Knowledge of evolution is NOT essential to atheism at all.

[BenBurch]

Though many of the most prominent atheists have been evolutionists, and I know that Religionists believe that Origins are essential in the maintenance of their fairy tale, I don't feel that is the issue at all and has been a waste of time.

The essential fact of atheism is the profound lack of evidence of any sort for the existence of any kind of god.

It's not that we disbelieve, or that we believe something else based on evidence; it is that we see no more reason to believe in a god than we do to believe that yellow photons have a lemony flavor.

And by allowing ourselves to get derailed into Origins, though of course we need to fight woo in textbooks, we leave the impression that atheism rises or falls on that one question.

The fact that we cannot prove our narrative of Origins is immaterial because its just a working hypothesis, but we all agree that there was some sort of Origin.

But the fact that Religionists cannot prove a single miracle *is* essential to atheism.

And all it takes to quash atheism for all time is a single verifiable, study-able, measurable miracle. Lacking that there is no reason to believe that Religion is anything except a non-subject.

[H3LL]

As an Atheist, I'm also an Evolutionist, Atomicist, Matter and Energyist, Cell-ist, Germist, Plate Tectonian, Big Bangist, Chaosian, Quantum Mechanist, Special and General Relativist, Photonist, Electromagnetist, Nuclearian, Molecular Bondist, Thermodynamicistic, Homeostasisist, Constructivist and Gravitist.

-ist a theory for me, baby.

:D

[ParanoidAndroid]

Though many of the most prominent atheists have been evolutionists, and I know that Religionists believe that Origins are essential in the maintenance of their fairy tale, I don't feel that is the issue at all and has been a waste of time.

The essential fact of atheism is the profound lack of evidence of any sort for the existence of any kind of god.

It's not that we disbelieve, or that we believe something else based on evidence; it is that we see no more reason to believe in a god than we do to believe that yellow photons have a lemony flavor.

And by allowing ourselves to get derailed into Origins, though of course we need to fight woo in textbooks, we leave the impression that atheism rises or falls on that one question (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subject).

The fact that we cannot prove our narrative of Origins is immaterial because its just a working hypothesis, but we all agree that there was some sort of Origin.

But the fact that Religionists cannot prove a single miracle *is* essential to atheism.

And all it takes to quash atheism for all time is a single verifiable, study-able, measurable miracle. Lacking that there is no reason to believe that Religion is anything except a non-subject.


This is a woefully easy one: the fact that it is addressed by avid supporters and critics alike by definition makes it a sbject (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subject).

Keep 'em easy. ;)

[westprog]

As an Atheist, I'm also an Evolutionist, Atomicist, Matter and Energyist, Cell-ist, Germist, Plate Tectonian, Big Bangist, Chaosian, Quantum Mechanist, Special and General Relativist, Photonist, Electromagnetist, Nuclearian, Molecular Bondist, Thermodynamicistic, Homeostasisist, Constructivist and Gravitist.

-ist a theory for me, baby.

:D

And there's nothing there that would stop you being an agnostic or believer, if that's what you wanted.

It's only a minority of fundamentalists who consider evolution even an issue.

[Safe-Keeper]

The notion that the ToE and atheism go hand in hand, or that religious people can't believe in the ToE, seem to me to be mostly American-held beliefs, probably the result of a deliberate misinformation campaign (can someone more knowledgeable elaborate on this?). There are lots of religious people who also acknowledge that the ToE is a solid, proven theory for how we got here, just like heliocentric theory is a proven, solid theory describing how the Earth orbits the Sun.

[dglas]

The ToE is inconsistent with the Bible as literal truth.

It really depends upon the degree of sophistication (or should I say, plasticity) of the believer. Of course, then, anything is permitted.... :D

[BenBurch]

The ToE is inconsistent with the Bible as literal truth.

It really depends upon the degree of sophistication (or should I say, plasticity) of the believer. Of course, then, anything is permitted.... :D

The Bible isn't the only religious game in town, remember.

TOE might be inconsistent with the three Biblical religions, but Zen Buddhism says nothing about it whatsoever.

But neither fact has any bearing on atheism as it is not a belief but a lack thereof.

[qayak]

Evolution is not an issue for many religious people because they have to perform so many mind warps to hold onto their belief in their deity anyway. Evolution is just one more.

[westprog]

The ToE is inconsistent with the Bible as literal truth.

It really depends upon the degree of sophistication (or should I say, plasticity) of the believer. Of course, then, anything is permitted.... :D

The heliocentric theory is inconsistent with the Bible as literal truth.

I've a book in front of me right now - Religion Of Geology, Edward Hitchcock DD, LLD, written in 1851 - that's before Origin Of Species. It's a religious book which debunks the young earth theories and demonstrates that geology and religion are compatible.

As has been pointed out, evolution has been accepted by the mainstream of religion for a long time. Rejection of evolution is a quirk of Americans, like what they call football.

[DOC]

The ToE is inconsistent with the Bible as literal truth.

Not necessarily, Moses did pretty good job describing quasi-abiogenesis and a quasi-evolution creation with no science courses, no microscopes, and no telescopes:

Genesis 1:1a - the universe came first

Genesis 1:1b - then the earth

Gen 1:10 - then land and sea

Gen 1:21 - then life in the sea

Gen 1;24-25 - then land animals

Gen 1:27 - lastly humans

[Mashuna]

Not necessarily, Moses did pretty good job describing quasi-abiogenesis and a quasi-evolution creation with no science courses, no microscopes, and no telescopes:

Genesis 1:1a - the universe came first

Genesis 1:1b - then the earth

Gen 1:10 - then land and sea

Gen 1:21 - then life in the sea

Gen 1;24-25 - then land animals

Gen 1:27 - lastly humans


It's amazing how he managed to get the order so precise. If he weren't divinely inspired, he might have tried to claim that there was life in the sea before the sea existed. Or that the earth existed before the universe.

I mean, what are the odds?

[Gib]

Not necessarily, Moses did pretty good job describing quasi-abiogenesis and a quasi-evolution creation with no science courses, no microscopes, and no telescopes:

Genesis 1:1a - the universe came first

Genesis 1:1b - then the earth

Gen 1:10 - then land and sea

Gen 1:21 - then life in the sea

Gen 1;24-25 - then land animals

Gen 1:27 - lastly humans

Was it Moses who wrote Genesis ? I've never heard that before...

And what about how it says that whales were created before land animals, which we know is wrong.

And, what about Genesis 2, in which Adam was created first, then the animals, then Eve ? Contradicting reality, and the previous account in Genesis 1.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC

Not necessarily, Moses did pretty good job describing quasi-abiogenesis and a quasi-evolution creation with no science courses, no microscopes, and no telescopes:

Genesis 1:1a - the universe came first

Genesis 1:1b - then the earth

Gen 1:10 - then land and sea

Gen 1:21 - then life in the sea

Gen 1;24-25 - then land animals

Gen 1:27 - lastly humans


It's amazing how he managed to get the order so precise. If he weren't divinely inspired, he might have tried to claim that there was life in the sea before the sea existed. Or that the earth existed before the universe.

I mean, what are the odds?


Why not just have God create everything at once. Why did he have God create everything over a time frame?

And wouldn't it be logical for him to say God created humans first and then the fish and the animals for the enjoyment of humans. Especially since he later said that God gave man dominion over the world's creatures.

[aggle-rithm]

It's not that we disbelieve, or that we believe something else based on evidence; it is that we see no more reason to believe in a god than we do to believe that yellow photons have a lemony flavor.


Right; it's really more of an aftertaste.

[aggle-rithm]

Was it Moses who wrote Genesis ? I've never heard that before...


If he did, then he apparently had multiple personality disorder. Something else I don't really believe in, by the way.

[DOC]

Also the author of Genesis said woman came out of man. This fits in nicely with the theory that the first cell was asexual. Which means somewhere down the line a different type of cell had to come out of the asexual cells.

Why didn't the author of Genesis just say God created both man and woman at the same time. That would seem like the more easier and logical thing to claim.

[Mashuna]

Also Moses said woman came out of man. This fits in nicely with the theory that the first cell was asexual. Which means somewhere down the line a different type of cell had to come out of the asexual cells.

Why didn't the author of Genesis just say God created both man and woman at the same time. That would seem like the more easier and logical thing to do.

Well, except that men are not asexual (I'm certainly not, anyway). Or are you claiming that Adam was a single-celled organism?

As to why man and women were not created at the same time in Genesis. How about the book being written in a manner that places the woman in a subserviant role.

[DOC]

As to why man and women were not created at the same time in Genesis. How about the book being written in a manner that places the woman in a subserviant role.

Well then if that was the case then Genesis should have had God create humans first, since Genesis said humans had dominion over the world's creatures. But as pointed out humans were created last.

[DOC]

Well, except that men are not asexual (I'm certainly not, anyway). Or are you claiming that Adam was a single-celled organism?

Adam must have been asexual before Eve was created out of him -- according to the Bible.

[JoeEllison]

Are we still pretending that religion is something for intelligent and educated adults?

[Dancing David]

Also the author of Genesis said woman came out of man. This fits in nicely with the theory that the first cell was asexual. Which means somewhere down the line a different type of cell had to come out of the asexual cells.

Why didn't the author of Genesis just say God created both man and woman at the same time. That would seem like the more easier and logical thing to claim.

Except that man came out of woman, all critters are default female. males are the abberation of female. Which is just so cool, so if Mary had jesus by parthenogenesis, Jesus was a girl.


And you can be an atheist and believe in Intelligent Design. (To the OP)

[Lothian]

Also the author of Genesis said woman came out of man. This fits in nicely with the theory that the first cell was asexual. Which means somewhere down the line a different type of cell had to come out of the asexual cells.

Do you mean that

"Also the author of Genesis said woman came out of man. This fits in nicely with the theory that the first cell was male asexual. Which means somewhere down the line a different type of female cell had to come out of the male asexual cells?"

[DOC]

Are we still pretending that religion is something for intelligent and educated adults?

All 43 US presidents seemed to think so.

[Mashuna]

Adam must have been asexual before Eve was created out of him -- according to the Bible.

That's fine, if you're sticking to the 'according to the Bible' defence. But it doesn't work if you're trying to get a fit with science, does it?

[Mashuna]

Well then if that was the case then Genesis should have had God create humans first, since Genesis said humans had dominion over the world's creatures. But as pointed out humans were created last.

Why does dominion mean you have to be created first? I mean, you can't have dominion over things that don't exist, can you. So creatures first, then man, then dominion.

[Lothian]

All 43 US presidents seemed to think so.BZZZZZZZ


Repetition

[DOC]

That's fine, if you're sticking to the 'according to the Bible' defence. But it doesn't work if you're trying to get a fit with science, does it?

Well, I don't have all the answers. But why so many correlations between Genesis and science?

See posts 13, 16, 18, and 19, for correlations.

[Mashuna]

Well, I don't have all the answers. But why so many correlations between Genesis and science?

See posts 13, 16, 18, and 19, for correlations.


I've seen those posts. I've answered those posts. Other people have answered those posts. They aren't correlations. We've just been over this. Why go back to the same original points now?

[aggle-rithm]

Also the author of Genesis said woman came out of man. This fits in nicely with the theory that the first cell was asexual. Which means somewhere down the line a different type of cell had to come out of the asexual cells.


