Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by DOC

Well Meadmaker would better qualified to answer your question since he brought in the article, but you did not respond to my question -- would it matter in anyway to you if was shown that all plants and animals did originate from one single cell.

Well now, this is most interesting ...

I asked to you point out where the article validated what you have been saying, and you cannot do so. So thanks for the correction!

As for your question to me, I seriously doubt that even if the answer were a definitive "YES!", then I expect that it would really matter to me. It would be most interesting to be sure, but I do not expect that it would really do anything to change anything about me as a person.

And I expect that most people would feel about the same way.

 

[Crossbow]

I've made over 900 posts and have made and have gotten around 45,000 hits in my threads since January. That deserves some respect and if a person doesn't respect me their a phony (or a troll) to keep coming in my threads, period

First of all, I do not respect a person based on the volume of their writing and/or the volume of the responses to their writing.

Second of all, these threads are not yours! JREF owns this site, as such you cannot claim ownership or restrict those who participate.

 

[DOC]

Absolute rubbish. Attention and hits have nothing to do with respect. I spend more time on threads with people I disagree with simply because that is where the discussions are and because I feel the assertions require refuting.

Perhaps I should adjust my perception of you to include an "attention-seeking" defect.

You still have nothing, DOC, but our responses aren't about you.

Refuting and disagreeing are fine. Making continuous disrespectful and rude comments are another. I stand by my statement that any troll can make continuous unspecific derogatory statements "like time and time again you been proven to be wrong". When your threads have 45,000 hits in a relatively short time and such a statement is made your not only insulting the thread creator your insulting the people who actually find the threads interesting. I stand by my statement that people who do this time and time again are phonies, who hate the message, and will do everything they can to go after me, the messenger. I know it will continue in the future, so every once in awhile I just have to respond to it.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I know I'm going to take a lot of heat for this but DOC has a point... and as usual he completely misunderstands it. He conflates the LCA model which works with Eukaryotes, especially those which are more developed with how the LCA model is applied to the theoretical ULCA model which, obviously, is much more tentative than genetic evidences for Eucaryotic LCAs ever will be.

Given what we have learned about population genetics, it is entirely possible that all extant organisms on Earth are decended from a single primordial organism, but as numerous others have pointed out since the OP was posted - Procaryotes don't reproduce like Eukaryotes do and so we can't really be sure if it was a single organism or a number of organisms that gave rise to life - again, as we know it in the fossil record and extant - on Earth. Even Darwin realized this in Origin and if any of you can find the relavent quote I'd appreciate it.

Anyway, back to DOC's OP. If the evidences for LCA can be extrapolated back to a ULCA single organism... so what? What effect would that have on the evidences for evolution or your particular assertions? If anything any evidences for a ULCA would make Creationism utterly untenable except for the most desperate graspings of ID.

I ask again... if every living being on Earth was descended from a single primordial organism... so what?

 

[Garrette]

Refuting and disagreeing are fine. Making continuous disrespectful and rude comments are another. I stand by my statement that any troll can make continuous unspecific derogatory statements "like time and time again you been proven to be wrong". When your threads have 45,000 hits in a relatively short time and such a statement is made your not only insulting the thread creator your insulting the people who actually find the threads interesting. I stand by my statement that people who do this time and time again are phonies, who hate the message, and will do everything they can to go after me, the messenger. I know it will continue in the future, so everyone in awhile I just have to respond to it.

And I stand by my statements. I'll trust the readers to come to their own conclusions and further trust that their perception of you will be closer to my own than to your self-perception. Keep 'em coming, DOC.

 

[Cleon]

Someone in here said I don't care about the truth. Once again that's a joke. Why would I bring in the hundreds of facts I do if I didn't care about the truth.

Because you don't care whether the "facts" you "bring in" are accurate or correct--you just care about whether you can use them to support your beliefs.

The majority of the "facts" you have "brought in" have been completely bogus. When we explain why they're bogus, you neither acknowledge nor accept the correction. In fact, you completely ignore it, and then proceed as if the "facts" are still 100% accurate. When cornered on this bit of dishonesty, you demand to be shown where the "facts" were debunked. Once that has been posted, you either completely ignore it again, abuse the laws of logic and semantics trying to make your "fact" vaguely fit reality, try to pretend that it's irrelevant, or derail the thread with a tangent. Wash, rinse, repeat.

