Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by DOC
Where have you been? Meadmaker and articulett have already pointed out that all plants and animals did come from the "same" single organism according to the generally accepted scientific theory.




Yes, its generally accepted scientific theory. And meadmaker and articulett agree with that mainstream scientific "theory". Do you disagree with it and why.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3066934#post3066934

That was not what I asked, DOC. I asked if you understood exactly what they said.

 

[wollery]

No DOC, do you understand what the term "come from the same single organism" means in terms of the theory?

 

[bokonon]

Where have you been? Meadmaker and articulett have already pointed out that all plants and animals did come from the "same" single organism according to the generally accepted scientific theory.

The unsupported claim you made is that most atheists do not know what science says about our origins.

Do you agree that the Bible teaches that God sends bears to rip apart children who mock bald men? Or disagree?

Do you agree that the Bible teaches that Lot, a man the Bible calls righteous, offered to let strangers rape his virgin daughters? Or disagree?

Most Christians don't know what the Bible says about how righteous it is to offer your virgin daughters to strangers for sex. Do you agree, or disagree?

Most Christians don't know that the Bible teaches the virtue of using killer bears to maim and murder disrespectful children. Do you agree, or disagree?

Do you agree or disagree that it's virtuous to mass-maim and mass-murder disrespectful children with she-bears?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

No DOC, do you understand what the term "come from the same single organism" means in terms of the theory?

Ichneu, I recant my reply to you earlier and I'm going to join the chorus.

DOC is too much of an imbicilic intransigent to even grasp why and how he's failed to grasp the ULCA concept and should therefore retract his assertions in the OP. I've known enough TEs who accept ULCA to think this is a Christian meme and must conclude, based on this and other threads that it's due to DOC's density.

And a double mea culpa since he seems to no longer be interested in arguing the subject of the OP but would rather myopically focus on apologetics.

(wollery, I quoted you because your post was my jumping off point for my extended comments about DOC's "participation" in the last 30 or so posts to this forum thread.)

 

[Upchurch]

Where have you been? Meadmaker and articulett have already pointed out that all plants and animals did come from the "same" single organism according to the generally accepted scientific theory.

Where have you been?

Meadmaker clarified his comments. He wasn't saying what you claim he was saying.

But you're going to ignore this completely, aren't you.

*sigh*

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Matthew (the tax collector) was an apostle and an eyewitness to the life of Christ. Why would an eyewitness need to base his gospel on someone (Mark) who was not an eyewitness.

Yes, exactly. And since the author Matthew very clearly did use Mark as a source, in fact retelling the same stories using the same words in many instances, we are left with one conclusion.........the author of Matthew was not an eyewitness. Eyewitnesses generally tell stories in their own words. None of those ascriptions to authorship were made until the 2nd century, DOC. No one knows who wrote these books. Don't you know your own tradition?

 

[Meadmaker]

Where have you been?

Meadmaker clarified his comments. He wasn't saying what you claim he was saying.

But you're going to ignore this completely, aren't you.

*sigh*

I'm not so sure about that, myself. I am saying that darned near all life on Earth today had a single organism as an ancestor. As far as I know, that is indeed the concensus of the scientiric community. On that point, DOC and I agree.

On the other hand, there are some details where he and I might disagree, but he hasn't provided enough information to clarify that. My guess, and this is only a guess, is that he hasn't really given a whole lot of thought to the difference between the two interpretations of his statements, because there isn't really an important distinction, in his mind, between the two interpretations.

The idea that he finds implausible was that a single bacterium was the ancestor of all the diverse forms of life today. I doubt that he would find that statement more plausible if there were other, similar, bacteria in existence, or even if DNA from other organisms were subsequently incorporated into some, but not all, of the descendants of that ancestral bacterium. My guess is that he doesn't consider it important.

And, frankly, neither do I. I don't see where a lack of comprehension of that point would lead anyone to an improper conclusion on the larger issue of common ancestry.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Ichum, I recant my reply to you earlier and I'm going to join the chorus.

