Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[Hokulele]

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

See as how that person you are citing is explaining various hypotheses of single versus multiple LUCA's, no, A.M. Poole is not wrong. You, on the other hand, are once again demonstrating poor reading comprehension in your use of this article.

What is horizontal gene transfer and what does it imply?

ETA: Judging by your latest response, you still haven't read the bulk of the article. It summarize, the author is describing what would need to be seen in the case of one LUCA, mutliple LUCA's, or even more complex development. You are taking the one comment regarding a single LUCA and assuming that is the point of the entire article. Read the article in its entirety, then read the paper linked to the article. Your insistence on taking that one phrase to be the author's conclusion is either dishonest (you are aware of this and are being deliberately misleading), or incompetent.

 

[DOC]

See as how that person you are citing is explaining various hypotheses of single versus multiple LUCA's, no, A.M. Poole is not wrong.

So when the Phd. says all life came from one cell and then explains why this is so, and then mentions other theories, are you saying that he is not implying that the theory that all life came from one cell is what he believes.

 

[Hokulele]

So when the Phd. says all life come from one cell and then explains why this is so, and then mentions other theories, are you saying that he is not implying that the theory that all life came from one cell is what he believes.

Correct. When you read a scientific article (or heck, any article), the most important sections are the introduction and the conclusion. These more clearly indicate what point the author is trying to get across. I always read those first, then go through the article to see how the author supports that point. Here is the conclusion to your article (as I had posted previously).

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. 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.

So, reading this paragraph, what do you think the author believes?

 

[Tanstaafl]

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!

So when the Phd. says all life came from one cell and then explains why this is so, and then mentions other theories, are you saying that he is not implying that the theory that all life came from one cell is what he believes.

 

[plumjam]

Wow, 28 pages.
DOC, I have to say I admire your persistence and resolve.

 

[zooterkin]

Speaking about failing to read things, care to comment on the posts from Worm and me?

Mine, too. There was even one immediately before one of DOC's, so I don't think he can have missed it. Unless of course he has me on ignore for some reason.

 

[bokonon]

Wow, 28 pages.
DOC, I have to say I admire your persistence and resolve.

He might be a fundibot...

 

[joobz]

Wow, 28 pages.
DOC, I have to say I admire your persistence and resolve.

Being willfully and persistently wrong is admirable?

 

[schlitt]

Birds of a feather.

 

[Olowkow]

I'm no bible expert, but I seem to remember that it says Adam was created from dust...non life. I could be wrong. If so, what do theists know about what religion says about creation of life? From life or non-life?

 

[Meadmaker]

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

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

No, I'm asking a question about what you think, not about what he thinks. Perhaps I'll read the article. If you tell me that your opinion matches with his, then I'll certainly read the article, but other than that, it would serve no purpose.

To repeat:

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: With apologies to Upchurch about the use of "teaches". He's quite right, of course.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The only alternatives to abiogenesis involve the invocation of magic or infinite regression. Magic is seriously lacking in evidence, and infinite regression is just silly.

Or time is circular.

Yes, based on evidence, and the evidence we have so far all points to the Big Bang as the origin of the Universe.

Based on the evidence we have life only comes from life.

Should we never attempt to draw conclusions from the evidence?

Of course we should, but conclusions built upon educated guesses on top of educated guesses should not be used to find the answer to another speculation in a different venue.

The Big Bang is, far and away, the best explanation for the evidence at hand, and over the past century, as more and more evidence has been gathered, it has all pointed to the Big Bang.

The currently best explanation is many times incorrect. Science is designed to revise explanations on a continuing basis. Your argument seems to be that science should build upon what we know is likely to be incorrect in some aspect or another.

If all you have to offer is, "well it might be wrong", then I'm afraid that you're adding nothing to the debate. Yes, it might be wrong, but saying that without offering an alternative is unproductive, and repeating it over and over is (no vitriol intended) just silly.

Saying that life comes from non-life based upon the Big Bang is an illogical extrapolation of the evidence at the expense of the evidence that life does not come from non-life.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Why should someone present evidence to counteract your assertion of what "science does teach." It's your assertion that requires evidence.