And that is why you don't care about the truth.

 

[GeeMack]

Well it looks like people want to derail this thread.

Not everyone wants to derail this thread. You seem to be intentionally ignoring the relevant questions and comments. If anyone is guilty of attempting to derail this thread, DOC, it's you. And your willful ignorance is once again noted.

Now, back to the thread. Unless you just don't have the courage or integrity to address this relevant issue, how about you respond to this: Show us a single person who bases their belief in gods (or their lack thereof) on their knowledge of evolution (or lack thereof). Or, for your lack of ability to do that, how about you just admit you are wrong regarding the claim you've made as your premise for this thread.

 

[DOC]

Absolutely not. I'm fully willing to discuss your topic with you, but you must, at least, respond to what I'm saying as I am responding to what you are saying. That is how discussion works.

Well, I've got 4 or 5 threads going and I am greatly outnumbered in these threads of mostly atheists and agnostics. So even though we live in a country where Christians greatly outnumber atheists in here I'm outnumbered. I simply don't have the time or energy to respond to every post, some of which are quite complicated. If someone wants to give me a million dollars, I will quit my job and stop my other activities and answer each and every one of the many posts directed at me.

 

[Meadmaker]

What about that article?

I sure did not see anything in the article which stated that everything living thing on Earth now originated from one, single form of life (which is what 'DOC' was originally claimed).

If this is not the case, then please point out where it does.

I found it by typing "single cyanobacterium" into google, and it does talk about all plants, animals, fungi, red algae, and blue-green algae coming from a "single cyanobacterium". That either means from a single cell, or from a single variety. If a single variety, then you have to either say that variety came from a single cell, or that a single cyanobacteria variety evolved independently at least twice. The latter option seems unlikely.

The only real room for disagreement comes from the fact that in such primitive organisms there might be some DNA from one non-cyanobacterium thrown in with some descendants of cyanobactia, but not others, which makes it confusing to figure exactly who is a descendant of whom.

I think what DOC seems to be implying, although I hesitate to put words in his mouth, is that at one point in time there was one and only one cell, and that one cell was the common ancestor of all subsequent cellular life. That is not the case. Even if it were true, we couldn't know that for certain.

On the other hand, as I noted earlier, an awful lot of scientists believe that there could have been a single molecule of DNA or RNA, or maybe some other replicator, and that single molecule was our common ancestor. Even that, though, is speculative.

 

[bruto]

I've made over 900 posts and have made and have gotten around 45,000 hits in my threads since January. That deserves some respect and if a person doesn't respect me their a phony (or a troll) to keep coming in my threads, period

Not to address the content of your own posts and hits, but many trolls and fools get lots of hits. Do not be too eager to put yourself in the company of people like "Light created Life," or the late and unlamented David Jay Jordan. It's possible you get a lot of hits because attacking nonsense and ignorance is a popular pastime around here. You might deserve some kind of respect for your persistence, but numbers alone imply little else.

 

[Upchurch]

Well, I've got 4 or 5 threads going and I am greatly outnumbered in these threads of mostly atheists and agnostics. So even though we live in a country where Christians greatly outnumber atheists in here I'm outnumbered. I simply don't have the time or energy to respond to every post, some of which are quite complicated. If someone wants to give me a million dollars, I will quit my job and stop my other activities and answer each and every one of the many posts directed at me.

But consider what you choose to respond to. Instead of responding to those who actively respond to your topic, you respond to those who, you claim, want to derail your thread. Thus, you end up further derailing your own threads.

Instead of telling me how hard it is to respond to substantive posts, just respond to the substantive posts.

 

[Crossbow]

I found it by typing "single cyanobacterium" into google, and it does talk about all plants, animals, fungi, red algae, and blue-green algae coming from a "single cyanobacterium". That either means from a single cell, or from a single variety. If a single variety, then you have to either say that variety came from a single cell, or that a single cyanobacteria variety evolved independently at least twice. The latter option seems unlikely.

The only real room for disagreement comes from the fact that in such primitive organisms there might be some DNA from one non-cyanobacterium thrown in with some descendants of cyanobactia, but not others, which makes it confusing to figure exactly who is a descendant of whom.

