Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[Paulhoff]

The origin of life is a crucial part (if not the most important question) of the Theist/Atheist debate. Yet I contend that most atheists are not aware that all life (the blue whales, the insects, the elephants, the octopuses, the trees in the redwood forests, the butterflies, the cactus, the humans, all the dinosaurs, and the multi-millions of other plant and animal species) that have ever existed are descended from the "same" one celled organism. (according to modern science)

I would estimate that no more than 10 percent of all atheists know that modern science believes that all the millions of "plant and animal" species that have ever existed came from the "same" organism (and that first organism that we all came from was a one celled bacteria).

Well, I see no sign of any testing on this, it has no credit. It at best is only an opinion.

Paul

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

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

Considering what a well written and succinct mail you sent I'm not surprised. Well done and thanks.

 

[DOC]

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

Bravo Worm!

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

One has to wonder why there seems to be elation that a scientist says we are not sure if all life came from one cell. This fact seems like it should be met with indifference. It's almost like your thinking "thank goodness they're not certain all life came from the same specific cell." This perceived elation supports what I've been saying. It would make a difference to a lot of atheists if all life came from a single cell.

But I still maintain if you read his article, Poole gives the impression that the preponderance of the evidence is that all life came from one cell:


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


" LUCA is not the name of a famous scientist in the field; it is shorthand for Last Universal Common Ancestor, a single cell that lived perhaps 3 or 4 billion years ago, and from which all life has since evolved. Amazingly, every living thing we see around us (and many more that we can only see with the aid of a microscope) is related. As far as we can tell, life on Earth arose only once...


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)...

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

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

 

[joobz]

One has to wonder why there seems to be elation that a scientist says we are not sure if all life came from one cell. This fact seems like it should be met with indifference. It's almost like your thinking "thank goodness they're not certain all life came from the same specific cell."

The Elation is over Worm actually contacting the author and getting his opinion. That is a commendable action and one that should be congratulated.

Regarding the content of Poole's email, It is clear that Poole's point is in direct line with what everyone here (but you) has been saying. Science has no concrete answer regarding LUCA. That's called honesty. Honesty is a virtue.

But I still maintain if you read his article, Poole gives the impression that the preponderance of the evidence is that all life came from one cell.

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

DOC, are you insane? The author just said what his opinion is. You are going to hold fast to the claim that the author is wrong about what the author said?

Everyone here (but you) who read the article guessed what that this would be his opinion. There is only one honorable action for you to take now, and I wonder if you will actually do it.

 

[DOC]

The Elation is over Worm actually contacting the author and getting his opinion. That is a commendable action and one that should be congratulated.

I disagree that is the total reason for the elation. And why did Worm even go through the trouble of contacting the author unless it mattered in some large way.

DOC, are you insane? The author just said what his opinion is. You are going to hold fast to the claim that the author is wrong about what the author said?

I'm not "sure" that OJ Simpson killed Nicole, but at least to a civil jury the preponderance of the evidence said he did.

 

[Worm]

From that posted article:

Conclusion: LUCA is still a puzzle but science continues to find pieces of the puzzle.

So he's less than certain about LUCA - as his email make abundantly clear.

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

Now this is only one scientist's opinion of course - but a very well qualified scientist, and one that you, DOC, decided was in favour of your position.

In fact, from reading the fuller accompanying article, it appears to me that Dr Poole tends to the opinion that yes, there was a single LUCA, but he is also cognisent of the fact that the possibly of horizontal gene transfer may invalidate much of the mapping that back up this approach.

The fact that seems to emerge is that nobody is really sure whether horizontal gene transfer is a major issue or not, and there isn't really enough evidence to resolve the matter at the moment.

So what does science say about our origins? In short : We're not sure.

 

[Worm]

I disagree that is the total reason for the elation. And why did Worm even go through the trouble of contacting the author unless it mattered in some large way.