DOC is too much of an imbicilic intransigent to even grasp why and how he's failed to grasp the ULCA concept and should therefore retract his assertions in the OP. I've known enough TEs who accept ULCA to think this is a Christian meme and must conclude, based on this and other threads that it's due to DOC's density.

And a double mea culpa since he seems to no longer be interested in arguing the subject of the OP but would rather myopically focus on apologetics.

(wollery, I quoted you because your post was my jumping off point for my extended comments about DOC's "participation" in the last 30 or so posts to this forum thread.)

All cool. We've covered this topic to death and it was immediately apparent that the OP didn't understand the issues involved. The only place to engage him is in apologetics and it seems much more satisfying to win when he plays with his own ball. He seems not to know much about biblical scholarship outside the party line which has been shown false so many times that it is almost not worth repeating this info again.

Sorry that the apologetic rehash miffed you for a bit but it was supposed to be more a metacomment on the thread as a whole -- that it is all a waste of time since even a lurker should be able to tell by the end of page one that there was nothing new to say.

 

[Taffer]

I'm not so sure about that, myself. I am saying that darned near all life on Earth today had a single organism as an ancestor. As far as I know, that is indeed the concensus of the scientiric community. On that point, DOC and I agree.

On the other hand, there are some details where he and I might disagree, but he hasn't provided enough information to clarify that. My guess, and this is only a guess, is that he hasn't really given a whole lot of thought to the difference between the two interpretations of his statements, because there isn't really an important distinction, in his mind, between the two interpretations.

The idea that he finds implausible was that a single bacterium was the ancestor of all the diverse forms of life today. I doubt that he would find that statement more plausible if there were other, similar, bacteria in existence, or even if DNA from other organisms were subsequently incorporated into some, but not all, of the descendants of that ancestral bacterium. My guess is that he doesn't consider it important.

And, frankly, neither do I. I don't see where a lack of comprehension of that point would lead anyone to an improper conclusion on the larger issue of common ancestry.

AFAIK, Mead, DOC means one individual of on specific organism, not one organism.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Why would anyone be surprised that all extant life arose from one organism? I don't see why that idea would be shocking to anyone.

Granted, it leaves aside the whole branching history of life and all those myriad organisms who perished (Burgess Shale anyone?), but common descent is the hallmark of Darwin's theory.

Did it only just dawn on DOC what the term common descent means?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

AFAIK, Mead, DOC means one individual of on specific organism, not one organism.

For all we know that may be correct. Actually I would think it is more likely to be correct than not with all the death inherent to natural selection.

 

[Taffer]

For all we know that may be correct. Actually I would think it is more likely to be correct than not with all the death inherent to natural selection.

Indeed. However, his contention is that "science says" that this is the case, where in reality, science does not say this. It says it is possible.

 

[bokonon]

AFAIK, Mead, DOC means one individual of one specific organism, not one organism.

I don't really see any need to split hairs on this point.

Suppose the first instance of single-celled life was just that - a single individual, which was capable of splitting itself into two individuals with the same capability.

The earliest KNOWN life form is bacteria, which has been on earth for 3.5 billion years. The earliest known multi-cellular life is a red algae which has been dated to about 1.2 billion years ago.

Unless some older multi-cellular life is discovered, this means that for more than 2 billion years, one-celled life was the only life on earth. That's a lot of generations for a single one-celled individual to develop a range of diversity. Even if it wasn't one individual, but many individuals which arose independently or together, it COULD have been a single individual. I'm not aware of any evidence that it wasn't.

If we take the life of the earth as a 24-hour clock, life appeared about 5:20 in the morning, and multi-cellular life didn't show up until 5:45 in the afternoon. On this scale, humans have been on earth for less than a minute, and the story of Jesus is less than 1 second old.