I think what DOC seems to be implying, although I hesitate to put words in his mouth, is that at one point in time there was one and only one cell, and that one cell was the common ancestor of all subsequent cellular life. That is not the case. Even if it were true, we couldn't know that for certain.

On the other hand, as I noted earlier, an awful lot of scientists believe that there could have been a single molecule of DNA or RNA, or maybe some other replicator, and that single molecule was our common ancestor. Even that, though, is speculative.

Thanks for the reply, but I still do not think that the paper is saying that all life on Earth is descended from the algae that is described.

Specifically, the abstract of the paper says:

...
Phylogenetic analyses provide strong statistical support for an early evolutionary emergence of the Rhodophyta that preceded the origin of the line that led to plants, animals, and fungi. ...

Which says to me anyway, that the algae studied developed before the organisms which ultimately gave rise to the various plants, animals, and fungi that are now present on Earth.

While this is quite interesting, that is still a good bit different from saying that the algae studied gave rise to the various plants, animals, and fungi that are now present on Earth.

If my interpetation is incorrect, then I would appreciate it if you offered a correction.

 

[-Fran-]

One poster earlier made a big deal that I was trying to trick people. That's a joke and completely false. If people want to be atheists that's your free will decision. I'm just saying I don't believe many atheists and agnostics know what science says about how we evolved from bacteria, then later fish, and than later reptiles. If you did know that, or know that now, and still believe the same about religion, that's your free will decision. But I do believe there are some people that don't know (completely) what science says about evolution and are basing their decision about God on incomplete information.

I thought you said you hadn't read these posts?

Well. If you are referring to me, then, yeah I said that you were dishonest with your "trick" questions, and I still stand by that. Doesn't mean that I can't be wrong, I have been before, but for now I am still pretty sure that you have different intentions with your OP than what it may look like at first sight, and that you are well aware of that. I think this defense of yours here proves it even more.

What I said was this: What you really mean when you ask a question such as this is "if atheists knew the things science taught they would be more inclined to turn to god." By showing things about science that you think is absurd, you want us to agree with that some things science says is indeed absurd, and if we agree with this, then you can drive your point home. Your point being religion is better.

You are showing this intent, again, in your words here. You think that if we saw the "absurdness" we would somehow think differently (and better) of religion. Which is of course the really absurd thing here!

This is what it is all about for you, and you admit it here! But this is not what you say in your opening posts of your threads. You just ask the question: "Isn't this absurd?" wait for us to (hopefully) agree, and then you hope to get us to agree that religion then is better. Now why you think the last would follow, even if we did agree with you on the first is beyond me. But clearly that's what you are after.

That makes you a person who asks trick questions to try to trick people into follow your line of thinking and ending up agreeing with your points. You are really not very good at it though.

 

[Tanstaafl]

Refuting and disagreeing are fine. Making continuous disrespectful and rude comments are another. I stand by my statement that any troll can make continuous unspecific derogatory statements "like time and time again you been proven to be wrong". When your threads have 45,000 hits in a relatively short time and such a statement is made your not only insulting the thread creator your insulting the people who actually find the threads interesting. I stand by my statement that people who do this time and time again are phonies, who hate the message, and will do everything they can to go after me, the messenger. I know it will continue in the future, so every once in awhile I just have to respond to it.

DOC, it has been shown over and over that you are a liar. Many, many specific times. And you're being dishonest here pretending that these charges are vague and general. Will I go back and quote all of the many times you have been proven to lie? No, why should I waste my time. The Jefferson thread has many instances.

And this thread (not forum) isn't yours just because you posted the OP. If you don't like the way it's playing out, then you can go elsewhere. Or else stop whining and admit your errors and correct your statements, you know, like someone with some integrity.

 

[Meadmaker]

Thanks for the reply, but I still do not think that the paper is saying that all life on Earth is descended from the algae that is described.

Specifically, the abstract of the paper says:



Which says to me anyway, that the algae studied developed before the organisms which ultimately gave rise to the various plants, animals, and fungi that are now present on Earth.

While this is quite interesting, that is still a good bit different from saying that the algae studied gave rise to the various plants, animals, and fungi that are now present on Earth.

If my interpetation is incorrect, then I would appreciate it if you offered a correction.

