Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[Taffer]

Actually, LUCA is mainstream science, but it's NOT saying that the last ancestor was a bacterium as much as apologists like Mijo would like to pretend it is. Bacteria are species that exist today... they evolved from bacteria like ancestors--as did we...but we wouldn't call those things bacteria as we define bacteria today--because they weren't. As simple as we think of bacteria to be, they've been evolving for a lot longer and a lot more generations than we have.

But pay no attention to Mijo-- he is a creationists and he's doing what DOC is doing but more subtly. He's confusing rather than clarifying and defending creationists and the creationist position as he always does. He readily starts similar threads with silly inferences and ignores all answers to his queries while saying nothing of value on the topic. We have a common microbial ancestor-- we are still trying to figure out the nature of it. We've recently learned that vertebrates (from which our brain arose) and invertebrates have a common worm like ancestor.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070629101101.htm

Now, these were not today's worms--worms too have been evolving for eons-- but we understand that they were what we'd call a worm due to features we use to describe worms.

And all our worm-like ancestors would have been identical for all of us. As would our microbial ancestors-- but they are NOT the microbes we see today-- they are their ancestors of trillions of generations back in time.

Yep. Perhaps I should have qualified my post by saying "even if what you say is true...".

I have yet to meet two evolutionary biologists who agree on the exact nature of the LUCA. Some say a single individual, some say a single type, yet others point to horizontal gene transfer and state that, quite possibly, it was more then one species.

And yes, evolutionary biology is very cool.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Way to many responses for my limited bandwidth tonight but...

Why is there such a great objection to the presumption that science says that we we are all descended from a bacterium?

There isn't. There's objection to Creationists erecting.. oh wait, QC already covered this.

Simply put, there is no scientific consensus on that. It is possible that there was one single bacterium, it is possible there was a population of them. There is no consensus either way.

According to the LCA hypothesis we are all descended from a single organism, that does not mean we are all decended from the only organism in existance at that time or that we're all descended from a particular type of organism (the ULCA might be an Archean or other lifeform we don't have evidence for). As QC states, there is no concensus and as others have pointed out, while LCA is evidence by genetic studies, ULCA is still hyopthetical.

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

I agree, people should know what arguments are made if the hold to certain beliefs.

Do people really want to worship a god who frequently kills children for the inconsequential reasons? Do people really want to worship a god who demands that they be cannibals?

Welcome club Fundie™! With your new membershib, you'll be able to arrogantly and proudly display your ignorance, and will have the perfect justification for your bigoted opinions in this ambiguous bronze-age manuscript! In exchange for this, we require only that you leave your critical thinking behind and follow a few ... erm ... a number of rules.

Oh, and that you adopt an invisible friend, of whom you must eat a piece once a week.

...

I don't get it either. Why the cannibalism?

 

[articulett]

I don't get it either. Why the cannibalism?

Have you tasted the "body of christ?"

It's Delish!
(although, oddly enough, it appears to have carbs...though it should not of course)

 

[mijopaalmc]

Actually, LUCA is mainstream science, but it's NOT saying that the last ancestor was a bacterium as much as apologists like Mijo would like to pretend it is. Bacteria are species that exist today... they evolved from bacteria-like ancestors--as did we...but we wouldn't call those things bacteria as we define bacteria today--because they weren't. As simple as we think of bacteria to be, they've been evolving for a lot longer and a lot more generations than we have.

Actually, the LUCA hypothesis is saying the the we are descended from bacteria. They may not be the bacteria that are around today, but they were bacteria nonetheless, in so far a they were unicellular prokaryotes.

But pay no attention to Mijo-- he is a creationists and he's doing what DOC is doing but more subtly. He's confusing rather than clarifying and defending creationists and the creationist position as he always does. He readily starts similar threads with silly inferences and ignores all answers to his queries while saying nothing of value on the topic. We have a common microbial ancestor-- we are still trying to figure out the nature of it. We've recently learned that vertebrates (from which our brain arose) and invertebrates have a common worm like ancestor.

Y'know this is the problem that I think Meadmaker was talking about: simply because I don't describe things exactly in the that I'm supposed to, I get labeled a "creationist". I would appreciate if people actually take the time to read the things that I say rather than just listen to what articulett say about what I say. Not only will you find the articulett actually has no clue what I'm saying, but you will also find that there are subtle differences between what I am saying and what creationists and intelligent design proponents.

