Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Seems to me that you're arguing about abiogenesis, or evolution, or the big bang, or something. Otherwise you would just be arguing about arguing, for the sake of arguing. You wouldn't waste peoples' time like that would you?

Is it a waste of time to test logical thought?

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

BTW, I am not a creationist.

You're a liar.

 

[RandFan]

Doc,

I have to congratualate you. I may disagree with many of the things that you say. What's more I despise the denialist tactics that you use to avoid addressing the issues that simply prove you wrong but I have to admire how effective they are.

It's patently obvious to anybody who studied the polls that athiests have a slight tendancy to be better educated than theists. That atheists tend to have a better idea what science says about our origins than theists. Anybody with a halfway decent education, atheist or theist, knows that all life on earth has a shared genetic inherritance. Not only do they know that Darwin (and his contempories) deduced this and why but if they have taken a recent interest they will see the idea being upheld as this shared inheritance is being definitively examined through modern techniques of DNA sequencing.

By focusing on the minutae of details at tthe forefront of scientific specualtion you've fostered the appearence of dissent. This shared inherritance does it boil down to one single celled ancestor that was the first cell on earth. Perhaps the ancestral genes hail from a time before cellular life? Perhaps cellular life was well extablished at the time of the last universal common ancestor. What is life anyway, does it start when the first strand of RNA, DNA or only once cellular membranes have developed. Science doesn't know. Atheists don't know, Many atheists however do have a good idea what science says though. Certainly the idea that most atheists don't know that plants and animals are related is laughable.

And yet the thread drifts to the big bang. Some atheists are convinced that the big bang did happen, science knows that the universe was once in a hot dense state and has expanded since that time. Thanks to the finite speed of light we can actually see the universe as it was then. Science knows this, athiests know this. The forefront of scientific speculation deals with what happened before then, was there a singularity, did we bud off from another universe, was there a prime mover or was the universe initiated by a spontaneous event congtingent only upon it's own possibility. Science doesn't know this. Many atheists do however know what science does have to say on the matter. Some may for their own reasons place different levels of confidence in certain speculative aspects of the surrounding theories.

And yet though this apparent dissent is emptionally very resonant, though it is very effective at disguising the fact that most atheists do infact know what science say about their origins the truth of this is that such an argument would not even be possible all participants didn't know a great deal about the core facts.

And yet it looks to the unprobing mind like nobody knows what they're talking about. Fantastic. Well done DOC, another triumph of rhetoric over logic.

Great post!

 

[DOC]

Doc,

I have to congratualate you. I may disagree with many of the things that you say. What's more I despise the denialist tactics that you use to avoid addressing the issues that simply prove you wrong but I have to admire how effective they are.

What issues have I avoided that deal with the topic of this thread?

If you think I've avoided issues in other threads then go to those other threads and say what I've avoided in there. Those are the rules by the way. But I have a feeling you are going to mention something off topic, regardless of the rules.

 

[DOC]

...And yet it looks to the unprobing mind like nobody knows what they're talking about. Fantastic. Well done DOC, another triumph of rhetoric over logic.

So I'm to blame for the 70 or so people in here who you say look (to the unprobing mind) like they don't know what their talking about. Gee, I didn't know I had that much power. I guess I'm to blame for any sources people have brought in looking like the author of the sources didn't know what they were talking about either.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

What issues have I avoided that deal with the topic of this thread?

Here's just 1 example. I'll post more as time permits. Note that the only part of my post you reply to it to take personal umbrage, not address the points I raise.

I can asssure you that you are the only person confused by the content of that particular sentence.



DOC, I'm sorry, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and take the high road in dealing with you, but this assertion is simply a lie. You have been "complaining" (such as it is, rooted in scientific inaccuracy and all) about how "atheists" (meaning anyone who accepts evolutionary theory be they religious or not) supposedly don't know that all life evolved from a "single cell". Perhaps you're more ignorant of biology than I suspected, but you have been given multiple links to the base of the phylogenetic tree which demonstrate that while all eukaryotic life possibly or probably shares a common ancestor with all other eukaryotic life, you ignore in the above statement that your OP tried to conflate eukaryotes, bacteria, procaryotes, and viruses in suggesting that all life evolved from one cell when that's not what evolutionary theory suggests.