I'm easily confused by words like "endosymbiotic", which makes abstracts of papers like this one difficult to read. I might be confused as to the meaning. However, I think your interpretation is incorrect. The paper says that the rhodophytes (red algae) and green plants had a common ancestor. (Also, a common ancestor with glaucocystophytes, whatever those are).

It gets confusing, because the paper is talking moslty about plastids, not organisms, and that is a word I vaguely recall getting correct on a multiple choice test in high school, but I don't know what it means today.

At any rate, here is what I think the paper is saying. I think it is saying that the cyanobacteria emerged first, and either from them or from a common ancestor, the rhodopytes emerged, and a later genetic variation caused the green plants to emerge. That line that led to green plants also gave rise to animals and fungi.

In other words, the cyanobacteria were the most primitive of the organisms and were themselves common ancestors of everything else, or emerged very quickly from the evolutionary line of descendants from the common ancestors.


If anyone with real biological knowledge, like knowing what a plastid or a glaucocystophyte is, can correct me, I would take their word for it.

At any rate, I think what is important, for this discussion, is that the assertion that somewhere back in the mists of time there existed a single cell that is ancestor to all living things today is not a ridiculous, far fetched, suggestion. In fact, I think it is slightly speculative mainstream science.

 

[grayman]

I've made over 900 posts and have made and have gotten around 45,000 hits in my threads since January. That deserves some respect and if a person doesn't respect me their a phony (or a troll) to keep coming in my threads, period

Yes and most of those hits are people asking you to respond to a previous question that you continually ignore (BTW, it's spelled they're)

Well it looks like people want to derail this thread. That must means a nerve has been hit...

No. It only derails as you refuse to respond to the questions you are asked and raise other topics yourself.

Refuting and disagreeing are fine. Making continuous disrespectful and rude comments are another. I stand by my statement that any troll can make continuous unspecific derogatory statements "like time and time again you been proven to be wrong". When your threads have 45,000 hits in a relatively short time and such a statement is made your not only insulting the thread creator your insulting the people who actually find the threads interesting. I stand by my statement that people who do this time and time again are phonies, who hate the message, and will do everything they can to go after me, the messenger. I know it will continue in the future, so every once in awhile I just have to respond to it.

We don't hate the message, we want you to debate it by responding to the questions you are asked rather than ignoring all but the few you think you may be able to win.

Well, I've got 4 or 5 threads going and I am greatly outnumbered in these threads of mostly atheists and agnostics. So even though we live in a country where Christians greatly outnumber atheists in here I'm outnumbered. I simply don't have the time or energy to respond to every post, some of which are quite complicated. If someone wants to give me a million dollars, I will quit my job and stop my other activities and answer each and every one of the many posts directed at me.

Fine. We'll start a thread (or forum using your terminology) devoted to you just answering ONE question at a time. As that question is answered satisfactorily we will move on to another. One at a time. Just one.

Would you accept that or would you rather continue to make random statements that you refuse to defend when you are challenged?

 

[Belz...]

The origin of life is a crucial part (if not the most important question) of the Theist/Atheist debate. Yet I contend that most atheists are not aware that all life (the blue whales, the insects, the elephants, the octopuses, the trees in the redwood forests, the butterflies, the cactus, the humans, all the dinosaurs, and the multi-millions of other plant and animal species) that have ever existed are descended from the "same" one celled organism. (according to modern science)

Assuming that is correct, how is that a problem ?

Assuming several different organisms were 'born' at the 'beginning' of life and the one ate all the others or stole their food, and survived by breeding and evolving to this day to produce the plethora of lifeforms we know... what's your point ?

 

[Belz...]

I've made over 900 posts and have made and have gotten around 45,000 hits in my threads since January. That deserves some respect and if a person doesn't respect me their a phony (or a troll) to keep coming in my threads, period

So this is about getting attention ?

 

[Tanstaafl]

He thinks just making a lot of noise is worthy of respect.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I was going to point out that "reptile" is technically not a true taxonomic term because it is simply defined as "all amniotes except birds and mammals". DOC seems to have lost interest in defending his OP claims though. Instead let me point out that Native Americans were all a buch of bloodthirsty savages until the noble Christian Europeans arrived and made North America a peaceful place. Just thought everyone would like to know that.