Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[Ocelot]

Well the suicide issue is off topic. I hope no one believes your data just because it looks long and complicated. If people read my posts concerning this topic they will see they are much more concise, and in my opinion have more weight.

You're welcome to your opinion. I'd like to know if it is an opinion without evidence (e.g. faith, bias or predjudice) or an opinion supported by evidence (e.g. probable, likley or the truth) My post was long but not at all complicated.

I looked for evidence of your claim and found none. It's really that simple.

The data I used should be expected to provide evidence of your claim if your claim were true.

I had asked you what different data, or different treatment of the data I had, should be uses to turn up evidence of your claim.

Your comments we not concise. Concise means expressing much in few words. You got the few words bit right but you failed to actually answer my questions. Short? yes. Concise? No.

As a result I prefermed the same test on multiple different datasets that might possibly turn up evidence for you claim.

That's why my post was long. Not because I wanted to impress everybody with it's magnitude, but because you failed to narrow the possibilities.

 

[DOC]

Is there a credible peer-reviewed publication which says that the common ancestor of all life today is a single cell? Not a pool of single-celled organisms, but a single cell?

Ok, in this pool of single celled organisms your talking about, wouldn't you agree that there was a time in this pool when the "first" single celled organism became the "first" single celled organism; and at that time it was the only single celled organism in the pool.

 

[Ocelot]

Now then to steer this back on topic we have demonstrated from the Suicides argument how DOC is prepared to maintain a belief that is in direct conflict with empirical data. When given a chance to cooperate with the gathering and treatment of data he is dismissive, as if he knows deep down that such a search will not support his opinion.

What do we think is happening here?

We have DOC claiming that most atheists do not know what science says about origins. We also have a number of atheists offering their own anecdotal evidence that they do know what science says about origins.

We have the repeated survey data proving that that atheism correlates with education. This makes it seem unlikely that atheists are any less aware of science's opinions on our origins than believers.

We have testimony from professional educators telling us at what age such concepts are generally introduced. Making it seem unlikely that anybody in receipt of a half way decent education would be ignorant of this.

DOC is stubborn in his belief, he offers no evidence for it and simply disregards the evidence against it.

I suspect that what's happening here is a false consensus bias.

The theory of false consensus bias breaks down into two parts.

People have a tendency to overestimate the number of people who will agree with their own opinion even on totally arbitrary matters of opinion e.g. which spice girl would you most like to see catch chicken pox.

When confronted with person with a differing opinion, they have a tendency to assign the reasons for that persons differing opinion to certain negative traits.

In this case DOC, when confronted with the tendency of atheists to agree that evolution is true, in conflict with his opinion that evolution is false, has attributed this to a defect in their understanding of evolution.

This is perfectly normal behaviour and I intend no disrespect in suggesting that DOC's behaviour might fit this template.

However if DOC's reasons for believing this are along these lines it does little to support that opinion.

In this instance I have no source of empirical data to see if more or less than 50% of atheists are aware of universal common descent.

I'm prepared to believe that in a wide enough dataset including countries with lower levels of literacy and education this may well be true.

However given the established correlation between education and atheism I'd strongly suspect that whatever dataset we used we'd see that atheists were more likely to know that science supports universal common descent than non-atheists.

Take for example this data. From Gallup

Evolution........Definitely/........Definitely/..........Not familiar/
................Probably true......Probably false.........no opinion
.....................%..................%......................%

Overall.............55.................34.....................11

Church attendance...
.............Weekly.33.................56.....................11
Near weekly/Monthly.52.................36.....................12
.......Seldom/Never.71.................18.....................11

Education

High school or less.46.................32.....................22
Some college........56.................39......................5
College grad........60.................36......................4
Postgrad............74.................24......................2


It seems to suggest that those who go to church a lot are more likely to disbelieve evolution, it shows that those who are better educated are more likely to believe evolution.
Such surveys tend to ask participants to rate themselves on their level of understanding of evolution rather than test them on what science actually says.

However lets be clear on what you're claiming...

What survey questions would we use, who would we ask and what would we expect to see if your claim were true? Precisely now, so that it makes sense to us science types.

Secondly why do you believe what you're claiming? Has such a study been done? Do you have personal experience of asking this question? Or is it simply that it makes sense to you that this would be true because otherwise why would so many people believe something you find to be obviously false?

I'm hope this post isn't too long and complicated for you. If you have any difficulties understanding please don't hesitate to ask.