 

[arthwollipot]

And I believe they too would think it is laughably absurd to think that all the blue whales and dinosaurs and giant redwood trees and butterflies and mushrooms and all their friends and relatives came from a single one celled bacterium.

Just goes to show that you can't generalise your own feelings to the rest of the world. You do understand this, don't you DOC? That just because you think it's absurd doesn't necessarily mean that everyone thinks it's absurd?

This thread deals with what I believe is the fact that most atheists do not know that all plants and animals and you and your relatives came from a single one celled bacteria (according to science).

And it has been pointed out to you very clearly in the many posts leading up to this statement that you are wrong. "Most" atheists do know about universal common ancestry. They just don't think it's as earth-shattering as you do. In fact, most of us think it's wonderful and awe-inspiring. You do understand this, don't you DOC? That just because you think it's absurd doesn't necessarily mean that everyone thinks it's absurd?

If you think its absurd that you and your relatives came from a bacterium, that's your right. And if you don't think its absurd, that's your right also.

Then why are you harping on about it so much? Why do you keep on repeating it? Why not just let it go?

 

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC
And I believe they too would think it is laughably absurd to think that all the blue whales and dinosaurs and giant redwood trees and butterflies and mushrooms and all their friends and relatives came from a single one celled bacterium.

Just goes to show that you can't generalise your own feelings to the rest of the world. You do understand this, don't you DOC? That just because you think it's absurd doesn't necessarily mean that everyone thinks it's absurd?

Actually your taking that quote out of context. joobz (who I believe is an atheist) used the phrase "laughably absurd" to describe my contention that all life came from a single one cell bacterium. (from science). I was simply saying they're are probably other atheists (like joobz) who believe the concept is absurd. I've never said it is absurd (like joobz) but it certainly is extremely hard to believe. I find it much easier to believe a living eternal God created us than non-living chemicals.

And where did all the chemicals come from. Oh that's right The Big Bang turned some strange kind of energy that doesn't exist now into enough matter to make 10 billion trillion stars. And who knows where all that unusual pre-Big Bang energy came from.

 

[Taffer]

I find it much easier to believe a living eternal God created us than non-living chemicals.

So you prefer a made up story rather then evidence and facts?

And where did all the chemicals come from. Oh that's right The Big Bang turned some strange kind of energy that doesn't exist now into enough matter to make 10 billion trillion stars.

And? Appeals to personal incredulity don't fly around here, DOC.

And who knows where all that unusual pre-Big Bang energy came from.

There was no "before the Big Bang".

 

[DOC]

You do understand this, don't you DOC? That just because you think it's absurd doesn't necessarily mean that everyone thinks it's absurd?

Once again, joobz was the one who said he believed he thought something was laughably absurd. (in post 56) If you going to try to make someone look bad it is important to get your facts straight.

 

[Taffer]

Once again, joobz was the one who said he believed he thought something was laughably absurd. (in post 56) If you going to try to make someone look bad it is important to get your facts straight.

Just because joobz may, or may not, think it laughably absurd does not make you any more correct.

 

[DOC]

There was no "before the Big Bang".

Then these scientists must be wrong when they say:

The "inflationary universe."

The leading idea is called the "inflationary universe" model. The key assumption of this model is that just before the Big Bang, space was filled with an unstable form of energy, whose nature is not yet known. At some instant, this energy was transformed into the fundamental particles from which arose all the matter {enough to make 10 billion trillion stars} we observe today. That instant marks what we call the Big Bang.

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whatpowered.htm

 

[wollery]

Once again, joobz was the one who said he believed he thought something was laughably absurd. (in post 56) If you going to try to make someone look bad it is important to get your facts straight.

Yes, getting your facts straight would be a good idea.

You should try it sometime DOC.

 

[Taffer]

Then these scientists must be wrong when they say:

The "inflationary universe."

The leading idea is called the "inflationary universe" model. The key assumption of this model is that just before the Big Bang, space was filled with an unstable form of energy, whose nature is not yet known. At some instant, this energy was transformed into the fundamental particles from which arose all the matter {enough to make 10 billion trillion stars} we observe today. That instant marks what we call the Big Bang.

