Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[joobz]

Well then why did one regular non-theist in here say that the idea that all life came from one single cell is laughingly absurd. And this is a person who has done scientific research in the past. This person has since come to accept that this is a part of science, but the fact that early in the thread he believed it was laughingly absurd (and has done scientific work) tells me that less educated atheists will likely also find it very hard to believe. And this fact has to have somewhat of an effect on their overall philosophical beliefs.

Again DOC, you demonstrate that your statements are in direct conflict with reality. Honesty is the first toward regaining credibility.


Anybody wish to tilt at windmills?

 

[zooterkin]

I would disagree with your last sentence. It is much harder to believe that all plants and animals and dinosaurs and your family and friends came out of a singe cell than say that man evolved from apes. As I said before, I would have to believe a lot of atheists think mostly "OK we evolved from apes - thats believable" but for the most part stop there. Much of the media certainly plays up "we came from apes" but rarely go back to "we all came from one cell".

Thanks for answering the question. So, basically, you are arguing from incredulity. Unfortunately, that is more a reflection on your knowledge than on whether evolution is true.

Let me repeat, there are plenty of Christians who believe that evolution is the most likely explanation for the development of the life we see today, so will you stop with the false association between atheism and evolution?

If you understand, even on a fairly basic level, how evolution works, then it is not difficult to see that it is quite logical that we evolved from something much more primitive, and ultimately, it must have been something as simple as can be. I suggest you take a course in biology.

In fact I have never (and as this thread demonstrates a lot of people have never) read this fact in mainstream media or anywhere for that matter. Certainly this won't matter to some, but to imply that's its no big deal, I think would be incorrect.

Again with the incredulity! Perhaps you're reading the wrong papers, but the ones here certainly cover this from time to time. Here's an example from a mainstream UK paper from three years ago.

 

[DOC]

Well then why did one regular non-theist in here say that the idea that all life came from one single cell is laughingly absurd. And this is a person who has done scientific research in the past. This person has since come to accept that this is a part of science, but the fact that early in the thread he believed it was laughingly absurd (and has done scientific work) tells me that less educated atheists will likely also find it very hard to believe. And this fact has to have somewhat of an effect on their overall philosophical beliefs.

Who are you referring to? Link please.

And yet every one of us who has commented on this thread have stated that we already knew about the LCA/LUCA aspect of evolution and most of us had known it for 20 or more years.

Again DOC, you demonstrate that your statements are in direct conflict with reality. Honesty is the first toward regaining credibility.

Well, Unrepentant Sinner I was referring to this post:

True. But I get the sense that DOC doesn't really understand the terms he's using. (Like Mijopaalmc pointed out) It's hard for me to continue until I'm confident he knows what we mean when we say that
no one claims life came from "one single cell". Such a view is laughably absurd and it must be explained why no scienctist is currently saying such things.

 

[Hokulele]

DOC, are you abandoning the article you just linked (which did not prove a single cell as a common ancestor BTW)? Do you have any idea what horizontal gene transfer implies?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Well, Unrepentant Sinner I was referring to this post:

Did you not read the 1007 messages that have been posted since then or did you just ignore their content?

While, because that's how common ancestry works, it's possible that all eukaryotes are decended from a single ancestral organism, it's virtually impossible for all life to have decended from a single cell - especially because the components of eukaryotic cells seem to be primordial organisms themselves.

Take this link which gives an overview of the taxonomic relationship of Eubacteria, Archaea and Eukaryotes (and note that Viruses are a wild card because their DNA is sometimes incorporated into the DNA of organisms they effect). At the bottom there are a number of links showing how interesting the relationships get between taxa at that level.

All life decending from a single organism isn't entirely correct, but if stated, still does not mean the same thing as all life decending from a single cell.

 

[Worm]

My research skills were good enough to find this published article, where a Phd. says all life came from one cell, and gives the reasons why this is so according to science.

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

Yep, definitely poor research. From your article (bolding mine):

The jury is still out as to how to reconstruct LUCA, and whether horizontal gene transfer will turn this task into a futile one. However, if not all genes are equal in the game of horizontal gene transfer, biologists stand an outside chance. Either way, there are plenty of exciting challenges, and many unknowns for those trying to build the tree of life and reconstruct our origins. For instance, just this year a member of a new group of microscopic archaea has been identified from a deep-sea trench.15 To give you some sense of perspective as to the significance of this discovery, it is roughly equivalent to discovering the first plant! Whether there was one or many LUCAs, these are definitely exciting times.

