the concept of a free will, the concept that religion is an important and necessary part of some people's life."
No, this is a fiction fabricated by scared and desperate theists who cannot concieve of a world in which both rational science and their spirituality can exist.
"When people try to force this evolution agenda on the masses, it's just as bad as forcing Christianity, because it's just as much the mixing of religion and government as the Holy Roman Empire. "
What you call "forcing" and "evolution agenda" other people call education. What about those wacky "physics", "mathematics", and "chemistry" agendas.
VNC does not use the X protocol...it merely sends a remote view of the screen. It uses some algorithms to increase performance and decrease latency, etc., but it does not use X at all. Applications live entirely on the host, and only their graphic presentation on the screen is sent over the wire.
Why would Mexicans vote?
"or in what form the theory of evolution would be taught."
/theory/ as if it didn't hold much weight. In fact, the only thing keeping evolution a /theory/ is people like you bandying around the term. Evolution is for all intents and purposes NOT a theory. It is proven fact. It happens. Go to the Galapagos for a few months for undeniable proof with your own eyes. Call it "change over time" or whatever euphamism makes you feel ok, but it is certainly NOT controversial and is FACTUAL.
/implementing/ it aren't. The reason this was done was not for the false pretense of broadening options or liberating teachers. This decision was made only to remove evolution from the classroom. I'd like to see how many teachers /CHOOSE/ to teach evolution after this supposedly liberating decision. If all teachers choose to teach evolution then my argument is moot. If they don't, well, it will be directly BECAUSE of this verdict.
/science/ was founded on the very principle of rational deduction, peer review, scrutiny and skepticism. So while I may not vote for a career politician because he/she "would know best", I /would/ listen to a scientist because by definition scientists know science.
You bold
"Very few of the sciences actually have any direct relation to do with Darwin's theory, e.g.,"
Hmm...well, I'd say the whole field of biology is predicated on it. Any biologists worth their weight want to quibble on that?
"the airplane flies because of aerodynamic principles,"
Yes, and creatures change over time according to evolutionary principles. Saying aerodynamic principles are "controversial" and that somebody's god made it that way instead, is not only ridiculous, but unproductive.
"not because of a useless debate over whether man
descended from monkeys or was created (okay, you may now start the obligatory "creation vs. evolution flamewars").""
I find the debate useless also, because it is typically one-sided: people who don't like the "idea" of it attempting to discredit its fact.
"But to call a group of individuals "dolts" because they chose to return the power to decide how things will be taught to a local level?"
Superficially this sounds logical. Unfortunately the people
"Sounds like you might be the type of person to vote for Gore after all under the theory that Washington D.C. knows best."
Well, unlike free-for-all politics,
Maybe I'm not getting it. I thought the transmeta patent sounded awesome...a quasi-chip which could run foreign instruction sets...really cool stuff. But a embedded/mobile chip? What gives? Progress in any field is great, but I don't need yet another chip to enable me to do /more/ useless things. I guess I'm not "getting" the embedded/mobile phenomenon. Palms seem boring to me. Hyped up address books...yay. Put a cell phone, address book, and web browser together and what do you get? Yet another useless piece of junk which will allow you to do other things which you could have done better before. Where is mobile/embedded /going/? If the answer is that in the future we will all be carrying around powerfull microcomputers to yak at each other and view dribbles of web pages I give a apathetic *yawyn*.
Right...Moore's law won't break when you add more hardware. The density will still be the same. But the cost won't. These systems should be compared on equal footing. If my $5000 system runs at 70% of the speed of your $10000 system, I win, because I have a better performance to cost ratio. Theoretically, add another of my $5000 systems, and my composite $10000 system beats your $10000 system. That's how things should be compared. It makes no sense to say my $X K7 beats your $.5X Celeron. It's bang for the buck that matters (more bang per buck indicating better design).
Still...in 20/20 hindsight, wouldn't one think that is a /dumb/ thing for a bunch of rocket scientists to overlook?
I see Microsofts transgresses as a /behavioral/ problem. Many proposed solutions, such as opening their source, or breaking MS into smaller MSs, do not address this central problem, and thus will not be successful strategies. Are there any legal mechanisms by which Microsoft can be restrained from /behaving/ in the detrimental way it has in the past (coercing OEMs, making exclusionary pacts, "blackmailing" other companies, embracing-extending-extinguishing technologies), but at the same time not hamper its, and its competitors', ability to innovate and compete in the computer industry? It seems to me, we have to pick the lesser of the two evils of Microsoft's bad behavior and (possibly misguided) government intervention.
Well, that's a rather flammable post.
/traceable/ objects on radar which make precise >90 degree turns at over Mach 3...that is not usual...weather balloons also don't do that. With the history of government cover-ups, etc., it is not hard to believe that governments know more than they are telling the public (search for MAJIC, MAJESTIC, Blue Book). Something is uncanny...if it's not aliens, then it's something else equally weird.
;)
In fact there is a wealth of documentation on governments' and military responses to strange phenomenon. It might not be aliens per say...but it's weird sh*t for sure. E.g. funky
And remember, MS is not the only one who knows how to use FUD. Big brother has been doing it for decades
"After all, it's hard to fake something like a skull. You'd need to have a cheap way of forming convincing bone tissue, find a way to age it, and break it in a way that looks natural..."
...or PhotoShop...
If you want to find explanations of biblical events by alien visitation I suggest you read Zecharia Sitchin's Earth Chronicles.
Biologists are finding every day, more and more organisms living in environments we had no clue things could live in before. If we find just one speck, just one microbe, just one bacteria, anywhere that blows the whole thing open. If we find just one thing, it will be inevitable that extraterrestrial life either has evolved intelligence before, is intelligent now, or will be intelligent in the future. Io is a big sphere of ice, but observations show cracks which could possibly be formed by thawed underwater. If this is so, this would be a perfect candidate for life. Venus has a surface temperature over the boiling point of water. Life could still exist on it.
"what if DNA is some sort of universal structure that exists in all living things, including aliens?"
And what if DNA is just something incidentally developed here on Earth. Nothing says that all life MUST use DNA. DNA just describes a bunch of enzymes. We could be just one of the myriad ways life could be constructed. Remember, "life" is little more than automated reproduction. Biological viruses only barely skirt the definition of life (not sure why). If, for example, we find some strange gaseous phenomenon out in space which develops and replicates itself, then it would not be invalid to call it "life". Let's not limit the way we think about life to the way biological creatures are constructed on earth.