But this isn't consistent with the idea that speciation as described in the Bible corresponded with what we have learned from nature. It's like God started with the sea, and fish, then moved to the land animals, and the birds, then man, then said, "Oh, by the way, there was asexual reproduction in there, too. I'll refer to it metaphorically while telling the story of Adam and Eve."


Why didn't the author of Genesis just say God created both man and woman at the same time. That would seem like the more easier and logical thing to claim.

The author did. It's that part that says, "Then God said, Let us make man in our image ... in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

It then goes on to describe God making Man from dust, and tells the story of Adam and Eve -- but it's a different story. If you read carefully you'll see differences in details between the two sections.

[X]

Also the author of Genesis said woman came out of man. This fits in nicely with the theory that the first cell was asexual. Which means somewhere down the line a different type of cell had to come out of the asexual cells.

Why didn't the author of Genesis just say God created both man and woman at the same time. That would seem like the more easier and logical thing to claim.

Well, except that men are not asexual (I'm certainly not, anyway). Or are you claiming that Adam was a single-celled organism?

As to why man and women were not created at the same time in Genesis. How about the book being written in a manner that places the woman in a subserviant role.

Adam must have been asexual before Eve was created out of him -- according to the Bible.



So, since god made women from a mans rib, it proves that the man was a primitive, asexual, single-celled organism?
How does a primitive, asexual, single-celled organism have a rib?
Seriously, if you are going to claim that Adam (the first man) was a single-celled organism, doesn't that utterly destroy everything else in Genesis (which was not written by Moses, in fact, the two creation accounts had different authors and were written at different times, but that's off-topic in this thread) which portrays Adam as human?

Or are humans all single-celled organisms?

[aggle-rithm]

Well, I don't have all the answers. But why so many correlations between Genesis and science?

See posts 13, 16, 18, and 19, for correlations.

There are many contradictions as well. Saying that plants appeared AFTER Man (in Genesis 2:5) contradicts what we know about science. It also contradicts Genesis chapter 1.

[DoubtingStephen]

Are we still pretending that religion is something for intelligent and educated adults?

Nominated for the pith award!

[aggle-rithm]

;3680149']
How does a primitive, asexual, single-celled organism have a rib?

I don't know, but them's good eatin'. ;)

[aggle-rithm]

Are we still pretending that religion is something for intelligent and educated adults?

Ahem.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89871

[X]

To bring me back on topic:
I agree that knowledge of evolution is not essential to atheism.
Nor is atheism essential to knowledge of evolution.

Take a look at the Raelians...

[Piscivore]

Adam must have been asexual before Eve was created out of him -- according to the Bible.
You're forgetting about the apocryphal "Book of Steve".

;3680149']How does a primitive, asexual, single-celled organism have a rib?
Ribosome?

Or are humans all single-celled organisms?
From the point of view of the Elder Things... pretty much.

[X]

Ribosome?


I'd nominate that, but I'm too busy groaning.

[joobz]

But why so many correlations between Genesis and science?
there are?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201%20;&version=50;#fen-NKJV-2a)] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.Earth was formless and dark but there was water.... Ok. I couldn't even make it past the second sentence in genesis and find a science/bible contradiction. Where did this water come from and why is floating seperately from the earth?
Strike 1.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. God divided light and dark to form day or night? I see nothing here that resembles anything close to our understanding of em radiation. It claims that dark/light are to seperate substances to be seperated and form day and night.

Strike 2

Instead, we know that the light from the sun is continously forming and that the day/night cycle froms from the spinning of the earth. There is nothing here that comes close to looking like a earth rotational theory.
Strike 3
6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day. a firmament in the Sky??? You do you know that no such firmament exists around the world, right?
Strike 4.
9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Stars were created AFTER the creation of light? Strike 5.
The sun (our light) was created before all other stars?
Strike 6.
Stars were created AFTER the plants on earth were formed?
Strike 7.

20 Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.”
Life in waters came AFTER terrestrial plant life?
Strike 8.

Just 20 sentences and 8 glaringly HUGE contradictions between Science and genesis. That's almost a contradiction for every alternate sentence.

[BenBurch]

And you can be an atheist and believe in Intelligent Design. (To the OP)

But to do so you only push back the problem of Origins to another planet.

And there wasn't much TIME after there were planets at all to when OUR planet had life.

Intelligent aliens were very unlikely to have evolved by then.

So, its really a silly belief.

[Darat]

If there's one thing this thread has proved is that knowledge of evolution is NOT essential to theism at all.

[BenBurch]

All 43 US presidents seemed to think so.

seemed

In public.

The reality of American politics is that if you are an atheist, you are a closeted atheist.

[Upchurch]

All 43 US presidents seemed to think so.

seemed

In public.

The reality of American politics is that if you are an atheist, you are a closeted atheist.

Abraham Lincoln (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln#Early_life)
For some time, Thomas Lincoln, Abraham's father, was a respected and relatively affluent citizen of the Kentucky backcountry. He had purchased the Sinking Spring Farm in December of 1808 for $200 cash and assumption of a debt. The family belonged to a Hardshell Baptist church, although Abraham himself never joined their church, or any other church for that matter.


Also (http://www.adherents.com/people/pl/Abraham_Lincoln.html)
Considerable uncertainty arises... when Lincoln's own religion is examined... it is obvious that Christianity exerted a profound influence on his life. His father was a member of Regular Baptist churches in Kentucky and Indiana. Lincoln himself read the Bible throughout his life, quoted from it extensively... during his years as president he did regularly attend the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington. On the other hand, Lincoln never joined a church nor ever made a clear profession of standard Christian beliefs... Lincoln's friend Jesse Fell [suggested that Lincoln's views on Christian theology] were not orthodox... It is probable that Lincoln was turned against organized Christianity by his experiences as a young man in New Salem, Illinois, where excessive emotion and bitter sectarian quarrels marked yearly camp meetings and the ministry of traveling preachers. Yet although Lincoln was not a church member, he did ponder the eternal significance of his own circumstances...


Also also (http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/steiner0.htm)
Before I wrote my Abbott letter, I diligently searched through Lincoln's letters, speeches, state papers, etc., to find the word immortality, and I could not find it anywhere except in his letter to his father. The word immortality appears but once in his writings.

If he had been asked the plain question, "Do you know that a God exists?" he would have said: "I do not know that a God exists."

At one moment of his life I know that he was an Atheist. I was preparing a speech on Kansas, and in it, like nearly all reformers, I invoked God. He made me wipe out that word and substitute the word Maker, affirming that said Maker was a principle of the universe. When he went to Washington he did the same to a friend there.

[westprog]

Abraham Lincoln (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln#Early_life)


I think it's fairly clear from the quotes given that Lincoln was quite an unsatisfactory Atheist. I don't think that the anti-religious posters here would have much sympathy with his ideas about a "Maker" of the Universe.

[Upchurch]

I think it's fairly clear from the quotes given that Lincoln was quite an unsatisfactory Atheist. I don't think that the anti-religious posters here would have much sympathy with his ideas about a "Maker" of the Universe.
You missed my point. I was speaking within Ben's context of a closeted atheist.

Plus to your point, you'll note that Herndon related that Lincoln considered "Maker" to be a "principle of the universe" and not any sort of being.

[westprog]

You missed my point. I was speaking within Ben's context of a closeted atheist.


I've no doubt that in order to be President, you have to admit to all kinds of beliefs. Hilary has to be a Christian, want to nuke Iran, and love curly fries.

Plus to your point, you'll note that Herndon related that Lincoln considered "Maker" to be a "principle of the universe" and not any sort of being.

It's a different thing from atheism though,which disclaims any sort of a maker.

[lupus_in_fabula]

I agree with the title: you don’t have to know anything about the theory of evolution in order to not buy into any fairytale about some gods. I’m surprised this is even considered an issue in the first place.

I think that if all people would grow up without any indoctrination in regards theistic beliefs whatsoever, and then at some adult age when rational thinking has evolved sufficiently enough, were asked to make a decision whether to believe in some deity or not, most would think the theistic proposition as ludicrous.

[Upchurch]

It's a different thing from atheism though,which disclaims any sort of a maker.
What? Atheists aren't allowed to use metaphors?

[Gregory]

All 43 US presidents seemed to think so.

So what? Do you think I, or JoeEllison, or anyone, gets up in the morning and says, "Today, I'm going to aspire to be more like Zachery Taylor"?

[Alric]

Going back to Genesis. I've always been amazed about how God created everything in the dark. He created the heavens and the earth and THEN he said "let there be light"!!

Personally, the first thing I do before work is turn the light on.

The bible also fails to impress in geometry. Some sort of cauldron in the temple of solomon is described to measure 10 cubits in diamter and 30 cubits in circumference. The circumference by the diamter should be 3.1416, not 3.

[DOC]

Responding to people talking about Lincoln. Lincoln, like many, had doubts about religion early in his life. But after going through the Civil War, one might say he had a change of heart. Here is an excerpt from his 2nd inaugural address:

...The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." 3
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres32.html

[Upchurch]

Responding to people talking about Lincoln. Lincoln, like many, had doubts about religion early in his life. But after going through the Civil War, one might say he had a change of heart. Here is an excerpt from his 2nd inaugural address:
His public address? The one he made to the voting public?

Check the context, DOC. Try to understand what is being said, then make your point.

eta: you'll notice that the last quote I posted above was written by a personal friend of Lincoln's after his death. No mention of a change of heart.

[DOC]

His public address? The one he made to the voting public?

Check the context, DOC. Try to understand what is being said, then make your point.

So you're implying that Lincoln was being a slick politician, worried about public opinion, when he said things like this:

"Yet, if God wills that it {Civil War} continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

[Hokulele]

All 43 US presidents seemed to think so.


Hey look! An appeal to authority and an appeal to popularity in only 8 words! One would think that DOC would have learned something about logical fallacies in his time here, but sadly, it does not appear to be the case.

[shadron]

So you're implying that Lincoln was being a slick politician, worried about public opinion, when he said things like this:

"Yet, if God wills that it {Civil War} continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

IMHO, that's a big 10-4 there, good buddy. Lincoln was a politician, first and foremost. He knew what sort of talk would get the results he wanted or needed politically. He also knew that the long history of Bible-think is a very prolific ground for metaphor and example that ordinary people could remember, follow, and act upon. There is no doubt that this sort of rhetoric didn't need to be interpreted, spun or explained to any common man in the US in 1860; it is what made tent preaching and revivals so potent in those times and afterwards.

[joobz]

Hi Doc, I see you abandoned your "science supports bible" claim. Smart move.

So you're implying that Lincoln was being a slick politician, worried about public opinion, when he said things like this:What do you mean by "slick Politician". Isn't a politician's job to get elected and determine government policy? Using metaphorical language that helps acheive that goal isn't dishonest.

"Yet, if God wills that it {Civil War} continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
Do you mean to say that you think Lincoln actually believes that "a drop of blood" to "wounded soldier" accounting is required or do you think that's merely a metaphor?

If that is a metaphor, why not other parts of his statement?

[JoeEllison]

Hey look! An appeal to authority and an appeal to popularity in only 8 words! One would think that DOC would have learned something about logical fallacies in his time here, but sadly, it does not appear to be the case.

Maybe he's collecting logical fallacies like lack-of-merit badges?

[BenBurch]

Going back to Genesis. I've always been amazed about how God created everything in the dark. He created the heavens and the earth and THEN he said "let there be light"!!

