Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[fuelair]

Yes it does. This scientist calls it the "Ancestral Organism".

http://faculty.clintoncc.suny.edu/f...aboratory/History of Life/History of Life.htm

Sorry, you are either as intelligent as I thought (not a good thing) or you are purposefully misrepresenting what is being said in his overview/introduction to his course. Although he is not doing the full Monty version since I did not note proto-life - the various earliest forms that were basically stuff encased in a lipid bubble. He does not say all life came from one of these - nor does any evolutionary scientist I am aware of. Life came from these developing in a number of places over a goodly period of time - they were simply closely related in the most general of way (lipid layer to hold together, basic chemical and duplication capability[primitive dna]). And over the time available, the basic chemicals available, the general environment and the changes in it, it would be very strange if life had not come about and advanced - as it indeed did. Sorry if your mind is too limited to look at and accept the evidence - and I am sorry you will be very disappointed when you leave us.

Oh, wait - you won't be, whatever good you didn't do here will just be left undone and you won't be aware of anything - welcome to your little part in the heat death of the universe.

 

[joobz]

It's a lot less absurd than saying women came from a single rib from the first guy who was poofed into existence. Especially when both sexes have the same number of ribs. But until we clear the common descent hurdle between apes and humans-- I think the gaps are just too huge to discuss. It may be that the common ancestor was more like a community of cells--like a Portuguese man-o-war rather than a single entity... but eukaryote cells themselves are like organisms--some are individuals and some are part of communities, but they all have specialized "parts" within them. (It's kind of interesting, because eggs are cells like this, which is how we can trace ancestral DNA) whereas sperm are pretty much streamlined to be nuclear DNA implanters-- and that's it (there is some mitochondrial power cells at the flagellum...).

It's a cool thing to discuss, that's for sure. But not with people who haven't got a clue and are just trying to make it all sound unlikely because then their god seems more real.

Doc, you really should read Francis Collins--because most theists (YES MOST) accept evolution. There is no evidence for any alternate theories although people have been proffering creation stories for eons told to them by supposed omniscient invisible dudes.

I have a hard time imagining anyone would find the "poof" argument acceptable, but doubt a mechanistic explantion which has substantial evidence. but that's just me.


The funny part is in this whole conversation, we haven't even brought up viruses, which are so inherent to the evolution of life that DOC's failure to address them is equally telling.

 

[JoeEllison]

The funny part is in this whole conversation, we haven't even brought up viruses, which are so inherent to the evolution of life that DOC's failure to address them is equally telling.

It isn't "funny" or "telling"... DOC just doesn't know much of anything about biology.

 

[DOC]

The funny part is in this whole conversation, we haven't even brought up viruses, which are so inherent to the evolution of life that DOC's failure to address them is equally telling.

Actually viruses have little to do with plant and animal evolution if you are to believe most scientists because most scientists believe that viruses do not even fit the definition of life because they can't replicate unless they are attached to the life force of a living organism.

In other words viruses are not living material according to most scientists.

 

[joobz]

Actually viruses have little to do with plant and animal evolution if you are to believe most scientists because most scientists believe that viruses do not even fit the definition of life because they can't replicate unless they are attached to the life force of a living organism.

In other words viruses are not living material according to most scientists.

Ouch. you are not even wrong.


--
life force...tee hee.

 

[JoeEllison]

Actually viruses have little to do with plant and animal evolution if you are to believe most scientists because most scientists believe that viruses do not even fit the definition of life because they can't replicate unless they are attached to the life force of a living organism.

In other words viruses are not living material according to most scientists.

See what I mean?

 

[articulett]

Actually viruses have little to do with plant and animal evolution if you are to believe most scientists because most scientists believe that viruses do not even fit the definition of life because they can't replicate unless they are attached to the life force of a living organism.

In other words viruses are not living material according to most scientists.

Think again. It's amazing what you can learn when you don't assume you already know everything there is to know....

http://life1.beyondgenes.com/
http://discovermagazine.com/2006/mar/well-intro
http://www.giantvirus.org/intro.html
http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/3/3/3044

This time... try not to read for the info. you want. Viruses may have been the first replicators...giving rise to life as we know it. There's a lot more evidence for that possibility than you've presented for whatever you imagine to be the case.

Also read about ERVS-- ah forget it... you won't. But if others are interested-- we have lots of weird little insertions in our genomes from parasitic genomes of yesteryear.

The division between life and non life and the first cell or organism is not as clear as you seem to think. The same goes for species and the evolution of such through the eons. Before lecturing us on what "Science thinks" maybe you ought to take a science class or two. I've given you all kinds of links-- you could educate yourself instead of assuming you know everything and reading to affirm that bias.

 

[AudioFreak]

One point could be that many atheists put their faith in a scientific explanation of the origins of life, even though they know very little about it.

This is wrong. One could safely not care at all about the origins of life and be an atheist. Additionally, on matters of inquiry, science is the ONLY rational place to invest ones belief since it has correction mechanisms built in to ensure that the truth is discovered, tested and proven instead of religion where it is made up.

 

[DOC]

Ouch. you are not even wrong.


--
life force...tee hee.