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whatpowered.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_universe

You really should try to get your evidence from something other then press releases. Nothing in the wiki article contradicts what I said.

Time started when spacetime was created. If the Big Bang created spacetime, then there is no "before".

 

[joobz]

Actually your taking that quote out of context. joobz (who I believe is an atheist) used the phrase "laughably absurd" to describe my contention that all life came from a single one cell bacterium. (from science). I was simply saying they're are probably other atheists (like joobz) who believe the concept is absurd. I've never said it is absurd (like joobz) but it certainly is extremely hard to believe. I find it much easier to believe a living eternal God created us than non-living chemicals.

DOC, you keep trying to use my posts to prove something, yet the only thing you prove is your ignorance and willingness to be deceitful. Neither of which paints your cause as morally just or acceptable.

You still haven't answered my questions? Can I assume you just don't know the answers or are afraid to admit that your understanding of them would prove you to be ignorant, a liar or both?


1.) What is an organism?
2.) What is a life force?
3.) what is horizontal gene transfer?
4.) What is Life?

 

[joobz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_universe

You really should try to get your evidence from something other then press releases. Nothing in the wiki article contradicts what I said.

Time started when spacetime was created. If the Big Bang created spacetime, then there is no "before".

But but but....WHat if C-A-T really spelled Dog?

 

[cyborg]

It has been my understanding that it is impossible to know wether it was a single organism or a collection or community of things that simultaneously arose in the same mix.

A cell is a community of things by my understanding.

 

[Meadmaker]

I have yet to meet two evolutionary biologists who agree on the exact nature of the LUCA. Some say a single individual, some say a single type, yet others point to horizontal gene transfer and state that, quite possibly, it was more then one species.

It seems to me that the first and third alternatives are viable, but the second one doesn't make much sense to me. Suppose there were no horizontal gene transfer, then if you look to the origin of the "type", you would have to assert that either the same "type" arose independently at least twice, or that all individuals of that "type" had a common ancenstor, in which case we're back to the individual.

 

[Taffer]

It seems to me that the first and third alternatives are viable, but the second one doesn't make much sense to me. Suppose there were no horizontal gene transfer, then if you look to the origin of the "type", you would have to assert that either the same "type" arose independently at least twice, or that all individuals of that "type" had a common ancenstor, in which case we're back to the individual.

No. If we assume a single "type" (lets say "species" instead), then we lack evidence that a single individual of this species is what gave rise to all other organisms. All we can tell is that all organisms share genetic traits with that particular species, or to be more exact, all organisms arose from that species. However, archaea may have arisen from a sub population of this hypothetical species, and prokaryotes arisen from another. There's simply no way to tell.

 

[joobz]

joobz (who I believe is an atheist)

Aren't some Jews taught at a very early age that Hitler was a Christian. Were you brought up Jewish.

DOC, How can I be both an atheist and a Jew?

 

[Meadmaker]

Actually your taking that quote out of context. joobz (who I believe is an atheist) used the phrase "laughably absurd" to describe my contention that all life came from a single one cell bacterium.

But the only thing he was referring to as absurd was the idea that the single one celled bacterium was either the "first" bacterium, or, even more absurd, the only bacterium in existence.

Science does not claim that there was a lonely bacterium in a sea, pond, or tide pool somewhere that suddenly started dividing and led to all life today. Science claims there were a lot of proto-bacteria all doing whatever it was that they do, but then something happened, and one of those proto-bacteria became better at reproducing, and it became the single ancestor. We don't know what happened to that proto-bacteria. Maybe there was some sort of mutation. Maybe one proto-bacteria engulfed another, but did not destroy it, and the smaller became a nucleus, and now there was a real cell.

There are a lot of maybes involved, and not just at that step described above. We don't know how the first reproducing molecule came about. We don't know how the first free floating packages of organic compounds came about. We don't know how the first cells came about. We do know that somewhere along the line, this all happened, and we can make some crude inferences about it by studying DNA inside plastids (I looked it up) of cyanobacteria and rhodphytes.

Or, we could just say, "Gee, this looks hard. Maybe God did it." And maybe he did. However, if he did, he went to a lot of trouble to make it look like it took billions of years and involved common descent.

So, joobz didn't call the idea of a single common ancestor absurd. He called the idea that there was at one time a single cell in existence absurd.