Leaving that ignorance on your part aside... again for a moment.. all eukaryotic life, which would include plants and animals coming from a common ancestor is the logical conclusion of common ancestry and evolutionary theory and is entirely consistent with the evidence - but that is not the same thing as your (well, current) suggestion that "all plants and animals evolved from a single primordial cell".

We've given you a number of links with a number of other links you could follow showing how all eukaryotic life is likely decended from a LUCA - which was a eukaryote and at that point had likely integrated a number of organelles from other organisms (single cellular) to give rise to eukaryotic single celled organisms and yet you chose to ignore those evidences and stick with your faulty OP premise or pathetically flawed quote mines of current papers abstracts which actually don't support your flawed premise. The complaint is not about your supposed "points", it's about the fact that you've ignored the 2000+ posts since the OP and the correction of the errors in it that you continue to ignore to this day.



You know, I have to wonder sometimes if you are naturally dense or if this is all a big troll, but, again, please stop with the childish appeals to authority, especially when, as Hokulele and others have demonstrated, you don't really understand the issue they were discussing.

There is evidence, especially in the organelles of eukaryotic cells that there is a connection between bacteria and eukaryotes. There is also evidence that viruses have injected parts of their DNA into eukaryotic cells which as become part of our DNA. This is very different than your assertion that "all life" is evolved from a "single cell". So the answer to your question is yes, not no. Humans do have genetic evidence of having evolved from bacteria and, despite your claims in the OP, anyone with more than a passing familiarity with evolutionary theory realizes and embraces this.



Yes, a eukaryotic cell, and a eukaryotic gamete cell most likely. For anyone who knows anything about evolutionary theory the "chicken and egg" cunondrum is a farce. Eggs existed before chickens by hundreds of millions of years, but more specifically, there was a first common ancestral chicken that existed not only as an ova, but as an oviparous egg before it was born so the answer is - the egg.

Your point?

Posted by Doc
The above statement makes no sense, period.




I stand by my statement. To imply that I did not read any of the 1007 messages that have been left in my thread up to that time when I have made 99 posts and most of them in response to other posts simply makes no sense. And then you add to that by speaking for what over 70 posters supposedly believe.

If some people don't like me that's fine. But to make posts that make no sense just to aggravate me or try to make me look bad just for the heck of it only hurts your credibility. I hope you reply because there is no way you can make sense out of the question "Did you not read the "1007 messages" that have been posted since then or did you just ignore their content?

If you meant to word that question differently, that is understandable. But if you want stand by that question and imply I did not read any of the 1007 posts, well that is your right I guess. Some people in these threads have got to realize that if you want to attack me you better be clear and logical in your attacks because I have no problem in picking apart your statements in front of everyone.

 

[Meadmaker]

What issues have I avoided that deal with the topic of this thread?

If you think I've avoided issues in other threads then go to those other threads and say what I've avoided in there. Those are the rules by the way. But I have a feeling you are going to mention something off topic, regardless of the rules.

You certainly haven't addressed anything I've asked.

Going back to the OP, there's a fairly simple conclusion. You're wrong. In other words, most atheists do know what science says about our origins. Science says that we descended from a single common ancestor.

We know that. Your assertion that most of us do not know that is mistaken.

The question that I find interesting is why you think that we didn't know that. You seem to think that our acceptance of atheism and/or evolution would be lessened if we truly understood the theory. To explore that topic, I've tried to engage you in a discussion of what you think about the prevailing scientific theories are, and the implications of those theories. However, you haven't shown much interest in that topic.

 

[joobz]

What issues have I avoided that deal with the topic of this thread?