 

[Ocelot]

Ok, in this pool of single celled organisms your talking about, wouldn't you agree that there was a time in this pool when the "first" single celled organism became the "first" single celled organism; and at that time it was the only single celled organism in the pool.

Not necessarily. This type of thought betrays a certain type of binary thinking. At one point the precursors to cellular life may be defined as a cell, before that they may not. Is this type of thinking helpfull?

We don't know whihc if any of our many models of abiogenesis is an accurate description of life. We don not know how they exchanged genetic infomartion. It might be purely by inherritance or not. It is certianly not the case that the "first" cell is the one that we are all descended from.

 

[Naughtyhippo]

I have read the first few pages of this thread and intend to read the rest as there have been (so far) a number of interesting and informative links as well as some good posts. However, I am curious to know the following - what is so problamatic and threatening to atheism about a single common ancestor for life on earth? Why would this worry anyone? Any atheist (generalising here, I apologise) who didn't know and was then informed is likely to say 'ah, right.' and then get on with their life!

 

[joobz]

I have read the first few pages of this thread and intend to read the rest as there have been (so far) a number of interesting and informative links as well as some good posts. However, I am curious to know the following - what is so problamatic and threatening to atheism about a single common ancestor for life on earth? Why would this worry anyone? Any atheist (generalising here, I apologise) who didn't know and was then informed is likely to say 'ah, right.' and then get on with their life!

There isn't anything wrong. My initial complain with this thread was DOC's missunderstanding of evolutionary theory. I mean, if he is going to complain about it, he might as well get it right in the process.

No, DOC is opperating on the delusion that science is another religion and that if people "Really knew" what that religion said, they would cease believing in it. I can only assume that DOC would then hope that people would turn to christianity intsead of any number of other unsubstantiated belief systems.

Now, it is obviously poor thinking that makes a person equate science with atheism. One only needs to look at history and modern day science to see that the majority of scientists are believers in some religion, with christianity being one of them. As such, science is about as related to atheism as football is.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Hmm. All these years I've been teaching college writing and it seems I had it backwards after all.

No, Jerome. The writer chooses the text, with which he attempts to communicate to the reader. Context includes everything the writer doesn't choose which has an effect on the way his text is interpreted, plus the interactions between different parts of his text.

My statement that you quoted was poorly constructed. Let my try again. The writer is choosing the words he writes and the ideas that he is presenting in the context, in this case, the conversation. One can not mishmash various aspects of a linear conversation and claim that the writer is presenting an idea which he is not choosing to present.

 

[bokonon]

Ok, in this pool of single celled organisms your talking about, wouldn't you agree that there was a time in this pool when the "first" single celled organism became the "first" single celled organism; and at that time it was the only single celled organism in the pool.

I'd agree that it's possible there was a "first." That doesn't mean all the other single-celled organisms came from that first one.

If I take a cupful of seawater, and let it sit in the sun, there will be a "first" salt crystal that precipitates out as the water evaporates. The rest of the salt crystals that form don't come from the original crystal, they come from the fact that the conditions are in place which makes formation of salt crystals likely.

Once the earth had cooled enough to have a complete crust, there may have been a "first" volcano. That doesn't mean that all subsequent volcanoes arose from the "first" volcano.

The first wave that ever broke on a beach didn't create all the subsequent waves. The first rainbow didn't spawn all future rainbows.

Science speculates that conditions were right -- the chemicals were sloshing around in the primordial soup, the sun was beaming down, the thermal vents were belching, whatever it was -- and life formed. That there may have been a "first" cell doesn't mean that millions or billions of other cells couldn't have formed independently from the same conditions. I'm not saying that's what happened, and I don't think science is saying that's what happened, because until someone invents a time machine, I don't think there's any way to know (but scientists cleverer than me have managed to think of all kinds of ways of knowing things I'd never have known on my own).

 

[zooterkin]

Ok, in this pool of single celled organisms your talking about, wouldn't you agree that there was a time in this pool when the "first" single celled organism became the "first" single celled organism; and at that time it was the only single celled organism in the pool.

Suppose we grant you that; what then?

What is it about this idea that strikes you as so preposterous?

 

[bokonon]

I am curious to know the following - what is so problamatic and threatening to atheism about a single common ancestor for life on earth? Why would this worry anyone? Any atheist (generalising here, I apologise) who didn't know and was then informed is likely to say 'ah, right.' and then get on with their life!