 

[Hokulele]

I am going to agree with Meadmaker here in that I think DOC has completely misunderstood the whole concept of a single ancestor. It seems to me that DOC believes that whichever organism came first is the ancestor. This could be why he harps so much on the amount of progress made in research into abiogenesis. His thinking on descent is probably tied directly into the biblical genesis (Adam and Eve are specifically the first humans, and the line of descent from them is unbroken), and he cannot comprehend that the real world does not reflect the bible. DOC is most likely a proponent of natural theology.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Here's the problem: one of the most frequently cited sources in this thread describes the Last Universal Common Ancestor this way:

Last universal ancestor (LUA), also LUCA (last universal common ancestor), is the hypothetical latest living organism from which all currently living organisms descend. As such, it is the most recent common ancestor of the set of all currently living organisms. It is estimated to have lived some 3.6 to 4.1 billion years ago.

It also describes Most Recent Common Ancestor as:

The most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of any set of organisms is the most recent individual from which all organisms in the group are directly descended.

Thus, at least according to this source, DOC is correct in so far if "science" claims that the LUCA exists, then it is claiming that all life is descended from one individual. Now, if there is another definition of most resent common ancestor, I have no problem accepting it. However, to expect that DOC understand why he made a mistake (and I understand that he may be trying to understand that) when the information with which you have presented him says exactly what he says is absurd, dishonest, and unfair.

 

[Taffer]

I don't really see any need to split hairs on this point.

Suppose the first instance of single-celled life was just that - a single individual, which was capable of splitting itself into two individuals with the same capability.

The earliest KNOWN life form is bacteria, which has been on earth for 3.5 billion years. The earliest known multi-cellular life is a red algae which has been dated to about 1.2 billion years ago.

Unless some older multi-cellular life is discovered, this means that for more than 2 billion years, one-celled life was the only life on earth. That's a lot of generations for a single one-celled individual to develop a range of diversity. Even if it wasn't one individual, but many individuals which arose independently or together, it COULD have been a single individual. I'm not aware of any evidence that it wasn't.

If we take the life of the earth as a 24-hour clock, life appeared about 5:20 in the morning, and multi-cellular life didn't show up until 5:45 in the afternoon. On this scale, humans have been on earth for less than a minute, and the story of Jesus is less than 1 second old.

It's not splitting hairs. The accepted scientific consensus on this matter certainly isn't that it was a single organism. But it could be. This is because we simply don't know.

That is why DOC is wrong. His argument about what "science says" is a strawman.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Thus, at least according to this source, DOC is correct in so far if "science" claims that the LUCA exists, then it is claiming that all life is descended from one individual. Now, if there is another definition of most resent common ancestor, I have no problem accepting it. However, to expect that DOC understand why he made a mistake (and I understand that he may be trying to understand that) when the information with which you have presented him says exactly what he says is absurd, dishonest, and unfair.

For me, that's not the issue. It's the context that DOC is casting the concept of LUCA: That those rascally, godless, scientists are telling everyone that we "come up from monkeys...." opps, I mean... germs! DOC implies that this not only scientifically false, but is somehow demeaning and that if atheist "knew" what those minions of Satan in lab coats were saying (as if we didn't know) we'd drop that blasphemous notion of evolution like a ton of bricks, fall down our our knees, and PRAAAAAAIIIIISE THA' LAAAAWD!!!

Of course, DOC assumes way too much:

• Most atheists are well aware of humanity's decent, from cro magnon and other primates, through prehistoric mammals, through mammal-like reptiles, through lung fish, all the down to the first eurkaryotes.
• These facts don't phase most atheists one bit.

 

[bokonon]

For me, that's not the issue. It's the context that DOC is casting the concept of LUCA: That those rascally, godless, scientists are telling everyone that we "come up from monkeys...." opps, I mean... germs! DOC implies that this not only scientifically false, but is somehow demeaning and that if atheist "knew" what those minions of Satan in lab coats were saying (as if we didn't know) we'd drop that blasphemous notion of evolution like a ton of bricks, fall down our our knees, and PRAAAAAAIIIIISE THA' LAAAAWD!!!

I agree, I think his subtext all along has been that the idea that a single-celled creature (or a single single-celled creature) could give rise to all the varieties of plants and animals the world has ever known is simply too absurd to be taken seriously. I think he believes most people would share his disbelief, if only we knew that this is what science claims, so he concludes that we are probably just unaware of this truth which he has graciously agreed to share with us.