Personally, the first thing I do before work is turn the light on.

The bible also fails to impress in geometry. Some sort of cauldron in the temple of solomon is described to measure 10 cubits in diamter and 30 cubits in circumference. The circumference by the diamter should be 3.1416, not 3.

I actually had a Christian tell me this was because YHVH warped space in that spot.

[Gregory]

The bible also fails to impress in geometry. Some sort of cauldron in the temple of solomon is described to measure 10 cubits in diamter and 30 cubits in circumference. The circumference by the diamter should be 3.1416, not 3.

It amazes me that some atheists think this matters.

The Bible rounds down pi, therefore it isn't divinely inspired? That's a rather impressive leap of logic, if you ask me. I guess it's sort of an argument against absolute hard-core literalism, but other than that, it hardly seems very important.

[Foster Zygote]

God divided light and dark to form day or night? I see nothing here that resembles anything close to our understanding of em radiation. It claims that dark/light are to seperate substances to be seperated and form day and night.

Not to mention Genesis has the Earth formed before the sun as well as light being formed before the sun. It doesn't even reference the sun as the source of light, it identifies the sun as a marker to distinguish light from dark. And you've got to love the part about the sky being sandwiched between water.

[arthwollipot]

If there's one thing this thread has proved is that knowledge of evolution is NOT essential to theism at all.As if we needed any proof of that.

I actually had a Christian tell me this was because YHVH warped space in that spot.It would be possible in a non-Euclidean universe...

[Hokulele]

It amazes me that some atheists think this matters.

The Bible rounds down pi, therefore it isn't divinely inspired? That's a rather impressive leap of logic, if you ask me. I guess it's sort of an argument against absolute hard-core literalism, but other than that, it hardly seems very important.


The important point being made is that the bible is not a science textbook, which is what DOC is arguing. Most Christians would agree that the bible should not be used as the basis for determining which scientific facts and theories to accept, but there are always a few who disagree . . .

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=97347

[Lothian]

I guess it's sort of an argument against absolute hard-core literalism, .Gregory meet Doc. Doc meet Gregory.

[DOC]

If there's one thing this thread has proved is that knowledge of evolution is NOT essential to theism at all.

Theists don't need evolution to be true, but atheists do.

The author of this thread said "knowledge" of evolution is not essential to atheism. That might be true. But Evolution itself must be true for atheism to have any ground to stand on.

But even if evolution is true that doesn't mean there is no God. Even the Catholic church has said that.

[Lothian]

Theists don't need evolution to be true, but atheists do.

The author of this thread said "knowledge" of evolution is not essential to atheism. That might be true. But Evolution itself must be true for atheism to have any ground to stand on.

But even if evolution is true that doesn't mean there is no God. Even the Catholic church has said that.
But even if evolution is wrong that doesn't mean there is a God.

Atheism only runs into problems if Goddidit is the answer.

You make the mistake of thinking there are two alternatives evolution or God did it.

[JoeEllison]

Theists don't need evolution to be true, but atheists do.

The author of this thread said "knowledge" of evolution is not essential to atheism. That might be true. But Evolution itself must be true for atheism to have any ground to stand on.

Gosh, how do you manage to get EVERYTHING wrong? The only ground atheism needs to stand on is a simple fact that every child learns: talking animals and magic are the stuff of fairy tales, not reality, and that big boys and girls know the difference.

[Darat]

Theists don't need evolution to be true, but atheists do.


...snip...

No I/we don't.

[Darat]

Folks keep to the thread topic and don't wander off the rails.

[Mashuna]

But even if evolution is true that doesn't mean there is no God. Even the Catholic church has said that.

Really? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you. I was sure that the Pope was about to give it all up, and say that evolution shows that God is unnecessary.

But you tell me that the church claim that there still might be a God? Well, I'll have to go and rethink it all then.

[DOC]

Gosh, how do you manage to get EVERYTHING wrong? The only ground atheism needs to stand on is a simple fact that every child learns: talking animals and magic are the stuff of fairy tales, not reality, and that big boys and girls know the difference.

It seems your saying it doesn't matter how we got here, we're here. Don't animals kind of react the same way?

[arthwollipot]

It seems your saying it doesn't matter how we got here, we're here. Don't animals kind of react the same way?Do you have a problem with that?

[JoeEllison]

It seems your saying it doesn't matter how we got here, we're here. Don't animals kind of react the same way?

It seems that you're willing to dishonestly twist anything and everything people say to support your fairy tale beliefs.

Here, I'll post it again, and we'll see if you actually attempt to understand what I'm saying:

The only ground atheism needs to stand on is a simple fact that every child learns: talking animals and magic are the stuff of fairy tales, not reality, and that big boys and girls know the difference.

Evolution isn't a requirement to rejecting lies and fairy tales. Evolution IS a useful fact that aids in advancements in the biological sciences, but it isn't a requirement for atheism.

Let's see how you twist that one... you Liars for Jesus are creative and consistent, if not accurate or honest.

[Mashuna]

Gosh, how do you manage to get EVERYTHING wrong? The only ground atheism needs to stand on is a simple fact that every child learns: talking animals and magic are the stuff of fairy tales, not reality, and that big boys and girls know the difference.

It seems your saying it doesn't matter how we got here, we're here. Don't animals kind of react the same way?

Which animals would these be? Remember, JoeE was the one saying that talking animals don't exist.

[JoeEllison]

Which animals would these be? Remember, JoeE was the one saying that talking animals don't exist.

:D

[joobz]

It seems your saying it doesn't matter how we got here, we're here. Don't animals kind of react the same way?
No, What he's saying is that if evolution is wrong, that doesn't mean goddidit is right. That's called a false diachotomy.

[arthwollipot]

Evolution isn't a requirement to rejecting lies and fairy tales. Evolution IS a useful fact that aids in advancements in the biological sciences, but it isn't a requirement for atheism.Although it is true that Richard Dawkins once said "evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist", that really doesn't matter in any way whatsoever to the present discussion. One can, for example, be an intellectually unfulfilled atheist. You can be an atheist and not care one whit how organisms have changed in history. Evolution is not a necessary component of atheism. Nor is atheism a necessary component of evolution. They happen to be more or less complementary, but so what? So are apples and cinnamon. That doesn't mean that you can't have apples without cinnamon, or cinnamon without apples!

[JoeEllison]

Although it is true that Richard Dawkins once said "evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist", that really doesn't matter in any way whatsoever to the present discussion. One can, for example, be an intellectually unfulfilled atheist. You can be an atheist and not care one whit how organisms have changed in history. Evolution is not a necessary component of atheism. Nor is atheism a necessary component of evolution. They happen to be more or less complementary, but so what? So are apples and cinnamon. That doesn't mean that you can't have apples without cinnamon, or cinnamon without apples!

Apples without cinnamon? Blasphemy!! :)

The whole thing is silly. I was an atheist long before I knew anything about biology. I didn't even link the two things together until I read about creationists rejecting reality in favor of superstition.

[Tricky]

I've seen those posts. I've answered those posts. Other people have answered those posts. They aren't correlations. We've just been over this. Why go back to the same original points now?
It's just standard operating proceedure.

Step 1: Ask questions for which you already have answers that you believe dogmatically.

Step 2: Receive non-dogmatic answers to question.

Step 3: Ignore answers.

Step 4: Go to Step 1


It's a dogma. Of course it's dogmatic.

[Mashuna]

It's just standard operating proceedure.

Step 1: Ask questions for which you already have answers that you believe dogmatically.

Step 2: Receive non-dogmatic answers to question.

Step 3: Ignore answers.

Step 4: Go to Step 1


It's a dogma. Of course it's dogmatic.

Now I feel guilty about spoiling DOC's dogma. I always liked dogmatix in the Asterix cartoons.

[bokonon]

Not to mention Genesis has the Earth formed before the sun as well as light being formed before the sun. It doesn't even reference the sun as the source of light, it identifies the sun as a marker to distinguish light from dark. And you've got to love the part about the sky being sandwiched between water.To be fair, light did exist before the sun. The earth didn't exist before light existed, but an argument can be made that the matter/energy shortly after the Big Bang which was "without form and void" (and would eventually be transformed to become the earth) existed before light existed. Water can be found above and below the sky, though its distribution is probably not what the authors of the Bible had in mind. And I don't have a problem with rounding pi to the nearest integer, especially when it's so close to the integer anyway, and the rope they were using to measure with probably had enough "stretch" in it to make it come out even.

There's plenty of evil endorsed in the Bible, which any moral person should rightfully reject. The creation myth isn't evil, and while it can't really be reconciled in its entirety with current scientific theory, I think it comes close enough that even a fundamentalist COULD conclude that he didn't have to reject science to hang on to his beliefs. Those fundamentalists are already ignoring or hand-waving away most of the evil bits, so letting their minds fuzz some of the "creation myth" details should be no big leap.

I like the approach that the recent government pamphlet on evolution took, acknowledging that people can have religious faith at the same time they recognize the scientific validity of the theory of evolution. If such an approach can persuade a few "Purpose-driven life" pods to find some purpose other than waging war on science (feeding and clothing the poor, perhaps?), I'm all for it.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Why didn't the author of Genesis just say God created both man and woman at the same time. That would seem like the more easier and logical thing to claim.

He did - in Genesis 1.

Genesis 2 is a different version of the creation story that (if I remember correctly) is linguistically older. There is also a creation story in Psalms and I believe at the end of Job.

[Foster Zygote]

Theists don't need evolution to be true, but atheists do.

The author of this thread said "knowledge" of evolution is not essential to atheism. That might be true. But Evolution itself must be true for atheism to have any ground to stand on.

But even if evolution is true that doesn't mean there is no God. Even the Catholic church has said that.

No DOC, all one needs to be an atheist is a lack of belief in gods. All an atheist needs to stand on is the observation that there is no reasonable evidence for the existence of gods. One could be an atheist and believe that the universe had no beginning and has always existed just as it does today.

However, a Biblical literalist who insists that the book of Genesis directly mirrors observed conditions of the universe very much needs the theory of evolution to be false.

[joobz]

To be fair, light did exist before the sun. The earth didn't exist before light existed, but an argument can be made that the matter/energy shortly after the Big Bang which was "without form and void" (and would eventually be transformed to become the earth) existed before light existed. Water can be found above and below the sky, though its distribution is probably not what the authors of the Bible had in mind. And I don't have a problem with rounding pi to the nearest integer, especially when it's so close to the integer anyway, and the rope they were using to measure with probably had enough "stretch" in it to make it come out even.

There's plenty of evil endorsed in the Bible, which any moral person should rightfully reject. The creation myth isn't evil, and while it can't really be reconciled in its entirety with current scientific theory, I think it comes close enough that even a fundamentalist COULD conclude that he didn't have to reject science to hang on to his beliefs. Those fundamentalists are already ignoring or hand-waving away most of the evil bits, so letting their minds fuzz some of the "creation myth" details should be no big leap.

You need a lot of poetic licence to have genesis and reality look similar. Allowing that much lee way would permit practically any origin of the world story to be seen as "in line" with science.

I am with you that it's fine to allow people to justify their beliefs however they wish. If it makes them happy, fine. I will not, however, stand idly by when they attempt to extend those wishful thinkings to crossover into the nonsensical realm of claiming that science proves their god is the true god.

[Gregory]

Theists don't need evolution to be true, but atheists do.