Even he is not completely convinced there was only one LUCA.

And, indeed, in the accompanying article that is linked to at the head and foot of that article (bolding mine):

Currently, many major assumptions are being questioned:

* Were there three domains or two, with the third arising by fusion?
* Was LUCA prokaryote-like or eukaryote-like or even a mixture?
* Is the genetic code the only one possible?
* Was early evolution more reliant on horizontal gene transfer than inheritance?
* Was there one or more LUCAs?

I think it's fair to say that he's not certain whether we are talking about a single organism here.

 

[Ocelot]

I would disagree with your last sentence. It is much harder to believe that all plants and animals and dinosaurs and your family and friends came out of a singe cell than say that man evolved from apes. As I said before, I would have to believe a lot of atheists think mostly "OK we evolved from apes - thats believable" but for the most part stop there. Much of the media certainly plays up "we came from apes" but rarely go back to "we all came from one cell". In fact I have never (and as this thread demonstrates a lot of people have never) read this fact in mainstream media or anywhere for that matter. Certainly this won't matter to some, but to imply that's its no big deal, I think would be incorrect.

I would disagreee with everything you've written. I won't provide a reason, you haven't.

Oh bugger it I can't help it.

Here's evolution from single celled ancestors referenced in main stream media. It a local paper for Geordies - Stereotypically not known for their academic pursuits.

http://www.newsguardian.co.uk/latest-news/Toon-scientists-uncover-source-of.3911893.jp

There's even a computer game in production that lets you play God to a single celled organism and guide it through its evolution to full sized inteligent creature.

www.spore.com

How mainstream can you get?

What's more, and you still haven't addressed this point. I don't know about fundgelical bible belt states but here in the UK I was taught this at age ten. We have had testimony from proffessional educators confirming this is the case in various locales.

And there's the other point you've evaded. If belief in evolution is due to not understanding it properrly then how do you explain the consistent findings that more education increases the chance of believing in evolution.

 

[Meadmaker]

I've not paid attention to this thread for a long time, and am surprised to see it still running. As I saw the page count grow, I had assumed it must have digressed into something else. Imagine my surprise to see that it's still here, and still on basically the same topic.

With that in mind, it seems there is still a certain degree of confusion over the idea that all life evolved from "one single cell".


DOC, I have a question. I'm trying to get to what you think the prevailing scientific opinion is. One mental image created by the sentence, "All life evolved from one single cell." would be an ocean, pretty much empty, devoid of life, perhaps with a mass of goo somewhere but otherwise featureless, and in that one ocean, perhaps in a tidepool somewhere, was floating one, single, cell. That cell began to divide, and the resulting divisions and mutations eventually led to all life, including us.

Is that what you think is the prevailing opinion among scientists? i.e. "what science teaches"? If not, how do you think it differs from what science teaches?

ETA: And I apologize if this has been answered upthread. I am assuming that there is still some confusion on this point, because it still seems to be a point of contention in recent posts.

 

[Meadmaker]

Where is your Nobel Prize?

 

[joobz]

Well, Unrepentant Sinner I was referring to this post:

Thank you for that DOC, you reinforce the concept that you do not understand at all of what you attempt to mock.

You even quoted me saying,

Again DOC, you demonstrate that your statements are in direct conflict with reality. Honesty is the first toward regaining credibility.

which was, in effect, simply showing how poorly you understand what is written. I'm not shocked, however. If you consider simply evidentiary proof as "long and complicated" and substandard compared to an easily worded lie, Why should we expect you to understand the arguments I was making regarding the LUCA.

Well, just so we are clear:

When I said that you were demonstrating conflict with reality, I was referring to:

This person has since come to accept that this is a part of science, but the fact that early in the thread he believed it was laughingly absurd (and has done scientific work) ..

This assumes that I've changed my stance on the debate. But it is fully clear from my statement that I've remained constant and that your sources support my views.

 

[Upchurch]

[nitpick]

The process of science is not to teach. The process of science is to systematically analyze and describe natural phenomena.

Teachers teach. Scientists describe.

[/nitpick]

 

[Upchurch]

Where is your Nobel Prize?