Absolutely, at least in my case. I'm not threatened by the possibility that there might have been a single organism, I simply don't think that's what science is currently claiming. It is what Disciple of Christ is claiming science is claiming, and at this point I have seen enough alternative theories posted in this thread alone to know that he is aware of them. I have seen no confirmation of the theory Disciple of Christ is claiming beyond a "Powerpoint" diagram which I believe Disciple of Christ is misinterpreting.

If there is a competent scientist making the claim that there was a single unique organism, my first question is "how do you know?" Maybe they've backtracked through the genetic code somehow. I'm interested in considering the evidence for myself, rather than just nodding because some scientist writes something.

As an aside, I read in a book recently that fossil evidence indicated that 650 million years ago, a month was only 17 days long. I apologize if I'm not recalling one or both of those numbers correctly; my point is that they claimed to know something that I couldn't understand how they could know. What kind of "fossils" could record the length of days and months? I can understand taking the rate at which the moon is falling upward (away from the earth, without violating the theories of gravity), working out the orbital mechanics, and extrapolating backward, but FOSSIL evidence? So I went to the library of the local university, and learned first-hand what kind of fossil evidence supported their conclusions. I found it fascinating. If there are scientists who have evidence that there was a single organism, I'd be interested in checking that out too.

 

[sphenisc]

... If there are scientists who have evidence that there was a single organism, I'd be interested in checking that out too.

The evidence seems to be based on the shared features described here:

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


NB it refers to "independently living organisms "; I'm not sure where viruses fit in.

 

[joobz]

I'd agree that it's possible there was a "first." That doesn't mean all the other single-celled organisms came from that first one.

If I take a cupful of seawater, and let it sit in the sun, there will be a "first" salt crystal that precipitates out as the water evaporates. The rest of the salt crystals that form don't come from the original crystal, they come from the fact that the conditions are in place which makes formation of salt crystals likely.

Once the earth had cooled enough to have a complete crust, there may have been a "first" volcano. That doesn't mean that all subsequent volcanoes arose from the "first" volcano.

The first wave that ever broke on a beach didn't create all the subsequent waves. The first rainbow didn't spawn all future rainbows.

Science speculates that conditions were right -- the chemicals were sloshing around in the primordial soup, the sun was beaming down, the thermal vents were belching, whatever it was -- and life formed. That there may have been a "first" cell doesn't mean that millions or billions of other cells couldn't have formed independently from the same conditions. I'm not saying that's what happened, and I don't think science is saying that's what happened, because until someone invents a time machine, I don't think there's any way to know (but scientists cleverer than me have managed to think of all kinds of ways of knowing things I'd never have known on my own).

Well, the original concept of a single solitary LUCA was based on the idea that ALL life shares a seemingly tracable genetic ancestry. And if cell division was the only way for cells to pass on genetic material, it stands to reason that it would have to have been a single cell.

However, since we now know that horizontal gene transfer occurs, this concept of a single solitary cell ancestry is no longer the only possibility.

 

[bruto]

Wow, six months to the day, DOC made an unsubstatiated assertion based on a misreading of science and an unwarranted assumption about how some people might react if it were true, and Joobz is essentially giving the same answer to DOC that he gave in the second post. One might be tempted to conclude that DOC is not actually interested in learning anything, and that the effort is futile. Oh well, never mind. Up Lances, Joobz! Windmill at 4 o'clock!

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Wow, six months to the day, DOC made an unsubstatiated assertion based on a misreading of science and an unwarranted assumption about how some people might react if it were true, and Joobz is essentially giving the same answer to DOC that he gave in the second post. One might be tempted to conclude that DOC is not actually interested in learning anything, and that the effort is futile. Oh well, never mind. Up Lances, Joobz! Windmill at 4 o'clock!

Interesting. Have you considered the possibility that others may be hiding their unwillingness to learn, thus their intentional ignorance behind a hodgepodge of evidence tied together with only a presumption.


Science does teach us that life has never come from non-life. At least this is what the scientifically derived evidence currently presents.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

We have more than just speculation though. We have an incomplete trail of evidence, and a large number of examples where the scientific methods have discovered mechanistic explanations in similar areas of research. At worst, we have a reasonable expectation that we will fill in missing evidence based on ongoing research based on past success.