So it's your assertion that there were no atheists before Darwin published Origin of the Species?

[e11even]

Why didn't the author of Genesis just say God created both man and woman at the same time.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

[dglas]

Theists don't need evolution to be true, but atheists do.


Fallacy of false alternatives.
Atheism precludes creation by a god, but it can, in principle, work with any kind of non-god alternative. Atheists could, technically, be creationists, actually, as long as it didn't involve a god.

[Safe-Keeper]

"Atheism" is a collective term for people who don't believe there is a god. Just like "blond" is a collective term for people with yellowish hair. There really is nothing more to it than that. Trying to ascribe certain dogmas, traditions, etc. into atheism, like you associate such things with Christianity, is a failed endavour as atheism is not an organized religion.

To put it another way, saying that you have to believe in ToE to be classified as "atheist" is like saying you have to wear make-up and be happy-go-lucky 24/7 to be classified as blond.

Theists don't need evolution to be true, but atheists do. Brown-haired people don't need to spend all their money on short skirts, tops, high heels and cute clothing for their chihuahua, but blonds do.

But even if evolution is true that doesn't mean there is no God. Even the Catholic church has said that.No one here has said otherwise. The belief in modern democratic countries (Sweden, Taiwan, England, etc.) outside of dogmatic Christian USA is that the ToE and religion can peacefully co-exist. It's mostly in the States that it's turned into an issue.

[DoubtingStephen]

If we assume that such a person did exist, we can be certain that on the day that she was born the Holy Virgin Mary Mother of God was an atheist.

All children are born pure, free, slimy, and without any delusional beliefs in Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddies. Since atheism is defined as the absence of theistic delusions, all newborns are obviously atheists.

Again, assuming that such a person did exist, the Holy Virgin Mary Mother of God was not afflicted with any religious beliefs of any kind before she was exposed to the misguided actions of well meaning but ill informed primitive tribal people. This most likely would have happened, if she had existed, long before she was an underage child raped in her sleep by a sexist and mysoginistic so-called deity.

Since the Holy Virgin Mary Mother of God would have been born an atheist if she had been born, it therefore is not necessary to believe in evolution in order to be free of religious delusions.

Praise be to Darwin, and the islands upon which he learned, that we may enter into the spirit of believing what is real, and viciously ridiculing religions, in His name, with no mercy, no quarter, and no 700 club, forever and ever, amen.

[DOC]

Which animals would these be? Remember, JoeE was the one saying that talking animals don't exist.

Ever owned a parrot. And I saw a dog on TV once that sounded like he was making a real word. Heck, I even heard my own dog a long time ago make a noise like a word.

[Foster Zygote]

Ever owned a parrot. And I saw a dog on TV once that sounded like he was making a real word. Heck, I even heard my own dog a long time ago make a noise like a word.

Ever had a conversation with a parrot? Ever heard two wild parrots conversing with one another in a human language?

[DOC]

So it's your assertion that there were no atheists before Darwin published Origin of the Species?

Very few, and I believe the word atheism originally meant in ancient Greek days to believe in gods other than the accepted gods of your own region.

[DoubtingStephen]

Very few, and I believe the word atheism originally meant in ancient Greek days to believe in gods other than the accepted gods of your own region.

Are you suggesting that the League of Sky Fairies is working on a regional basis now?

[Civilized Worm]

Ever had a conversation with a parrot? Ever heard two wild parrots conversing with one another in a human language?


There was this one: http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/features/330feature1.shtml

[DOC]

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

When I say Paul McCartney created the songs Let it Be, and Michelle. That doesn't mean he created them at the same time.

[DoubtingStephen]

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

So if God made both women and men in Her image, does that mean that S/He is an hermaphrodite? Can God have sex with itself? Does S/He put out on the first date? Can God make a penis that is so big S/He can't take it all?

Does God evolve over time, becoming even more ridiculous and paradoxical as time goes on? Or is S/He too weak willed and feeble minded to improve Her-Himself?

If God is both male and female, and has that big long beard we often see in photographs, does that mean the female part is Italian?

[Dr H]

Why not just have God create everything at once. Why did he have God create everything over a time frame?

Well Hell, even God likes to go out for a pint or two at the end of the day.

[DOC]

Posted by Foster Zygote

Ever had a conversation with a parrot? Ever heard two wild parrots conversing with one another in a human language?


There was this one: http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/features/330feature1.shtml

That was interesting. I wish I had a parrot that had a dry sense of humor.

[Dr H]

Oops -- duplicate post deleted.

[Dr H]

Adam must have been asexual before Eve was created out of him -- according to the Bible.

More importantly: did Adam and Eve have navels?

And if so, why?

[Dr H]

God divided light and dark to form day or night? I see nothing here that resembles anything close to our understanding of em radiation. It claims that dark/light are to seperate substances to be seperated and form day and night.

While true that it's not the most widely accepted theory in modern physics, there are those doing serious work on this topic:

http://www.freakface.com/speedofdark/#experiment1

[Dr H]

The whole thing is silly. I was an atheist long before I knew anything about biology. I didn't even link the two things together until I read about creationists rejecting reality in favor of superstition.

Indeed: I learned about evolution long before I realized that I was an atheist. It just made sense, and was supported by experimental results.

Evolution wasn't a necessity for my being an atheist -- the church I was raised in pretty much considered the Biblical creation story/ies allegorical anyway.

[joobz]

Well, as I think about this question, I must conjecture what a natural system of life look like if evolution weren't true. Such a notion is rather difficult for me, because I do not know at which point we are supposed to assume evolution is false. Are we to say that the idea that natural selection and mutation doesn't result in diversity? Then why did we observe it? Or are we to say then that "Macroevolution" is only false. But then, why do we not a known mechanism which prevents "microevolutionary steps" from becoming macroevolution over long periods of time?

Or does he mean that all current observations which support evolution actually are explained by some other theory which requires a god to be real. But then why are there such evidences of the interconnectedness of species (e.g., 2/3 human chromosomal fusion) from an evolutionary perspective that if evolution wasn't real, it would imply that life contains intentionally missleading data.

It's much like asking "What would things look like if gravity weren't real."

Well, would this mean that we weren't actually held to the ground and were free to float, or that gravity didn't obey the inverse square law, or that only gravity to the earth was real but other masses didn't have gravitational pull on each other. All taken together, you can see how wierd it is to conjecture such situations since it requires an "unlearning" of facts that we know from our observations of the universe.

We would need to simply doubt everything we see and understand and simply chaulk up the universe to illogical systems that hold no self-consistent reality. Under these circumstances, I still do not see why a god would be needed.

[joobz]

Very few, and I believe the word atheism originally meant in ancient Greek days to believe in gods other than the accepted gods of your own region.There were no Buddhists before darwin??? Wow, I learn something new everyday.:rolleyes:

[westprog]

So it's your assertion that there were no atheists before Darwin published Origin of the Species?

It's an odd sort of contention. If evolution were not true, then there would be no real materialistic explanation of the origin of species. Some form of supernatural explanation would need to be found.

However, the point is moot, since evolution is true. It's no more than saying that atheism would be disproved by proof of the supernatural. Well, duh. The universe is on a balance, where a number of possibilities are open - apart from religious fundamentalism.

[Dr H]

So it's your assertion that there were no atheists before Darwin published Origin of the Species?
Very few, and I believe the word atheism originally meant in ancient Greek days to believe in gods other than the accepted gods of your own region.

This is just plain wrong. The literal meaning of the ancient Greek from which "atheism" was derived is "godless," from "a"=without + "theos"=god.

While it is true that the State in ancient Rome could accuse anyone of atheism who didn't believe in the particular gods which supposedly sanctioned the right of the State to rule, true godless atheism has exsisted at least since earliest recorded human history.

Buddhism, which developed over the 6th - 4th centuries BC has been a atheistic religious philosophy from the begining. By the 3rd century BC Buddhism had tens of thousands of followers in India alone.

Around 300 BC Democritus defined a philosophy of materialism which was godless in the strong atheist sense.

By 500 AD the Carvaka school pf philosophy was already well-developed in India. This outspokenly atheistic school of skepticism had thousands of followers and persisted until well into the 14th century..

There were plenty of atheists around during the Middle Ages and Renaissance as well, though their writings were often banned and collected bythe Church and destroyed (d'Holbach; Diderot; Hobbs; Marlolowe).

The word atheism entered English in the mid 16th century, well before the publication of "Origin of the Species." It seems rather unlikely that a new word would find its way in to the language unless it were needed to describe an already observed phenomenon.

From the mid 18th century on many books and pamphlets describing atheist philosophies were published in Europe, and many of them received wide circulation (E.g. Hume, Rousseau, Priestley, Feuerbach, et al)

Prior to the early 19th century atheists in the western world often called themselves followers of "natural religion," or "freethinkers"; more often they tended to be secretive about their atheism, since being openly atheistic could result in charges of heresy, with attendent imprisonment, torture, and execution.

All of this was decades, centuries, and even more than a millennium prior to Darwin. Whole books are available tracing the history of atheism in every historical period.

[DoubtingStephen]

More importantly: did Adam and Eve have navels?

And if so, why?

Was Adam circumcised? Who did it?

[Mashuna]

Ever owned a parrot. And I saw a dog on TV once that sounded like he was making a real word. Heck, I even heard my own dog a long time ago make a noise like a word.

You have to be careful, listening to your pets. Once they start telling you what to do, well, it's a slippery slope.

Wait, is your dog telling you what to post on these forums? Don't listen to him!

[Safe-Keeper]

You have to be careful, listening to your pets. Once they start telling you what to do...Right, as if there is a choice. Never owned a cat, have you:p?

[Foster Zygote]

There was this one: http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/features/330feature1.shtml

You'll have to color me skeptical about N'kisi. Especially considering that his handler Aimee Morgana (who is an artist and not, as far as I can tell, a linguist or an animal behaviorist) is currently conducting telepethy experiments with N'kisi with the support of Rupert Sheldrake.

Aimee is part of an emerging group of conceptually based artists interested in exploring our human relationship with Nature in work dealing with animals, biology, environmental concerns, and quantum aspects of consciousness.
Source (http://www.sheldrake.org/nkisi/).

Given the fact that an enthusiastic researcher can, even unconsciously, exaggerate the abilities of such animal subjects (think Hans, Koko and Alex) and the mention of "quantum aspects of consciousness" I'm going to need a lot more convincing.

[tsig]

Now I feel guilty about spoiling DOC's dogma. I always liked dogmatix in the Asterix cartoons.

Well dogma is a bitch that has all runts in her litters.

[Upchurch]

This is just plain wrong. The literal meaning of the ancient Greek from which "atheism" was derived is "godless," from "a"=without + "theos"=god.

support (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism)
Etymology:
Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

There were, indeed, those who did not believe in any god or gods prior to Darwin's theories.

[Gregory]

It's an odd sort of contention. If evolution were not true, then there would be no real materialistic explanation of the origin of species. Some form of supernatural explanation would need to be found.


If evolution was not true, it wouldn't mean that there was no materialistic explanation of the origin of the species; it would mean that one specific materialistic explanation was not true.

And Dr H, thanks for that; I knew about Buddhism as a counterexample, but most of that stuff is new to me; off to Wikipedia...

[bokonon]

I learned about evolution long before I realized that I was an atheist.Evolution is a gateway heresy.