I don't have one, but these guys do:

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/_ap_050916_id_opponents.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15113168/
http://universe.nasa.gov/spunky.html

I'll grant you that none of this is specifically "life from not-life" but given the evidence in favor of the Big Bang theory (and your focus on the Nobel Prize as credentials to speak with authority), there is a starting point to the universe at which there was no life. As we can plainly see, we are at a point in the universe where there is life. It doesn't take a Nobel Prize winner to understand that somewhere between those two points, life arose from that which is not alive.

If there is a step in there you don't understand, you let me know.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

This assumes that I've changed my stance on the debate. But it is fully clear from my statement that I've remained constant and that your sources support my views.

Joobz, unlike DOC I'm concerned about misrepresenting what people have said. Was my discussion of your opinion and my own commentary on UCA/LUCA above off base? If so I will gladly correct it.

 

[joobz]

Joobz, unlike DOC I'm concerned about misrepresenting what people have said. Was my discussion of your opinion and my own commentary on UCA/LUCA above off base? If so I will gladly correct it.

You explanation is exactly in line with my view of UCA/LUCA. It's amusing that DOC has attempted to use scientific debate and disagreement as a wedge to say that "people don't know what science says.."

He simply does not have the understanding of the argument to critique honestly what science says or doesn't say.

It's like when a kid walks in on his parents having sex and thinks that daddy's trying to hurt mommy.

 

[DOC]

Did you not read the 1007 messages that have been posted since then or did you just ignore their content?

The above statement makes no sense, period.

While, because that's how common ancestry works, it's possible that all eukaryotes are decended from a single ancestral organism, it's virtually impossible for all life to have decended from a single cell - especially because the components of eukaryotic cells seem to be primordial organisms themselves.

You complain about me not reading material and yet you haven't read that all along I've been referring to "Plants and animals" coming from one cell. Are the so called components your talking about plants or animals, No.

And if you read the Phd. author of the article I brought in, before he says "all Life" he clarifies it by saying from humans to bacteria. Can the so called components your talking about be included in the category from humans to bacteria, No.

"Life comes in all shapes and sizes, from us humans to bacteria. 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).

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

 

[Hokulele]

You complain about me not reading material and yet you haven't read that all along I've been referring to "Plants and animals" coming from one cell. Are the so called components your talking about plants or animals, No.

And if you read the Phd. author of the article I brought in, before he says "all Life" he clarifies it by saying from humans to bacteria. Can the so called components your talking about be included in the category from humans to bacteria, No.

"Life comes in all shapes and sizes, from us humans to bacteria. 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).

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

Speaking about failing to read things, care to comment on the posts from Worm and me? Do you understand why this article you keep linking fails to support your position?

Cherry-picking one sentence from a one page article with an attached paper is yet another example of the incompetence of your research.

 

[wahrheit]

He simply does not have the understanding of the argument to critique honestly what science says or doesn't say.

It's like when a kid walks in on his parents having sex and thinks that daddy's trying to hurt mommy.

 

[DOC]

I've not paid attention to this thread for a long time, and am surprised to see it still running. As I saw the page count grow, I had assumed it must have digressed into something else. Imagine my surprise to see that it's still here, and still on basically the same topic.

With that in mind, it seems there is still a certain degree of confusion over the idea that all life evolved from "one single cell".


DOC, I have a question. I'm trying to get to what you think the prevailing scientific opinion is. One mental image created by the sentence, "All life evolved from one single cell." would be an ocean, pretty much empty, devoid of life, perhaps with a mass of goo somewhere but otherwise featureless, and in that one ocean, perhaps in a tidepool somewhere, was floating one, single, cell. That cell began to divide, and the resulting divisions and mutations eventually led to all life, including us.

So then your saying the Phd in post 978 is wrong?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3619767#post3619767

 

[wahrheit]

So then your saying the Phd in this post is wrong

DOC, could you do me a very big favor? Please stop your argument by authority thing. Please, stop it. In every other post of yours you use it. It's getting old, and very, very annoying.

Thank you!

 

[DOC]

Speaking about failing to read things, care to comment on the posts from Worm and me? Do you understand why this article you keep linking fails to support your position?

So are you saying the Phd. in the article did not understand the concept of lateral gene transfer (that by the way he included in the article) when he wrote that "all life from bacterial to humans came from one cell"?