That's also why I think the distinction between "most recent common ancestor" or "last universal ancestor" or even "most ancient living ancestor" is beside the point. Whether the one-celled ancestor was a complex eucaryote or a primitive precursor to some archaic archaea, it's still a dang germ, and "DOC's grandaddy weren't no GERM!"

 

[mijopaalmc]

For me, that's not the issue. It's the context that DOC is casting the concept of LUCA: That those rascally, godless, scientists are telling everyone that we "come up from monkeys...." opps, I mean... germs! DOC implies that this not only scientifically false, but is somehow demeaning and that if atheist "knew" what those minions of Satan in lab coats were saying (as if we didn't know) we'd drop that blasphemous notion of evolution like a ton of bricks, fall down our our knees, and PRAAAAAAIIIIISE THA' LAAAAWD!!!

Of course, DOC assumes way too much:

• Most atheists are well aware of humanity's decent, from cro magnon and other primates, through prehistoric mammals, through mammal-like reptiles, through lung fish, all the down to the first eurkaryotes.
• These facts don't phase most atheists one bit.

I understand that this is the implication of what DOC, but it seems that people are throwing the baby out with the bath water here. DOC is not wrong because what he say about the ancestry of life is wrong (in so far as the sources which mention the LUCA by name imply that it was in fact a individual and not a collection of individuals); DOC is wrong because what he implies about the possession of such knowledge is wrong. The common descent of all life is in no way revelatory information for anyone who has take a college-level introductory biology course and the theory of evolution still stands as does atheism.

 

[articulett]

I agree, I think his subtext all along has been that the idea that a single-celled creature (or a single single-celled creature) could give rise to all the varieties of plants and animals the world has ever known is simply too absurd to be taken seriously. I think he believes most people would share his disbelief, if only we knew that this is what science claims, so he concludes that we are probably just unaware of this truth which he has graciously agreed to share with us.

That's also why I think the distinction between "most recent common ancestor" or "last universal ancestor" or even "most ancient living ancestor" is beside the point. Whether the one-celled ancestor was a complex eucaryote or a primitive precursor to some archaic archaea, it's still a dang germ, and "DOC's grandaddy weren't no GERM!"

Exactly... and many posters weighed in to show not only did they know a lot more on the subject than he did, but his great grandancestors could have even been a virus or a slime mold and probably contained both... and the details are rapidly being filled in and the line backwards in time more clear. He had no alternate theory... creationists never do... they just want to make the other side sound incomprehensible or absurd and they learn or say just enough so that they think they are conveying that. And what they are conveying is the poor arguments that were able to sway them... it's the argument creationist will refine and hone, because people like DOC and Kirk Cameron, etc. spread them because, by golly, they think it's some major point in favor of their alternate unexpressed magical hypothesis.

I always find the semantic games and what is and isn't acceptable as proof between what they want to believe and what they don't want to believe very telling. I wonder how many people believe in talking snakes and gods poofing people into existance but can't wrap their mind around the far more fascinating fact of common descent.

All humans share a common ancestor--and as we go back in time we join up with common ancestors of apes and then other mammals including our pets and then a common ancestor with reptiles and birds, and then, fish, and then worms--which gave rise to both invetebrates and vertebrates and so forth... and they are the same lines of descent back in time once we meet up with that last common ancestor-- the same fish...the same worm... the SAME.

THAT IS PROFOUNDLY AMAZING. And the evidence is becoming increasingly clear as to the details. I feel sad that DOC and his brainwashing has to fight so hard not to be able to savor this knowledge. I actually find it bizarre that it matters. All complexity is built from the bottom up. Todays computers didn't poof into existence. They would be miracles to those who wrote the bible-- they "evolved"... just as our knowledge about our own evolution is doing. And I wonder how many people that those like DOC will keep from understanding this most incredible information that humans have uncovered. It seems positively immoral to me.