[Civilized Worm]

You'll have to color me skeptical about N'kisi. Especially considering that his handler Aimee Morgana (who is an artist and not, as far as I can tell, a linguist or an animal behaviorist) is currently conducting telepethy experiments with N'kisi with the support of Rupert Sheldrake.


I thought N'kisi had died? Maybe there was another parrot I'm getting confused with.

[DoubtingStephen]

Evolution is a gateway heresy.

Brilliant!

[Foster Zygote]

I thought N'kisi had died? Maybe there was another parrot I'm getting confused with.

Alex died. He was another African gray parrot. He could identify shapes and colors and materials, as well as combinations of them. But he never put anything together with any syntax. The claims about N'kisi seem suspicious to me. The responses that he's claimed to have given, and even spontaneously offered, are light years ahead of Alex. All I can find so far are claims that he's said certain things, never any independent verification or video.

[Dr H]

Evolution is a gateway heresy.

Heh. But not a blasphemy, at least.

[Almo]

Adam must have been asexual before Eve was created out of him -- according to the Bible.

The Bible never ceases to amaze me. Or rather, the amount of attention paid to the Bible never ceases to amaze me. One of the terms of the use of the forum disallows me from stating my opinion of the Bible. And I don't like asterisks, either.

[Almo]

All 43 US presidents seemed to think so.

Some of the US presidents thought some rather incredibly stupid stuff. Their opinion on the matter isn't exactly relevant.

[DOC]

It's an odd sort of contention. If evolution were not true, then there would be no real materialistic explanation of the origin of species. Some form of supernatural explanation would need to be found.

Well put. That's why I don't understand how many atheists in here seem to be saying the theory of evolution is not important to their atheism.

However, the point is moot, since evolution is true...

So then you have no problem believing that all the millions of plant and animal species that exist, along with the dinosaurs, and all your family and friends came from the "same" cell (let's call him/her Herbie)... At least that seems to be the implication of the prevailing scientific thought according to this PHD.


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

"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"

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

[Hokulele]

DOC, you are being forgetful, dishonest, or incompetent again. Remember this exchange?

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 (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://forums.randi.org/forumindex.php (http://forums.randi.org/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 (http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/poolearticle.html)

The full discussion can be found here http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95977 (http://forums.randi.org/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

[BenBurch]

Theists don't need evolution to be true, but atheists do.

...

BZZZZZZZZT! Thanks for playing.

All life could have arisen 8000 years ago by spontaneous generation from rocks (as was supposed to happen regularly for many years in Western thought) and not evolved one iota, and atheism would not become non-viable.

Now, it so happens we know that evolution does happen, and is the reason for biodiversity on this planet, but if we did not know that it still would not point to a god.

Only evidence of a miracle that provably is a physical impossibility would ever, or could ever, prove a god.

It is this very lack of any concrete evidence of any sort that is the reason for atheism.

Again, atheism is not a belief or a religion, but a total lack of belief or religion.

[joobz]

Well put. That's why I don't understand how many atheists in here seem to be saying the theory of evolution is not important to their atheism.
Actually, DOC, it's not true. Evolution is simply the known process. But it doesn't mean that, if it isn't true, that there wouldn't be another materialistic explanation.

For instance, if the theory of gravity was false, that wouldn't mean that there wouldn't be another natural mechanism which could
describe material interactions.



So then you have no problem believing that all the millions of plant and animal species that exist, along with the dinosaurs, and all your family and friends came from the "same" cell (let's call him/her Herbie)... At least that seems to be the implication of the prevailing scientific thought according to this PHD.


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

"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"

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/poolearticle.html
and this part is the epitome of dishonesty. See Hokulele's post. DOC, misrepresenting another person's argument is "bearing false witness". according to the religion you supposedly practice, that's a HUGE moral violation.

But then again, you also said that the bible is a man-made amendable document. So, perhaps you don't beleive that the 10 commandments hold true.

[lupus_in_fabula]

So then you have no problem believing that all the millions of plant and animal species that exist, along with the dinosaurs, and all your family and friends came from the "same" cell (let's call him/her Herbie)... At least that seems to be the implication of the prevailing scientific thought according to this PHD.

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

"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"

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

And the thread goes on with brainwashed pride… :hypnotize

[westprog]

Well put. That's why I don't understand how many atheists in here seem to be saying the theory of evolution is not important to their atheism.


It's not important to them. Nor is it important to the millions of Christians who have no problem accepting evolution and the existence of God. It's really just important to a handful of fundamentalists. As I've noted before, there are fundamentalists among the atheists as well, who seem to regard evolution as landing some kind of killer blow.

So then you have no problem believing that all the millions of plant and animal species that exist, along with the dinosaurs, and all your family and friends came from the "same" cell (let's call him/her Herbie)... At least that seems to be the implication of the prevailing scientific thought according to this PHD.




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

"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"

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

Since a common source for all life on Earth is fundamental to the entire study of biology, I've no problem at all believing this.

If there are biologists who believe that different species, or genera, or other groupings, have seperate origins, they also have to accept that whatever created them took very good care to make it seem as if they all sprang from a common root.

[zooterkin]

Adam must have been asexual before Eve was created out of him -- according to the Bible.

Tell me, how many ribs do you think men have? Are they all paired? Is it the same number as women have?

[Safe-Keeper]

So then you have no problem believing that all the millions of plant and animal species that exist, along with the dinosaurs, and all your family and friends came from the "same" cell (let's call him/her Herbie)... At least that seems to be the implication of the prevailing scientific thought according to this PHD.You keep saying that as if it's somehow going to make people doubt evolution, even though we've explained to you multiple times that this is something the majority knows and doesn't bother most of us at all. Why?

[BenBurch]

You keep saying that as if it's somehow going to make people doubt evolution, even though we've explained to you multiple times that this is something the majority knows and doesn't bother most of us at all. Why?

I think its COOL!

I'm gonna design a T-shirt with an Amoeba on it with a "Hello My Name Is Herbie" sticker on it, and the slogan; We're All Cousins!

Nobody but me will get it, but that's OK.

(And yes, I know the Amoeba has more genes than we do and is nearly nothing like the LUCA.)

[Piscivore]

(let's call him/her Herbie)...

Hey, finally an idea of DOC's I can accept.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/28504824d6ebaf740.jpg

[Safe-Keeper]

At least it's a welcome change from "c'mon, people, do you really want to be descended from monkeys?!".

[BenBurch]

At least it's a welcome change from "c'mon, people, do you really want to be descended from monkeys?!".

You know, the funniest thing about that is, yes, yes, I DO want to be descended from something ancestral to both humans and monkeys!

I can't imagine why anybody would ever have an issue with that.

[Civilized Worm]

Evolution may not be essential to atheism, but it is important in that it demolished the most persuasive arguement the theists ever had which the arguement of design. So yes I would consider that something of a "killer blow".

[joobz]

Evolution may not be essential to atheism, but it is important in that it demolished the most persuasive arguement the theists ever had which the arguement of design. So yes I would consider that something of a "killer blow".
I wouldn't call it a killer blow, because theists can always claim that it was god which tipped the first domino.

The part I find curious is that if we do find proof that there is a god, it would only raise an insane number of questions for skeptics and scientists, while fore thiests it would most likely answer all of thiers. The question is, "Whose asking the right questions?"

[Civilized Worm]

I wouldn't call it a killer blow, because theists can always claim that it was god which tipped the first domino.


I didn't say evolution disproved got, merely that it eliminated the best arguement for god.

[BenBurch]

I didn't say evolution disproved got, merely that it eliminated the best arguement for god.

I don't even think it did that.

The Origins issue is not a good argument for a god. It has been spun INTO a perception that it is good argument, however.

If we talk about ANY of the origin myths of non-modern world religions, and assume that they were meant literally, then the thing that disproves them is not so much biogenesis but astronomy and geology. We can document deep time in astronomy; Deeper than these creation myths allow for. Geology likewise shows processes that absolutely require deep time.

Now if we go to the god of the deists, we absolutely can have deep time, because that god took no hand in any part of the universe once he triggered the big bang.

But such a god also did not send his son to suffer and die for sins he obviously couldn't care about, and there is no need for such a god to be omniscient, omnipresent, or omnipotent! Just as I can start processes I cannot see all of, be a part of, or control, so did "he" billions of years ago.

What we have there is a what is left of god when we have excluded all of the things that observations of empirical fact and the knowledge gained by science have proven are materialistic processes.

I mean, believe in that if you want to, but there is still no evidence for it, and if you argue by analogy, if all of the rest of this was materialistic in explanation, why not that too?

[Civilized Worm]

I'm not talking about origins I'm talking about the complexity and apparent design of living organisms. It took Darwin to show how there could be design without a conscious designer.

[DOC]

Quote from DOC

So then you have no problem believing that all the millions of plant and animal species that exist, along with the dinosaurs, and all your family and friends came from the "same" cell (let's call him/her Herbie)... At least that seems to be the implication of the prevailing scientific thought according to this PHD.

You keep saying that as if it's somehow going to make people doubt evolution, even though we've explained to you multiple times that this is something the majority knows and doesn't bother most of us at all. Why?

If the majority knows this then how come Houkele, Joobz and the person who wrote Mr. Poole, seem to be implying that my quote above is not the prevailing scientific view. Two of them even call me dishonest for saying it. So if what you say is true, then me being called dishonest for saying the above quote is totally false.

ETA

Not to mention that continuing to refer to someone as dishonest without merit seriously hurts a person's credibility. Personally I think some people are looking for shock value when they continue to use such words. But any shock value is offset by their credibility going down the tubes.

[joobz]

If the majority knows this then how come Houkele seems to be implying that my quote above is not the prevailing scientific view.
Safe-keeper was obviously referring to the concept of common ancestry.
Hokulele was being more exact in that we can not know if it was 1 single cellular entity or a population of similarly emergent entities.

Your inability to understand these nuances isn't a deficiency in their position but rather yours.

[DOC]

Safe-keeper was obviously referring to the concept of common ancestry.
Hokulele was being more exact in that we can not know if it was 1 single cellular entity or a population of similarly emergent entities.

Your inability to understand these nuances isn't a deficiency in their position but rather yours.

How can you say he was "obviously" referring to the concept of common ancestry when he specifically replied to my quote and he even bolded this:

"all the millions of plant and animal species that exist, along with the dinosaurs, and all your family and friends came from the "same" cell"

[joobz]

How can you say he was "obviously" referring to the concept of common ancestry when he specifically replied to my quote and he even bolded this:

"all the millions of plant and animal species that exist, along with the dinosaurs, and all your family and friends came from the "same" cell"
context, my dear man, context.

And the point he was referring to is that regardless of whether it was a single cell or a population of cells, there is nothing "shocking" about common ancestry. You are appealing to incredulity and desire for ignorance. I just don't respect such a view.

[DOC]

context, my dear man, context.

And the point he was referring to is that regardless of whether it was a single cell or a population of cells, there is nothing "shocking" about common ancestry...

So then you've changed your opinion from when you said this in another thread:

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.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3057629#post3057629

[joobz]

So then you've changed your opinion from when you said this in another thread:



http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3057629#post3057629
No. my opinion has remained the same. Thank you for quoting those posts. It's rather amusing watching you demonstrate your ignorance by behaving as if those two posts are in contradiction.

ETA: The sad part is the quote
But I get the sense that DOC doesn't really understand the terms he's using
still holds true. DOC, how is it possible that you don't learn?