I went to the trouble becuase it wasn't really much effort, and it would resolve the issue of exactly what Dr Poole's view on the single cell theory is. (at least, I thought it would, clearly I was being wildly optimistic)

It doesn't matter in 'some large way' at all - firing off a quick email took all of about a minute, it took me longer to find his email address. If you really want to know what someone thinks - you ask them what they think, you don't guess.

 

[Worm]

I'm not "sure" that OJ Simpson killed Nicole, but at least to a civil jury the preponderance of the evidence said he did.

The point at the moment isn't whether Dr Poole is right ot not, but what his opinion is.

To follow your analogy, the point under question is not whether or not OJ killed Nicole, but whether he says that he killed her.

I think most people would agree that he proclaims his innoncence. Or did I miss a meeting?

 

[Meadmaker]

But I still maintain if you read his article, Poole gives the impression that the preponderance of the evidence is that all life came from one cell:

I'll echo what joobz said, that no one here was the least surprised by his reply.

He did say something very close to the above. However, he added a few things to it, things which have already been added by others, myself included, throughout the thread. First, it wasn't "the preponderance of the evidence". Rather, it was a likely conclusion from a model. Second, he noted there was great debate and uncertainty whether the cell contained all of the ancestral DNA, or if other genetic material came from other cells. Third, he very specifically noted that the one cell from which life likely descended was not the only cell in existence at the time.

I've tried to engage you in a conversation about what you mean by "all life descended from a single cell", compared to what Poole et. al. mean by that statement. I've also tried to ask why you think it's significant to the acceptance of atheism. These are questions you apparently don't find interesting, because you don't address them.

 

[joobz]

I disagree that is the total reason for the elation.

And you do so in opposition to reality.

I'm not "sure" that OJ Simpson killed Nicole, but at least to a civil jury the preponderance of the evidence said he did.

This is complete nonsense. How does this answer my question?

Are you going to hold fast to the claim that the author is wrong about what the author said?

 

[zooterkin]

This perceived elation supports what I've been saying. It would make a difference to a lot of atheists if all life came from a single cell.

You've failed to explain why this should be so. Exactly what difference would it make to atheists whether life came from a single cell or an initial colony or group of cells?

Why do you persist in implying that only atheists believe evolution to be the best explanation for the diversity of life we see on earth?


ETA: From a scientific point of view, yes, it would be fascinating to know whether a single cell could be identified as an ancestor or not. But it makes no difference to the principle.

 

[Ocelot]

But I still maintain if you read his article, Poole gives the impression that the preponderance of the evidence is that all life came from one cell:

Well two can play at that game.

I've just read the above and concluded that DOC agrees that he was initially wrong, has appollogised for any confusion and futhermore is now reconsidering his unsubstantiated preconceptions about the level of athiest understanding of what science says about origins.

Well done DOC, I tip my hat to you and your new found integrity.

 

[Upchurch]

That there was a beginning.

Wrong.

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

You didn't understand a word I was saying, then. Whether that is because of stubbornness on your part or an inability to explain how science works on my part, I don't know. Please consider the possibility that you might be wrong about the Big Bang and take it as an opportunity to educate yourself more about it.

If you think the Big Bang is some conspiracy of physicists to push some agenda, just consider this: Every physicist wants to be the next Newton or Einstein. Every physicist wants to be the first one to figure out that the currently accepted theory is flawed and that they are the ones to have the break through that will revolutionize our understanding of the universe. If there is a flaw in the Big Bang theory that can topple it, thousands of physicists with intimate understanding of the minutiae of it are looking for that flaw.

It's not there. At most, there have only been small corrections and/or refinements.

 

[Mashuna]

It's like the ID argument. There seems to be an assumption that Evolutionary theory and the Big Bang theory were some kind of default state, and scientists are clinging onto these theories in the face of an ID / Steady State challenge. This is backwards. The original theory for the start of the universe / life was creationism. This was overturned by alternative theories which had a better fit to the evidence.

 

[bruto]

I disagree that is the total reason for the elation. And why did Worm even go through the trouble of contacting the author unless it mattered in some large way.