Are you saying viruses can reproduce if they are not attached to a living organism.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Actually viruses have little to do with plant and animal evolution...

Tell that to your immune system.

...if you are to believe most scientists because most scientists believe that viruses do not even fit the definition of life because they can't replicate unless they are attached to the life force of a living organism.

In other words viruses are not living material according to most scientists.

Who are these scientists of whom you speak? What do they mean by "life force"? How does a virus attach itself to the "life force" of a living organism?

 

[joobz]

Are you saying viruses can reproduce if they are not attached to a living organism.

No. I'm saying your entire statement was nonsensical.

How does science define "Life force"?
How does an inability to self replicate preclude it from affecting the evolution of other species?
How does an inability to self-replicate preclude it from evolving itself?
Look into RNAi to get a sense at just HOW important viruses are to the evolution of all life. Being parasitic doesn't prevent something from evolving or being a part of the whole thing. Indeed, some theories suggest that simbiosis can start as a parasitic coupling. How else would multicellular organisms, or organelles exist for that matter?

I apologize for laughing, but you must understand that your arguments are so mundane that they warrent nothing else. We can not proceed with a rational discussion until you are willing to HONESTLY understand what science says about life and evolution.

 

[DOC]

Viruses may have been the first replicators...giving rise to life as we know it.

So your theory is that something that can't replicate without the presence of life as we know it (viruses), is the cause of life as we know it.

Then how did these viruses replicate "before" producing the life they created that allows them to replicate.

 

[-Fran-]

What's your point?

Why don't your threads ever have a valid, useful, and obvious point?

I think his point is that: "If only all atheists knew the absurd things that science teaches, they would come running back to GOD!"

ETA:
Which is actually the stupidest point I've seen all week, really!

 

[bruto]

Back to the original question, what's the point of this all? Let's stipulate for the moment that I am actually the scientific ignoramus that I probably am, and that I don't know how life came about. There's certainly plenty of science I have not learned, and that's to put it mildly. Why is saying God did it (even though, as I said, I don't know!) better than saying "I don't know?"

Now if you said that most atheists know all that science says about our origins, but still can't come up with anything worthwhile, then you might start to have an argument. But isn't learning the antidote to ignorance? Why should I jump straight from ignorance to faith?

 

[DOC]

I think his point is that: "If only all atheists knew the absurd things that science teaches, they would come running back to GOD!"

You seem to be saying that the fact that science says that all the million of species of plants and animals that have ever existed descended from a single organism is absurd. Am I correct in saying you believe that is absurd if it is true.

 

[-Fran-]

You seem to be saying that the fact that science says that all the million of species of plants and animals that have ever existed descended from a single organism is absurd. Am I correct in saying you believe that is absurd if it is true.

No you are not correct, and no I wasn't saying anything about this question at all actually. What was between the "---" where me putting words in your mouth, you see? Those words were what I thought that you were really trying to say with your OP, not my own words. See?

Talk about missing the point of a post Or were you just kidding now?

 

[JoeEllison]

You seem to be saying that the fact that science says that all the million of species of plants and animals that have ever existed descended from a single organism is absurd. Am I correct in saying you believe that is absurd if it is true.

So, is it ignorance that makes you post these things? Or are sort of knowledgeable and using that knowledge to inform a dishonest position?

 

[JoeEllison]

No you are not correct, and no I wasn't saying anything about this question at all actually. What was between the "---" where me putting words in your mouth, you see? Those words were what I thought that you were really trying to say with your OP, not my own words. See?

Talk about missing the point of a post Or were you just kidding now?

It isn't kidding or missing the point. He's intentionally misrepresenting your position in order to "trap" you, so that he can pretend that his point is valid.

 

[-Fran-]

It isn't kidding or missing the point. He's intentionally misrepresenting your position in order to "trap" you, so that he can pretend that his point is valid.

Oh my, in that case, such a transparent trap, you really would have to be rather stupid to fall for. Therefore it honestly didn't occur to me that he would even attempt that (I'm getting tired I think )

 

[Meadmaker]

You seem to be saying that the fact that science says that all the million of species of plants and animals that have ever existed descended from a single organism is absurd. Am I correct in saying you believe that is absurd if it is true.

I for one don't think it's absurd, and while it's not exactly true that "science says" what you are putting into its collective mouth, it's close enough.* Science does say that my ancestor was quite likely a cyanobacerium, and that same cyanobacterium was an ancestor of the grass on my lawn, and birds of the air and the fish of the sea and all things that creep on the Earth, and everything I see that I call "alive" today.

I think most atheists agree with that.

What's your point?


*We don't know enough about abiogenesis to say if it was an isolated incident, or happened more than once. If more than once, we don't know if several lineages of life still have descendants. If only once, we don't know whether the splits in life's family tree occurred before or after the formation of cellular life. Science has some fairly reaonable guesses about those questions, but doesn't know. I believe, though, that the core of the OP is correct, that the most likely scenario is that somewhere, way back it time, there was one cell which divided, and then the halves went their separate evolutionary ways, and this happened billions of times, and the result is us and our houseplants and the bacteria in our digestive tracts.