Because the title of the thread is: Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins


It seems that this thread is evidence of the assertion presented in the OP.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Science just keeps pecking away at these problems.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/07/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang/

From the above link:

The problem is, right at that moment, at T=0, our laws of physics… well, they stall out. You wind up dividing by zero a lot, which causes a lot of headaches. You get things like zero volume and infinite density of matter and energy. It’s not that this moment didn’t exist physically, or that something impossible happened, it’s just that the math we currently use can’t describe it. And let me be clear: what happened after that one moment we can model fairly well. We may not have a complete picture, and the model may yet be supplanted (more on that in a moment), but we have a relatively (har har) good grasp on how the Universe behaved after T=+0.0000000000000…1 seconds. But at T=0, fuggeddaboutit. And T<0? The way the math works, that question doesn’t even make sense.

The laws of physics and math do not work to explain the Big Bang, yet this is the accepted explanation. Do you not see how this is not scientific? This is only wishful thinking!

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe.

The theory is built upon the unfounded premise that there was a beginning of time and a beginning of the universe. Data extracted by humans tends to "fit" into the premises we build. We know of no matter which is static yet we are to assume that at some point in the past that all the matter in the universe was static. The idea of the Big Bang rests upon a thought which belies our data.

 

[joobz]

From the above link:


The laws of physics and math do not work to explain the Big Bang, yet this is the accepted explanation. Do you not see how this is not scientific? This is only wishful thinking!

You have an alternative, more complete hypothesis?

 

[The Man]

Or time is circular. .

Saying that life comes from non-life based upon the Big Bang is an illogical extrapolation of the evidence at the expense of the evidence that life does not come from non-life.

No it is a completely logical extrapolation. But unfortunately your understanding of logic equates to your understanding of time.

The laws of physics and math do not work to explain the Big Bang, yet this is the accepted explanation. Do you not see how this is not scientific? This is only wishful thinking!

Big bang evidence;

Cosmic Microwave Background, predicted by Big Bang Cosmology (also, the inhomogeneities in the CMB also agree with BB Cosmology).
Expansion of the Universe, as evidenced by galactic recession velocity increasing with redshift/distance, as predicted by Big Bang Cosmology.
Current ratios of elements, as predicted by Big Bang Cosmology and stellar Nucleosynthesis models.
Evolution of galaxies with distance, i.e. bluer galaxies (more star formation, younger stars) at higher redshift/distance, as predicted by Big Bang Cosmology.

Jerome, if you can explain all of the above in another simple, monolithic framework then please do.

Wow, you're really stretching. You said you wanted evidence.

Cosmic microwave background radiation fits the predictions of the Big Bang theory perfectly. Of course, there is other evidence as well. All of which points to the same thing.

Do you have something else that fits all this data just as well or better?

Been there.


Are you saying that none of it is true?

Okay:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0105/02bigbang/
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

Or we can spend years going over the fundamentals of cosmology if you really want to dig into the details. The point is, that it's there for you to learn if you really want to.

The fact that you are trapped in your own personal circular time is the only evidence you have ever presented on this thread.

 

[The Man]

Having posted on this thread from its inception and only recently becoming active again, one question comes to my mind. Can gametes be considered alive? Not being particularly versed in the current scientific biological publications or research (with current references on this specific aspect difficult to find) from my understanding by not being able to undergo meiosis or mitosis on it’s own an individual gamete may not technically be alive. From my limited understanding (and I hope some of the biological professional on this thread will expand that understanding) that a sperm might be considered much like a virus or DNA/RNA delivery system. Also from this limited understanding there may be some debate as to whether virons could be considered technically alive. What of an ovum could that be considered alive? I welcome all input both scientific and speculatory, but please, if you are speculating say so, if you have some references then please provide them.

Thanks

Dan “The Man”

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You have an alternative, more complete hypothesis?

I do not need one to logically discount a failed hypothesis.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

No it is a completely logical extrapolation. But unfortunately your understanding of logic equates to your understanding of time.

The fact that you are trapped in your own personal circular time is the only evidence you have ever presented on this thread.

Please explain why the laws of physics and math being violated by the Big Bang theory is acceptable.