If you think I've avoided issues in other threads then go to those other threads and say what I've avoided in there. Those are the rules by the way. But I have a feeling you are going to mention something off topic, regardless of the rules.

You quoted the first and last sentence of Ocelot's post, But I do not beleive that you read anything in the middle.

You continue to avoid issues in every thread. I've raised the issues and you've continued to avoid it. Your excuse is that the posts were "long and complicated."

 

[Ocelot]

What issues have I avoided that deal with the topic of this thread?

Perhpas you'd like to address this point?

It's patently obvious to anybody who studied the polls that athiests have a slight tendancy to be better educated than theists. That atheists tend to have a better idea what science says about our origins than theists. Anybody with a halfway decent education, atheist or theist, knows that all life on earth has a shared genetic inherritance.

How do you reconcile this reality to your views?

 

[Ocelot]

What issues have I avoided that deal with the topic of this thread?

Then there's this point regarding the appearnce of universal inherritance dealth with in the mainstream media.

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?

Would you care to comment?

In that post too I repeated the points you seemed to me to be evading.

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.

 

[Ocelot]

What issues have I avoided that deal with the topic of this thread?

Would you like to clarify your thoughts on this matter.

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 which if any of our many models of abiogenesis is an accurate description of life. We do 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 last one that we are all descended from.

 

[Ocelot]

What issues have I avoided that deal with the topic of this thread?

Do you have anything to say about false concensus bias whihc might explain why you persist in ideas about athiest understanding of evolution that do not seem to be bourne by the facts.

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]

If you think I've avoided issues in other threads then go to those other threads and say what I've avoided in there. Those are the rules by the way. But I have a feeling you are going to mention something off topic, regardless of the rules.

Nope everything I was talking about was relavent to the discussion at hand. Certainly withing the bounds of acceptable thread drift.

There was one comment I made regarding the issue of suicides vs atheism which I've now repeated in that thread as per your request.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3630534&postcount=629

 

[Ocelot]

What issues have I avoided that deal with the topic of this thread?

How about this? Do you wish to thank me for partially agreeing with you and then clarifying the current scientific understanding. Do you want to comment on my retaliatory use of rhetoric.

But modern science teaches we came from amphibians. Aren't frogs amphibians?

http://faculty.clintoncc.suny.edu/faculty/Michael.Gregory/files/Bio%20102/Bio%20102%20Laboratory/History%20of%20Life/History%20of%20Life.htm

And if we didn't come from frogs what amphibian did we come from?

Hi again Doc,

Yes the molecular evidence is unequivocal about this we have a common ancestor with Frogs.

That species is long dead. There are no living specimens, the best we have any right to expect of the fossils we have would be a close analogue or a more distant ancestor.

Disregard the pedants, I suppose a case could be made that our most recent common ancestor with frogs is not an amphibian. The most recently proposed phylogeny would seem to back this up.

http://whozoo.org/herps/tetrapods.htm

However if our most recent common ancestor with frogs were transported through time and landed on in a pickle jar on the desk of a modern day taxonomist we don't truly know what it would look like. Our speculation might have a fair amount to go on but it's still speculation. As such it might be something they would be forgiven for labelling as some sort of rare amphibian.

Looking at Ron's Publicity Photograph I'd guess he was a university student some time before the molecular evidence was available



And as an English student he was unlikely to have been formally educated with regards to evolutionary biology. Too basic an education to make the distinction between being descended from amphibians and having a common ancestor with one. Certainly if there's any benefit to be had from the distortion of information from creationists it's that it highlights where confusion can emerge (and be exploited) and thus improve the basic education we now give to people with regard to evolution (and prevent the deception by creationists). He probably was taught that we were descended from amphibians. That's only approximately correct but the distinctions can be subtle.

Also as an English student, novelist and English professor I see his use of "frog" instead of amphibian as poetic license. I know what it means.

It's rhetoric. Plain and simple. He doesn't believe in evolution and says so. He says so in an eloquent and poetic way. It's a memorable sound bite.

That's his specialisation, not evolutionary biology.