But again, that is my view. I am much more interested in your view. Of the available explanations, which do _you_ think is the best explanation to fill the gap between molecules and simple life, and what is your reasoning. I would like to know what explanation _you_ favor and why and not just keep repeating my own view.

According to our current scientific understanding, life can only be derived from life, as such I am inclined to think that life has not occured spontaneously in the past.

 

[bokonon]

Science does teach us that life has never come from non-life. At least this is what the scientifically derived evidence currently presents.

Not true. Science teaches us that the earth was a molten cauldron which could not support life when it first formed, and now there is life. This is clear evidence that life MAY come from non-life, whether or not we can currently duplicate the mechanism by which it did so. It is also possible that life was seeded by comet collisions or some other extraterrestrial source. Even in that case, science doesn't hypothesize that life could have existed in the initial years following the big bang, so we're back to "life from non-life" at some point.

We don't really even know that new life isn't being created today, just that we haven't observed it.

Science tends not to use words like "never." The only time I can recall the word is in relation to faster-than-light travel.

 

[six7s]

Interesting. Have you considered the possibility that others may be hiding their unwillingness to learn, thus their intentional ignorance behind a hodgepodge of evidence tied together with only a presumption.

Yep

Considered it

Observed that:

• 'unwillingness to learn' and 'intentional ignorance' are hallmarks of wooists like the OP and his cronies

• demonstrating a willingness to learn whilst acknowledging levels of personal ignorance are hallmarks of debunkers

My hypothesis:

• You're spewing straw

Science does teach us that life has never come from non-life

Really?

At least this is what the scientifically derived evidence currently presents.

From which cherry farm did you harvest that evidence?

 

[DOC]

Wow, six months to the day, DOC made an unsubstatiated assertion based on a misreading of science and an unwarranted assumption about how some people might react if it were true, and Joobz is essentially giving the same answer to DOC that he gave in the second post. One might be tempted to conclude that DOC is not actually interested in learning anything, and that the effort is futile. Oh well, never mind. Up Lances, Joobz! Windmill at 4 o'clock!

This looks like the same empty claim that opened the thread. Since we're now about 1000 posts in, there must either be evidence of the claim, or the baseless repetition of the claim is evidence that Disciple of Christ is not capable of substantiating his opinion.

Is there a credible peer-reviewed publication which says that the common ancestor of all life today is a single cell? Not a pool of single-celled organisms, but a single cell? Frankly, I WOULD be skeptical of that claim, and would like to read the evidence used to justify it, if a reputable scientist is actually making such a claim.

There isn't anything wrong. My initial complain with this thread was DOC's missunderstanding of evolutionary theory. I mean, if he is going to complain about it, he might as well get it right in the process.

Well according to this PHD and Articulett earlier I was right . They say all life (according to science) did come from one cell.


What is the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA)?
Anthony M. Poole
An ActionBioscience.org original article


"So how do we know that all life has evolved from a single cell? The answer is written in the language of the genetic code (image A).
The genetic code spells out DNA.

* The genetic code is the language in which most genes are written into DNA.
* Such genes are recipes for making proteins.
* Proteins are what make the cell tick, doing everything from making DNA to digesting the food we eat and extracting the nutrients.
* Incredibly, the exact same code is used in humans and bacteria, so a gene from a human being can be put into a bacterium, and the bacterium will make the human protein — this is how insulin is made.

The genetic code is universal for all life.

That the genetic code is universal to all life tells us that everything is related."

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/poolearticle.html

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Jerome wrote:
Science does teach us that life has never come from non-life

Really?

From which cherry farm did you harvest that evidence?

Please present scientific evidence that life derives from non-life.

You are sure to win the Nobel!



Do you realize you are making the point presented in the OP?

 

[bokonon]

Well according to this PHD and Articulett earlier I was right . They say all life (according to science) did come from one cell.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/poolearticle.html

I guess you didn't read the whole page, because you seem to have missed this:

Carl Woese, one of the key players in the bid to reconstruct the tree of life, has added another twist to the LUCA puzzle. He has got researchers fired up by suggesting that:

* LUCA was also into gene swapping, and on a much larger scale than what we observe in modern bacteria
* gene swapping was once more important than inheritance from parent to offspring, and that early archaea, bacteria and eukaryotes each emerged independently from a ‘sea’ of gene transfer8

It’s not clear how his claims could be tested, but they are certainly food for thought — if he’s right there never was a single LUCA, but more of a community of genes loosely associated with cells.