[Hokulele]

DOC, how is it possible that you don't learn?


He doesn't want to learn. He is here to preach. Sadly, he appears to have mastered neither.

[westprog]

I didn't say evolution disproved god, merely that it eliminated the best argument for god.

Is that true? Certainly it appeared pre-Darwin that the variety of life could not possibly have a natural origin. Darwin, and his successors, demonstrated quite clearly that all the processes of life could be explained by chemical reactions.

So a natural universe became the only explanation? Well, no.

...six fundamental constants, which are believed to hold all around the universe. Each of these numbers is finely tuned in the sense that, if it were slightly different, and presumably unfriendly to life.

So the universe, as we know know it, appears specially made just for us. Is that a conclusive argument for God? Far from it. We simply don't know. It might be that a solid multiverse theory will simply explain the anomaly.

Certainly atheists won't find the universe bears the fingerprints of God. But the universe is not obviously undesigned. Someone who believed in God would not have his faith shaken by the values of the six numbers.

Atheists should not be greedy. They have plenty of arguments in their favour. At present, they can't use this particular one.

[BenBurch]

Is that true? Certainly it appeared pre-Darwin that the variety of life could not possibly have a natural origin. Darwin, and his successors, demonstrated quite clearly that all the processes of life could be explained by chemical reactions. ...

Not true!

There were a large variety of materialistic and/or non-divine explanations for living things.

Spontaneous generation, specifically, though the Platonic concept of forms is also not clearly a divine creation as it is not clear that the Demiurge was meant to be what we classically call a god. And there were concepts that fossils were life being formed in he rocks, differing from spontaneous generation in that spontaneous generation was taken to require slime like decaying matter or river mud.

By Darwin's time it was already known that classical notions of spontaneous generation were in trouble if not fully disproved. Darwin and Pasteur nailed the coffin shut.

[Alric]

But the universe is not obviously undesigned.

It is obviously undesigned. That is the point of evolution. There simply no evidence of design anywhere.

[westprog]

It is obviously undesigned. That is the point of evolution. There simply no evidence of design anywhere.

Life is clearly part of natural physical processes. The fact of the remarkable precision of physical constants, as quoted in the previous post, remains unexplained.

There are atheists and/or physicists who don't find anything to explain. There are others who think that it's explicable, but the correct physical theory has not yet been found. But that remains opinion only. As it stands, the universe we know looks tailor made.

[Dr H]

I think its COOL!

I'm gonna design a T-shirt with an Amoeba on it with a "Hello My Name Is Herbie" sticker on it, and the slogan; We're All Cousins!

Nobody but me will get it, but that's OK.

(And yes, I know the Amoeba has more genes than we do and is nearly nothing like the LUCA.)

I started out sharing about 30% of my genetic material with yeast.
Through diligent home-brewing practices I've been able to work that up to 50%, and I'm not done yet.

[Thanz]

The theory of evolution is not essential to much, quite frankly. Most people's lives are not affected in the slightest by the level of their understanding of the theory of evolution. I am amazed and somewhat disheartened at the level of attention that this one scientific theory attracts.

[lupus_in_fabula]

The theory of evolution is not essential to much, quite frankly. Most people's lives are not affected in the slightest by the level of their understanding of the theory of evolution. I am amazed and somewhat disheartened at the level of attention that this one scientific theory attracts.

That’s pretty much true. It’s somewhat weird that people think that the minutiae of evolution theory would somehow be the decisive factor. The bottom line is however: Is there any reason to invoke some kind of god-superstition into the equation? What kind of mindset would lead someone to make such a hypothesis in the first place? Why is foolishness an option at all? If we don’t know, we don’t know… simple as that. Why pretend something else.

Fortunately physics, chemistry and biology does a pretty good job in explaining stuff thou!

[Silentknight]

Life is clearly part of natural physical processes. The fact of the remarkable precision of physical constants, as quoted in the previous post, remains unexplained.

There are atheists and/or physicists who don't find anything to explain. There are others who think that it's explicable, but the correct physical theory has not yet been found. But that remains opinion only. As it stands, the universe we know looks tailor made.

So you're saying that if things were different, things would be different? Yeah, that's pretty obvious. What's your point? Unless you can rule out the possibility of life having arisen if the precise physical constants been slightly different, your argument doesn't really go anywhere.

[westprog]

So you're saying that if things were different, things would be different? Yeah, that's pretty obvious. What's your point? Unless you can rule out the possibility of life having arisen if the precise physical constants been slightly different, your argument doesn't really go anywhere.

We can't rule it out entirely - but if the physical constants were different, then as far as we can tell, we'd have a universe without chemistry.

[westprog]

Not true!

There were a large variety of materialistic and/or non-divine explanations for living things.

Spontaneous generation, specifically, though the Platonic concept of forms is also not clearly a divine creation as it is not clear that the Demiurge was meant to be what we classically call a god. And there were concepts that fossils were life being formed in he rocks, differing from spontaneous generation in that spontaneous generation was taken to require slime like decaying matter or river mud.

By Darwin's time it was already known that classical notions of spontaneous generation were in trouble if not fully disproved. Darwin and Pasteur nailed the coffin shut.

The critical point is that pre-Darwin, life was unexplained. Post-Darwin, it was comprehensible.

We're at the pre-explanation point for the fundamental constants of the universe. There's no sound theory yet.

[Civilized Worm]

Is that true? Certainly it appeared pre-Darwin that the variety of life could not possibly have a natural origin. Darwin, and his successors, demonstrated quite clearly that all the processes of life could be explained by chemical reactions.

So a natural universe became the only explanation? Well, no.


So the universe, as we know know it, appears specially made just for us. Is that a conclusive argument for God? Far from it. We simply don't know. It might be that a solid multiverse theory will simply explain the anomaly.

Certainly atheists won't find the universe bears the fingerprints of God. But the universe is not obviously undesigned. Someone who believed in God would not have his faith shaken by the values of the six numbers.

Atheists should not be greedy. They have plenty of arguments in their favour. At present, they can't use this particular one.


That's a good point actually, I had forgotten that the arguement from design had reemerged in the field of cosmology thanks to the six constants, but I still don't think it's as compelling as the obvious design of living organisms*. You could also argue as Richard Dawkins does that Darwin has "raised our consiousness" to the possibility of natural explanations for apparent design.




*Design by natural selection of course.

[DOC]

context, my dear man, context.

And the point he was referring to is that regardless of whether it was a single cell or a population of cells, there is nothing "shocking" about common ancestry. You are appealing to incredulity and desire for ignorance. I just don't respect such a view.

So then you've changed your opinion from when you said this in another thread:

Posted by joobz
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.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3057629#post3057629

No. my opinion has remained the same. Thank you for quoting those posts. It's rather amusing watching you demonstrate your ignorance by behaving as if those two posts are in contradiction.

ETA: The sad part is the quote

still holds true. DOC, how is it possible that you don't learn?

You said no scientist is currently saying all life came from a single cell. This is a false statement.

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


"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."

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

_____

So I have shown you that you made a incorrect statement when you said no scientist is saying all life came from a single cell.

You then go on to say that such a concept is laughably absurd. Can you please explain once and for all with no general statements and no comments about me, What "specifically" did you consider "laughably absurd" when you said this?:

...no one claims life came from "one single cell". Such a view is laughably absurd...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3057629#post3057629

If you misspoke, or were just unaware of some scientists views about life evolving from one single cell it would be appropriate if you just admitted it.

[BenBurch]

And so what?

Only your misguided belief in your god fairy tale requires separate origins.

Go Herbie!

[joobz]

You said no scientist is currently saying all life came from a single cell. This is a false statement.

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


"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."

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

_____
And you know that worm clarified Dr. Poole's opinion. remember? He sent an email to dr. Poole, and Dr. Poole explained his use of the Singular.

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.



So I have shown you that you made a incorrect statement when you said no scientist is saying all life came from a single cell.
No you haven't. You have clearly shown that you do not understand evolutionary theory. Dr. Poole's own words support my position.

please explain once and for all with no general statements and no comments about me, What "specifically" did you consider "laughably absurd" when you said this?[/b]:
Yes. It is laughably absurd to claim that all life came from a single solitary cell. Even Dr. POOLE says that
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.


If you misspoke, or were just unaware of some scientists views about life evolving from one single cell it would be appropriate if you just admitted it.
I didn't misspeak, nor was I wrong.

Will you admit now that you are wrong and apologize for missrepresenting Dr. Poole's opinion?

[westprog]

That's a good point actually, I had forgotten that the arguement from design had reemerged in the field of cosmology thanks to the six constants, but I still don't think it's as compelling as the obvious design of living organisms*.


I think that it's a matter of how one feels about physics and the universe, rather than pure evidence.

The mechanistic universe which worked like clockwork was just coming together in the late nineteenth century. A comprehensive scientific view of everything that happened as working to the same set of comprehensible rules had started with Newton, and reached its apothesis just before Planck and Einstein wrecked everything.

You could also argue as Richard Dawkins does that Darwin has "raised our consiousness" to the possibility of natural explanations for apparent design.


I think that at the very least, intelligent deists who think that the six constants show evidence of design should at least consider the possibility that later physical discoveries will explain it all away.



*Design by natural selection of course.

[Alric]

And you know that worm clarified Dr. Poole's opinion. remember? He sent an email to dr. Poole, and Dr. Poole explained his use of the Singular.

I don't know who Dr. Poole is. However, his/her arguments are based on "what if" scenarios, all of which possible but with no evidence at this point.

At this point every single organism that has had genes sequenced shares homology with genes in other organisms. This is consistent only with a single ancestor.

The Dr. Poole examples you provide are a bit misleading. Even if the ancestor was part of a population or a hybrid of two individuals, it would still be a single ancestor.

Its the difference between what could have happened between what did (or we could prove) happened.

[Civilized Worm]

I think that at the very least, intelligent deists who think that the six constants show evidence of design should at least consider the possibility that later physical discoveries will explain it all away.


Agreed, basing your faith on a gap in scientific knowledge is like building a house on sand.

[joobz]

I don't know who Dr. Poole is. However, his/her arguments are based on "what if" scenarios, all of which possible but with no evidence at this point.

At this point every single organism that has had genes sequenced shares homology with genes in other organisms. This is consistent only with a single ancestor.

The Dr. Poole examples you provide are a bit misleading. Even if the ancestor was part of a population or a hybrid of two individuals, it would still be a single ancestor.

Its the difference between what could have happened between what did (or we could prove) happened.
That's exactly the point. Since the discovery of horizontal gene transfer, the idea that it MUST have been a single entity isn't valid.

ETA: DR. Poole has been DOC's frequent reference of a scientist claiming a single cell. Yet, Dr. Poole's view wasn't as distinct as DOC wishes. Science is still out on the nature of the LUCA, but that evolution suggests common anscestry isn't in doubt.
Only the exact form of that common anscetry is.

[Alric]

That's exactly the point. Since the discovery of horizontal gene transfer, the idea that it MUST have been a single entity isn't valid.

Even considering horizontal gene transfer, the point is that there were no separate lineages of evolution on earth. There was in effect one ancestral genome that arose after a single abiogenic event.

The only way you could demonstrate today that there was more than one instance of abiogenesis would be to find a lifeform with genes unrelated to the our branch.

