Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Way to shift the goalposts, Jerome. For someone who claims not to be a creationist, you're sure using the same tactics.

The goalpost is what athiests know about the origin of life. So far the OP is evidenced.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You're a stuck record Jerome, you keep asking for the evidence, then when it's presented you say it isn't relevant because the initial premise is incorrect, then when challenged about what initial premise that is you state what the conclusion is, then you fail to respond to people pointing out your error, then you start again.

When you can evidence the initial premise than we can move beyond it.

 

[arthwollipot]

The goalpost is what athiests know about the origin of life.

True. I apologise - you were not shifting the goalposts, you were bringing the discussion back to the topic.

 

[autumn1971]

Evidence is a noun, and I can not "noun" anything. Wish I could, but I just sidewalk it instead. Happens every time I try to lawn something.

 

[wollery]

When you can evidence the initial premise than we can move beyond it.

Ah yes, the initial premise that there was a beginning, which is actually the conclusion, not the premise at all.

Thank you for confirming my analysis.

 

[Mashuna]

No. Parts of a theory are incorrect and another theory explains the observations better, so you disregard the theory.

How are those theories about the origin of life working out? When will you disregard abiogenesis?

When you have:

• Evidence that invalidates abiogenesis as a theory.
• An alternative theory that explains the observations better.

Are you happy with the Big Bang Theory now? Can we agree that there was a time before any life, and now life exists, so there was new life arising at some point inbetween?

 

[devnull]

Then why do you support abiogenesis?

Abiogenesis isnt a theory AFAIK, its a word describing the overall idea of basic compounds forming into the higher level structures required to be considered the "genesis" of life.

There are several theories of abiogenesis. One of them involves some guy with a white beard, but I think that one has been rejected through lack of supporting evidence. There are other theories that are possibilities though.

Im not sure what all the fuss is about myself. I have no trouble visualizing life starting from basic elements. Other people have trouble understanding/contemplating easier concepts like evolution, so those poor suckers dont stand a chance really. Then there are those guys who mouth off that something isnt possible, simply because they dont understand it....... those guys are *weird*.

 

[arthwollipot]

And anyway, Mashuna had it right. There was a time when there was no life on earth. Now there is life. Therefore abiogenesis happened.

What people are trying to work out now is how abiogenesis happened.

 

[The Man]

JEROME DA GNOME’s signature

What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.

I prefer not to make unsubstantiated guesses to which the evidence does not point. I certainly understand why humans want to have answers, but I will not accept answers which are nothing more than beliefs based upon desire.

Jerome, it seems to me that in your desire not to fall into the trap exemplified in your signature, you have in fact become the perfect example of the fallacy that it warns against.

By the way who is the quote in your signature from?

 

[six7s]

The quote is attributed to Bertrand Russell

Curiously, JEROME has omitted the sentence that follows

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinise it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it.

If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.

The origin of myths is explained in this way.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

True. I apologise - you were not shifting the goalposts, you were bringing the discussion back to the topic.

He's bringing it closer, but not back to the OP, since the OP refers to all life evolving from a primordial form of life (a cell, an organism or populations of both), thus presumes extant life and therefore discussing abiogenesis is either moving the goalposts or off topic.

 

[Upchurch]

When you can evidence the initial premise than we can move beyond it.

Jerome, what do you think the "initial premise" is?

Have you read nothing that I've been writing?

 

[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

Nobody else in the last 5 months brought in a article like this. If you really cared about science you should thank me for bringing this info to your attention, instead of being antagonistic.

To return to the topic of DOC's favourite article. I contacted the author and asked for his comment on the idea of there being a single 'LUCA'. This is what I wrote :

Dr Poole

I hope you do not mind me contacting you in connection with this, hopefully it will be clear why I thought that this was necessary.

I am a member of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) forums (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php), on which a wide variety of subjects are discussed and debated, the paranormal, religion, science, philosophy and many others.

One long running discussion concerns the origins of life, and recently a paper that you wrote has been subject to some debate.

The paper in question is '/What is the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA)?/' from ActionBioScience - http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/poolearticle.html

The full discussion can be found here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95977

I am far from an expert in the biological sciences, but the point that seems to be under debate is whether your paper implies that all life evolved from a single cell - the LUCA, or whether there was more than one LUCA.

I suspect that the answer is "we're not sure" or "nobody really knows", but at least one poster on the JREF forums is of the opinion that you belive that all life is descended from a single unique cell.
This may not seem to be an exactly vital question, however the JREF forums hold accuracy and evidence in very high regard, and it is considered very important to make sure that facts are not subjected to undue interpretation.

I wondered whether you would be able to clarify your position regarding a single LUCA or the possibility of several LUCAs in simple terms? Also, would you object to me repeating your comments on the JREF forum?

I apologise for taking up your time, and feel free to ignore this message if you think that it is frivolous,

Thank you

and his very nice reply which cam into my Inbox today:

I'm more than happy to try and explain this issue. Let me first say that within the field, there is extensive debate as to the nature of the last universal common ancestor. The bottom line is that when we try and look that far back in time, the data that can be brought to bear on these questions are few and far between. Paleontologists face similar problems when trying to reconstruct extinct specimens from a small number of bone fragments. One can develop a model of how the whole animal may have looked from such data; some parts one has high confidence in, some parts one is less sure about. In the case of the question you ask, we are less sure.

The reason for describing LUCA in the singular is that we draw such a conclusion from depicting the relationships between species as an evolutionary tree. If the history of life can be described in terms of speciation events (i.e. the splitting of one species into two), then the tree will narrow down to a single branch. This would imply there was a common ancestor for all life. That ancestor - if it existed - would not have been a single cell living in isolation. It would have been a part of a population, and there could well have been plenty of other species present at the same time. We just can't tell, since there is no direct evidence for this, since these have gone extinct.

A complicating issue is whether the genes that we can trace back to LUCA can all be traced back to the same common ancestor. If they can't, then perhaps there were many contributing lineages. This could happen if early genes were transferred between species. Furthermore, because genes can be transferred between modern cells, there are those who argue that this gene transfer invalidates a tree of species. If that is the case, it is also possible that later gene transfer has erased any ancient genealogy.

While everyone accepts the reality of horizontal gene transfer, there is currently plenty of debate within the community as to its impact on the tree and on our ability to answer these deep evolutionary questions.

So it's fair to say that we're not sure whether all life really did descend from a single cell.

Hope this helps!

Best regards,

Anthony

 

[Hokulele]

To return to the topic of DOC's favourite article. I contacted the author and asked for his comment on the idea of there being a single 'LUCA'. This is what I wrote :

Wonderful, Worm! Thanks for helping to keep the "E" in JREF.

 

[six7s]

To return to the topic of DOC's favourite article. I contacted the author and asked for his comment on the idea of there being a single 'LUCA'.

Bravo Worm!

You're obviously a True Scottish sceptic, sourcing evidence from the 'horses mouth' (cf the posterior orifice)

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Jerome, what do you think the "initial premise" is?

That there was a beginning.

Have you read nothing that I've been writing?

All of it, I just see you extracting conclusions from the data which are not there.

 

[wollery]

That there was a beginning.

Hey, this is fun, can we go round again mummy?

All of it, I just see you extracting conclusions from the data which are not there.

And yet you won't actually say what conclusions, or what's wrong with the logic, or which data. You just keep repeating your mantra.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Hey, this is fun, can we go round again mummy?

I like this one better.


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

 

[wollery]

And still no sign of you actually addressing the science.

 

[arthwollipot]

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

And every atheist of my acquantance knows what science says about our origins. I don't know of a way to determine what "most" atheists know or do not know. Do you have any suggestions?