Of course it proves nothing. Rhetoric is not logic. It just has to sound convincing, it doesn't have to avoid fallacies, it doesn't even have to make any sense. We who are schooled in critical thinking know that just because a theme appears in a fairy tale, that does not mean that then when we find a similar theme in reality we must recheck our findings.

It's a new fallacy to be sure. I dub it Reductio ad Hans Christian Anderson. It's still fallacious.

In nursery school they taught me that the emperor with no clothes was a fairy tale. Reductio ad Hans Christian Anderson tell me that this means King George the VI never took his clothes off? An emperor with no clothes? Surely that's a fairy tale. Pshaw!

Clearly Reductio ad Hans Christian Anderson is clearly not a reliable indicator of truth. I have it on good authority that the English monarch always takes a bath once a year whether they need it or not.

If Ron has nothing logical, scientific or constructive to say on this issue then dare I respond on his own turf with rhetoric of my own?

Why yes I do, and as he's not a member so I can feel free to attack him personally without violating the MA - hurrah!

Ron, Ron, Ron. Dear naïve Ron. When was young I learnt of many things about evolution. The simplified story I first got was similar to yours in that we were descended from amphibians which were then assumed to remain pretty much static in their evolution once they'd served their anthropocentric purpose in spawning the reptiles on their long march toward evolution's ultimate crowning glory - us! However that was long before I went to grammar school. At age eleven we got a more accurate picture of what undirected evolution was and how it affected the lineage of our amphibian cousins over hundreds of millions of years just as much as our own.

It shocks me that at an age when I and my school chums were exploring double differential equations, organic chemistry or Latin conjugations, your deprived Salt Lake city education consisted of the same fairy tales that I learnt in nursery. That you had to wait until university before you were exposed to even the most over-simplified version of evolutionary theory probably explains your present ignorance. You have my deepest sympathy. Try however, please try to take a little less pride in your ignorance. You're a Christian after all and I understand that pride is considered a sin by your kind, even if ignorance isn't.

 

[arthwollipot]

Is it a waste of time to test logical thought?

Not at all.

But that's not what you're doing.

Except perhaps to provide a counterexample.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You're a liar.

Sticks and stones, child, sticks and stones.

 

[CriticalThanking]

Jarome,

I am really trying to figure out your position. But I can't see where you are putting forth some claim/proposition. I would like to understand 2 points.

1) Is it your position that most atheists do not understand the current state of scientific thought on abiogenisis? If so, do you have any data to support that?

2) Do you believe that Phil Plait thinks the evidence is poor that the big bang happened?

Thanks,

CT

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

J
1) Is it your position that most atheists do not understand the current state of scientific thought on abiogenisis? If so, do you have any data to support that?

Yes.

This thread.

2) Do you believe that Phil Plait thinks the evidence is poor that the big bang happened?

No, but he is blinded by his faith as to the meaning of the scientific data which he presents.

 

[The Man]

Yes.

This thread.



No, but he is blinded by his faith as to the meaning of the scientific data which he presents.

Hardly, most people on this thread theistic, atheistic or agnostic alike have clearly demonstrated that they understand what science says about the origins or life. The fact that you disagree with what science says, or have chosen to take the assertion that you have not made up your mind because you feel the data (for the big bang) is inconclusive does not diminish the knowledge of others as to what science says on either of those subjects. Nor does that fact that we remain unable to convince you of what science says and not what you (or anyone) choose to believe (if anything).

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Hardly, most people on this thread theistic, atheistic or agnostic alike have clearly demonstrated that they understand what science says about the origins or life. The fact that you disagree with what science says, or have chosen to take the assertion that you have not made up your mind because you feel the data (for the big bang) is inconclusive does not diminish the knowledge of others as to what science says on either of those subjects. Nor does that fact that we remain unable to convince you of what science says and not what you (or anyone) choose to believe (if anything).

Nope, most people on this thread have drawn conclusions twisted beyond the logic in the data learned from science so as to be able to fulfill their faith.