[DeusPhasmatis]

So it's your assertion that there were no atheists before Darwin published Origin of the Species?

Everyone's born an atheist. THEY'RE STEALING OUR CHILDREN!

ETA:

There are atheists and/or physicists who don't find anything to explain. There are others who think that it's explicable, but the correct physical theory has not yet been found. But that remains opinion only. As it stands, the universe we know looks tailor made.

I see your false logic and raise you the Anthropic Principle. I mean, come on, a unique circumstance does not allow you to make broad generalizations about reality. Can you show me the universes that don't look tailor made? Hell, can you show me any other universe at all!? Where is your evidence for such a preposterous claim?

[joobz]

Even considering horizontal gene transfer, the point is that there were no separate lineages of evolution on earth. There was in effect one ancestral genome that arose after a single abiogenic event.

The only way you could demonstrate today that there was more than one instance of abiogenesis would be to find a lifeform with genes unrelated to the our branch.All we know is that life shares a common anscestral genome. That is not the same thing as saying a single solitary cell.

Would you be able to determine if the anscetral organism was a well defined lipid vesical or an assembly of mixed micellular systems?
Would you know if the emergent system occured as a solitary entity from a micellular system, or a co-emergence of RNA virii and cellular system?

Claiming it was a solitary cell imposes a set of assumptions that has no basis in the evidence.

[DOC]

Will you admit now that you are wrong and apologize for missrepresenting Dr. Poole's opinion?


How could I misrepresent his opinion when he said:


As far as we can tell, life on Earth arose only once.


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

[Civilized Worm]

Because he's clarified exactly what he meant and yet you still fail to take that into account.

[DOC]

All we know is that life shares a common anscestral genome. That is not the same thing as saying a single solitary cell.

Would you be able to determine if the anscetral organism was a well defined lipid vesical or an assembly of mixed micellular systems?
Would you know if the emergent system occured as a solitary entity from a micellular system, or a co-emergence of RNA virii and cellular system?

Claiming it was a solitary cell imposes a set of assumptions that has no basis in the evidence.

Do you believe there was a "first" cell? In other words do you believe there was a time in history when there was only one cell in existence. It seems you can't accept this.

[DOC]

How could I misrepresent his opinion when he said:


Quote by Poole

"As far as we can tell, life on Earth arose only once."

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newf...learticle.html


Because he's clarified exactly what he meant and yet you still fail to take that into account.

Where does he say that life on Earth (as far as we can tell) did "not" arise only once.

[Civilized Worm]

Oh sorry I thought you were back on the cell thing. It depends how you define "life".

[JoeEllison]

Because he's clarified exactly what he meant and yet you still fail to take that into account.

DOC ignoring reality? Again? Are you surprised? :D

[joobz]

Do you believe there was a "first" cell? In other words do you believe there was a time in history when there was only one cell in existence. It seems you can't accept this.
I believe that that is simply one of a number of hypotheses.

The fact that there is a common genome isn't in question. The question is what form the Original anscestor took is.

DOC, I always answer your questions, yet you fail to answer mine.

Do you acknowledge that Poole doesn't believe that there was a single solitary cell that started it all?

[westprog]

Do you believe there was a "first" cell? In other words do you believe there was a time in history when there was only one cell in existence. It seems you can't accept this.

That is not the implication of the claim that all life descended from a single cell. That does not imply that only a single cell existed at the time. Simply that no descendants of other cells survived.

This is a fairly pointless argument anyway, since the precise origins of life remain obscure, apart from the single obvious fact that all life has a single common origin.

[westprog]

Because he's clarified exactly what he meant and yet you still fail to take that into account.

A sign of honest argument is that one accepts the clarifications of ones opponent, and argues against the position he actually espouses. One doesn't, if seeking the truth, latch onto a position you've decided he holds even when he's made it perfectly clear that he doesn't.

It doesn't matter who's at fault for the misrepresentation either, unless it's persistent and obviously designed to mislead.

[BenBurch]

How could I misrepresent his opinion when he said:

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

Because his later words clarified his exact opinions, which you now know and I suspect you knew before.

You are bearing false witness against thy neighbor. Seems to me I heard of a certain YHVH who prohibited that?

Herbie would be ashamed of you if he were still around.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Civilized Worm
I didn't say evolution disproved got, merely that it eliminated the best arguement for god.

I don't even think it did that....If you believe in the original sin myth and especially if you are invested in Jesus dying to wipe the slate of that original sin clean, then evolution science does put some serious hurdles in the way for your beliefs.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The theory of evolution is not essential to much, quite frankly. Most people's lives are not affected in the slightest by the level of their understanding of the theory of evolution. I am amazed and somewhat disheartened at the level of attention that this one scientific theory attracts.While 'knowing' evolution theory may not be essential for the majority of the people on the planet, the actual theory is critical to all of modern medicine and many of the advances in agricultural practices as well. Maybe you don't need to know how that cancer cure works but the fact it does work is hardly something to trivialize.

And we could also argue that a lot of ignorance of evolution theory leads to a lot of woo, especially over GM foods, cloning, stem cell research, and politically speaking, ignorance of evolution theory is currently one reason religion promoters have gotten their foot in the door of our children's science classes. Then there is the fact that opposition to evolution theory is often mounted by attacking science itself.

There is a reason evolution theory attracts so much attention. It isn't because of this importance it plays in many scientific advances, but rather, it is because evolution theory draws so much opposition as it threatens many people's god beliefs.

[Skeptic Ginger]

And you know that worm clarified Dr. Poole's opinion. remember? He sent an email to dr. Poole, and Dr. Poole explained his use of the Singular....Joobz is correct here and anyone not understanding what is meant by last common ancestor should not only read joobz's post but also the following explanations of these concepts because they are easily misunderstood. It takes a bit of effort to understand these concepts but they are commonly used so it is worth the effort. They don't mean what they sound like they mean.

Last Common Ancestor
Most recent common ancestor [From this citation (http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf)] This study introduces a large-scale, detailed computer model of recent human history which suggests that the common ancestor of everyone alive today very likely lived between 2,000 and 5,000 years ago. Furthermore, the model indicates that nearly everyone living a few thousand years prior to that time is either the ancestor of no one or of all living humans.Which means there were humans before Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam.

Last universal ancestorMisconceptions

The LUA is not hypothesised as:

1. the first living organism ever.
2. the most primitive possible living organism.

Hypotheses

When LUA was hypothesized, cladograms based on genetic distance between living cells indicated that Archaea split early from the rest of life. This was inferred from the fact that all known archaeans were highly resistant to environmental extremes such as high salinity, temperature or acidity, and led some scientists to suggest that LUA evolved in areas like the deep ocean vents, where such extremes prevail today. But archaeans were discovered in less hostile environments and are now believed by many taxonomists to be more closely related to eukaryotes than bacteria, though this is still somewhat contentious.

It is possible that all of LUA's contemporaries became extinct and only LUA's genetic heritage lived to this day. Or, as proposed by Carl Woese, perhaps no individual organism can be considered a LUA, but the genetic heritage of all modern organisms derived through horizontal gene transfer among an ancient community of organisms.[4] Another hypothesis to explain the paucity of alternative life forms is panspermia, the inoculation of Earth by life carried on meteorites.BTW, the genetic evidence does not support panspermia if one is picturing life raining down on Earth multiple times, though there is no reason it could not have arrived once or extremely rarely.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Quote by Poole

"As far as we can tell, life on Earth arose only once."

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newf...learticle.html

Where does he say that life on Earth (as far as we can tell) did "not" arise only once.He says, "as far as we can tell". That means, according to the evidence to date, we only have evidence so far that life arose once. It does not mean we have evidence that life definitely only arose once.

It is unlikely we are going to find evidence that evolution theory is all wrong. We have overwhelming evidence that evolution theory is correct. But we can only say that current evidence suggests life arose once. That evidence is the fact that to date, all the genomes we have deciphered are related. We may find a genome we have not yet deciphered that will change the current conclusion.

[Skeptic Ginger]

That is not the implication of the claim that all life descended from a single cell. That does not imply that only a single cell existed at the time. Simply that no descendants of other cells survived.....Exactly, and that ancestors of the ancestor cell could have also existed which had the genetic code of the common ancestor cell. And what that allows for is the genes to have accumulated from organisms that were not complete cells.

There had to have been a single first cell at some point. How developed its parent organisms were is not fully known but it is likely that parts evolved first and eventually coalesced into a single cell. For example a cell membrane was likely an organized structure before the first single cell. Mitochondria and ribosomes appear to be organisms that were incorporated into the cell membrane before the first single cell emerged. Lots of these precursor structures could have existed before the first dividing first cell.

And we have examples of such precursor lifeforms today. Viruses replicate using developed cell structures. But they are not the only replicating life form which appears as an incomplete cell. Mycoplasma lack cell walls. Mycoplasma are in the family of Mollicutes which include a whole variety of these parasitic cells. The argument is often wrongly made that the fact none of these partial cell organisms exists without using whole cells, IE they are all parasites of some kind somehow means a similar organism might not have existed without the host. But it is a reasonable hypothesis that these parasites adapted to the lucrative life of mooching after they evolved originally in a less efficient non-mooching form.

But I digress a bit too far OT. I think we'll be resolving the abiogenesis question in the next few decades now that we have a good understanding of how DNA makes a life form.

[westprog]

I see your false logic and raise you the Anthropic Principle. I mean, come on, a unique circumstance does not allow you to make broad generalizations about reality. Can you show me the universes that don't look tailor made? Hell, can you show me any other universe at all!?

I think that you should take your view that their is no evidence for any other universe at all, andtalk to Professor Dawkins about his views about the matter.


It is indeed perfectly plausible that there is only one way for a universe to be. But why did that one way have to be such a set-up for our eventual evolution? Why did it have to be the kind of universe which seems almost as if, in the words of physicist Freeman Dyson, it 'must have known we were coming'?



Where is your evidence for such a preposterous claim?

I'm glad to find that there's no Dawkins fundamentalism.

[bokonon]

Do you believe there was a "first" cell? In other words do you believe there was a time in history when there was only one cell in existence. It seems you can't accept this.
I can accept it easily, just as I can accept that there may have been a "first" snowflake. Yes, I can believe there was a time in history when there was only one snowflake in existence, for a microsecond or so, before thousands of other snowflakes sprang into existence from the same set of conditions that had given rise to the first one. I can also believe that first snowflake melted before it hit the ground. It certainly isn't the case that the existence of a "first" means that is the source of all subsequent snowflakes.

We don't really know the organizational pathways matter took on its way from mere chemistry to self-perpetuating life. At one point, there may have been a number of experiments in life, but if so it looks like "DNA" was the most successful one. I think the "abiogenesis" question will have at least one satisfying answer before the end of the century, so while it may seem safe to put all your fundamentalist eggs in that basket for now, if I were you I'd be planning what to do when the bottom drops out.

[Skeptic Ginger]

... I can believe there was a time in history when there was only one snowflake in existence, for a microsecond or so, before thousands of other snowflakes sprang into existence from the same set of conditions that had given rise to the first one. ...Gosh this just gave me a wonderful contemplation about that first snow as the Earth cooled. Can you just imagine it?

[arthwollipot]

Gosh this just gave me a wonderful contemplation about that first snow as the Earth cooled. Can you just imagine it?I love those kinds of contemplations.