Your capacity for denial is astonishing here, even for you. You keep harping on this point, as if the thought of a common ancestry is embarrassing, or disgusting, and would make an evolutionist rethink the theory, and further that somehow it would make a difference to acceptance if the LUCA were a single cell rather than, say, a community of them. Quite apart from the obvious question of why you think those who value scientific knowledge would reject a scientific finding on emotional grounds, can you never accept the plain and obvious fact that your aversion to that idea is simply not shared by others?

As to why Worm went to the trouble, it seems pretty obvious that he went to the trouble because he, unlike you, is interested in finding out what is actually true and accurate; and since you cited the article, he decided to find out what the author actually meant, rather than what you wish he meant. The actual subject of the article does not matter in such a large way as the disingenuous manner in which you have attempted to use it.

This whole thread continues to be based on a misreading of science, and a misreading of how people view it.

 

[The Man]

The quote is attributed to Bertrand Russell

Curiously, JEROME has omitted the sentence that follows

Thanks, six7s, I figured there was more missing then just who the quote is attributed to.

 

[The Man]

This whole thread continues to be based on a misreading of science, and a misreading of how people view it.

Not to mention the presumption of some as to how others might respond to a better understanding of, or some change in, what science currently says. It is the nature of science to improve, modify and completely re-evaluate what it says. This is the benefit of science over beliefs, opinions and presumptions, which generally undergo far less scrutiny, if any. Should anyone abandon science because of what science says, they improve their understanding of what science currently says, or the fact that what science says can and does change, then they never really understood the nature of science.

 

[Hokulele]

And why did Worm even go through the trouble of contacting the author unless it mattered in some large way.

I find it completely characteristic of your general incompetence when it comes to research that you would post this as a rhetorical question rather than simply asking Worm, especially when you know that he/she is posting in this thread. It also speaks to your inability to comprehend that primary sources (such as the words from the author's e-mail) carry more value than your bizarre reinterpretations of those sources, or worse, your bizarre reinterpretations of other people discussing those primary sources.

 

[skeptical]

There has to be a "poof" somewhere.

Organic molecules spontaneously form from non-organic molecules. If you want to call that a "poof", then so be it. From there all that is needed is various self-organizing chemistry and scaffolding to organize RNA such as a clay substrate, no further "poofing" needed.

Science ingeniously does not define life succinctly, it's definition is pliant.

Its not ingenious, its a vexing problem that permits no easy answer. Viruses exhibit nearly every aspect of "life" except that they cannot propagate on their own. Yet, they are nearly universally considered as "not life". Conversely, some microbes which arguable exhibit less complex behavior are "life" because they can reproduce. It all depends on the characteristics that one chooses to focus on. This is why it is an interesting area of research.

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.

So, is this your way of saying you have absolutely no idea or opinion on how life began on Earth? Forgive me, but it seem difficult to believe you have no opinion at all on the subject as there are a very limited number of explanations available. Therefore, I assume it is just that you are not willing to share your opinion, in which case I wish you would just say so explicitly.

 

[skeptical]

1 and 2.

Faith should be a reasonable expectation based on evidence.

Ok, so technically that was #3 (both).

If your definition of faith = reasonable expectation based on evidence, then that is your prerogative. However, that is not how the word is typically used in a religious sense. (this is the religion section)

Faith as it is used among religious adherents often has nothing whatsoever to do with evidence and in fact often requires one to ignore disconfirming evidence. Faith in the more prosaic usage _could_ mean a reasonable expectation, but it was not at all clear that was how you were using it. i.e. I have "faith" my car in the driveway because that was where I parked it last and it is usually there when I go back out to get it

I only bring this up because I often see multiple meanings of "faith" conjoined together, typically when a religious person wants to claim that science is just another "faith", so its no better than "faith" in their holy book. This of course obscures the difference between faith in the "reasonable expectation" sense and faith in the "belief without evidence or in the face of contrary evidence" sense.

If you meant faith as "reasonable expectation based on evidence" when referring to Phil, then I have no quarrel with it other than I dislike the use of the term "faith" in general outside of a religious context as it tends to obscure the discussion.