[Foster Zygote]

I think that you should take your view that their is no evidence for any other universe at all, andtalk to Professor Dawkins about his views about the matter.
It is indeed perfectly plausible that there is only one way for a universe to be. But why did that one way have to be such a set-up for our eventual evolution? Why did it have to be the kind of universe which seems almost as if, in the words of physicist Freeman Dyson, it 'must have known we were coming'?

You'll find that it is difficult to get away with quote mining on this forum. Could you provide a source for that paragraph? I know I've read it recently and I know that it is merely part of a greater discussion in which Dawkins explains why it is not self evident that the universe was made for us. If you can provide your source maybe we can read the rest of what Dawkins wrote on the subject.

[DeusPhasmatis]

You'll find that it is difficult to get away with quote mining on this forum. Could you provide a source for that paragraph? I know I've read it recently and I know that it is merely part of a greater discussion in which Dawkins explains why it is not self evident that the universe was made for us. If you can provide your source maybe we can read the rest of what Dawkins wrote on the subject.

It's from The God Delusion, and is part of his debunking (using the anthropic principle) of the universe-designed-for-life God proof.

[bokonon]

While 'knowing' evolution theory may not be essential for the majority of the people on the planet, the actual theory is critical to all of modern medicine and many of the advances in agricultural practices as well.
On the other hand, even the creationists seem, for the most part, to accept what they call "micro" evolution. That means they accept descent with modification, and natural selection. Is the fact that they imagine some artificial, ill-defined boundary that would prevent fishes from becoming lizards really going to impact modern medicine or crop production?

They acknowledge that DNA is responsible for an organism's characteristics, and that there are similarities between ape DNA, pig DNA, rat DNA, and human DNA. Presumably, then, even though they would deny a "common ancestor" for these mammals, they would still agree that drug testing in rats could yield important information about the drug's effects on human beings.

If humanity survives long enough, we may be able to observe (or engineer) something creationists would recognize as "macro" evolution. Most of the benefits to humanity will probably continue to come from the "science of DNA" rather than the theory of evolution per se. Historically, most of science has been mistaken most of the time, and yet, for the past 500 years or so, there has been steady progress nevertheless.

I think we need to vigorously oppose the teaching of re-branded creationism in any school we're in a position to influence, but I'm still (maybe "naive" is the word) enough that I don't consider the widespread ignorance pollsters tell me my fellow Americans embrace to be a cause for despair.

And we could also argue that a lot of ignorance of evolution theory leads to a lot of woo, especially over GM foods, cloning, stem cell research, and politically speaking, ignorance of evolution theory is currently one reason religion promoters have gotten their foot in the door of our children's science classes. Then there is the fact that opposition to evolution theory is often mounted by attacking science itself.
True. It isn't a benign thing, this IDiot movement, and fighting it will continue to be important.

[DOC]

Do you believe there was a "first" cell? In other words do you believe there was a time in history when there was only one cell in existence. It seems you {joobz} can't accept this.


I believe that that is simply one of a number of hypotheses.

But it is the prevailing hypothesis, don't you agree. If not what is the prevailing hypothesis?



The fact that there is a common genome isn't in question. The question is what form the Original anscestor took is.


Whatever form it was there would have to be a "first" of that form. Don't you agree?



Do you acknowledge that Poole doesn't believe that there was a single solitary cell that started it all?

No, he talks about a population of cells. But that population would of had to have started out as one cell. If it didn't, then life would have arisen more than once, and Poole would have contradicted himself, because he said as far as we can tell life arose only once.

[joobz]

But it is the prevailing hypothesis, don't you agree. If not what is the prevailing hypothesis?Define Prevailing hypothesis? It's definitely the most common simplified version of abiogenesis, but that's not the same thing as saying the most common universally accepted version.



Whatever form it was there would have to be a "first" of that form. Don't you agree?Well, not really. no. The only reason to assume that there is 1 and only 1 single entity that all life started from is to assume that genetic information is only passed down through generations. Since we know that horizontal gene transfer is possible, the concept of 1 and only 1 is out the window.



No, he talks about a population of cells. But that population would of had to have started out as one cell.you need to reread his statement, because this isn't true.
If it didn't, then life would have arisen more than once, and Poole would have contradicted himself, because he said as far as we can tell life arose only once.
yes, he says that, but to say that there were multiple cell like things arising in concert doesn't mean multiple instances of life occuring.

I think before we can continue, you must answer the questions I've asked several times.

1.) How do you define life?
2.) What is Horizontal gene transfer and why does it matter?

[arthwollipot]

Whatever form it was there would have to be a "first" of that form. Don't you agree?Who was the "first" French speaker?

[bokonon]

Even considering horizontal gene transfer, the point is that there were no separate lineages of evolution on earth. There was in effect one ancestral genome that arose after a single abiogenic event.

The only way you could demonstrate today that there was more than one instance of abiogenesis would be to find a lifeform with genes unrelated to the our branch.
I don't think this is a given.

If a giant comet hit the earth tonight, and the only humans to survive were a boatload of people on a Carnival Cruise ship, there would be a few generations in which a single language was spoken (let's call it "DNA"). If mankind thrived and prospered once more, people might spread across the earth, and in a few hundred years we might have the equivalent of American English DNA, British English DNA, Australian English DNA, South African English DNA, etc. If travel is difficult, a few hundred years after that there might be French DNA and Spanish DNA. In a few thousand years, languages might once again be as different as English and Chinese, with only a few simple words betraying their common origin.

We know today that language arose many times independently, but in that time thousands of years in the future, it might appear that they all had a common origin, because of the bottleneck event.

[Poole] talks about a population of cells. But that population would of had to have started out as one cell. If it didn't, then life would have arisen more than once, and Poole would have contradicted himself, because he said as far as we can tell life arose only once.
No.

As far as we can tell, homo sapiens sapiens arose only once. That doesn't mean there was a single man at some point in time. There was a population of people who were slightly different than the population which preceded them. "Life," by the same token, could have been slightly different chemical reactions than the reactions which preceded them, something which made copies rather than simply reacting. The fact that certain sequences of DNA were the most successful combination, and thus went on to spread throughout the world, doesn't mean there could only be one piece of DNA in one cell membrane.

I don't know where you got this "Herbie the Highlander" fetish, but it's a pretty stupid idea to cling to, especially since it wouldn't prove anything you're trying to prove even if it was true.

[BenBurch]

Its actually nearly beyond doubt that life originated in a population of pre-biotic systems, still constituting a single origin of life.

But how does this address the topic I started, eh?

To re-direct; If nothing had ever evolved - If the earth were infinitely old, and if all creatures on it were unchanged in that eternity - we would still have no reason to think there was some vindictive YHVH or some churlish Hera who was responsible for it all.

Not one reason.

And in our current world, we have not one reason.

Not a single miracle can you point to! And even one would end atheism for all time.

So, we need to know nothing about Evolution. We need to know nothing about Origins (sorry, Herbie!) We need none of that to have our non-belief in a thing for which there is not a shred of evidence!

[bokonon]

Not a single miracle can you point to! And even one would end atheism for all time.
Lots of miracles have been claimed and pointed to, and none of them ended atheism for all time. The people claiming them are either dead or disbelieved. What is needed is some sort of universal miracle, so that each new generation, and each person in each generation, has a reason to believe.

Mohammed cited things like "boats float" and "the sky doesn't fall, yet no one can find the pillars which support it," but such things are less than convincing today. I suspect that most "universal miracles" would eventually come to seem less miraculous. Possibly, if "Oh Lord, we beseech thee" worked like a genie in a lamp, that would do the trick.

In the absence of a universal convincer, mundane miracles like sunshine and rainfall will probably have to carry the load, along with any coincidental healings or cheatings of "certain" death that can be attributed to prayer. By chipping away at the divine origin of mundane miracles, and applying its cursed "statistical methods" to the miraculous coincidences, science has eroded the convincers that were effective in former days. Believers can still regard their inner peace as a convincer, but the problem is that it mostly only convinces those who are already converted. That's why most fundamentalists (and some others) have regarded, and continue to regard, science as the enemy.

[BenBurch]

"mundane miracles?"

LOL

[Ocelot]

DOC

Didn't notice this thread until just now. I wondered where you'd been hiding ;-)

This cropped up in the other thread. You asked for details about how life could arise in population, in concert.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3724307&postcount=2141

I'd welcome your response.

On another note there are two types of atheist.

One has a lack of belief in God. The other has a belief in a lack of God.

My umberella stand does not believe in God. In fact you will hardly be suprised to hear that it has no capability for belief of any sort. It may be described as an atheist umbrella stand although such a description is somewhat trivial in only distinguishing it from the possibility of a certain slaves employed full time to mind wet weather equipment.

Whilst there are also undoubtedly people that fit the latter description they are are subset of the former. A lack of belief in God is the defining characteristic of an atheist rather than a belief in a lack of God.

Since my umbrella stand lacks the capability for belief of any kind it is clear that it does not believe in evolution.

It is not just inanimate objects for which this is true. My goldfish and my nine month old son also lack belief in either God or Evolution, neither has the capability to understand or assert such beliefs.

However what of the latter form of atheist, of which I am one. I do believe there is no God. It's a provissional belief based upon the lack of evidence or other valid reason to believe otherwise and as it is subject to change if presented with suitably compelling evidence it is not "faith" but "trust"

I also believe in evolution, but it is not my athiesm which drives me to believe in evoltution through natural selection but the overwhelming evidence. It is in fact, my rationalist approach to evidence that drive both positions. However other athiests may be so for differing reasons, or they may not have had access to the wealth of evidence for evolution.

Were it not for that evidence I would have as an atheist a fair selection of other explanations for the diversity of life on earth. It could have always been that way, I could believe in Lamarckism, a form of Proto Evolution which competed with Darwin's theories, or I could simply have never considered the issue.

Are there people who assert that God does not exist and at the same time deny evolution? Well that of course is the premise put forward by the inteligent design movement. That their chivvying away at the evidence for natural selection as sufficient explanation for speciation and higher taxonomical changes, has nothing to do with belief in God. They propose that the intelligent designer might be any natural or supernatural intelligence. However I have no reason to assert the integrity of that possition.

Instead I cite the athiest Piraha tribe of Brazil. Atheist for far longer than any possible exposure to the theory of evolution. Or how about these famous Atheists.

Baron d'Holbach (1723 - 1789) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_d%27Holbach)
Denis Diderot (1713 1784) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Diderot)
Claude Adrien Helvétius (1715 - 1771) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Adrien_Helv%C3%A9tius)
Julien Offray de La Mettrie (1709 - 1751) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julien_Offray_de_La_Mettrie)
Jean Meslier (1664 - 1729) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Meslier)

All of these died many decades before the birth of Charles Darwin.

Diagoras of Melos (5th century BC) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagoras_of_Melos) Died two millenia before the Birth of Charles Darwin.

All athiests with no possibility whatsoever of subscibing to the Theory of Evolution.

Clearly these examples prove beyond doubt that it is possible to be an atheist without believing in evolution.

[BenBurch]

Ocelot,

Well, I don't believe there is no god because I can in some way prove a negative. I believe there is no god because I see no reason to even suppose such a thing might exist. So, my non-belief in god is of the same character as my non-belief in flying horses or fire-breathing dragons or geese that lay eggs of gold or any other imaginative fantasy humans come up with from the realm of the mind.

Contrast this with things I actively believe do not exist, like I actively believe that there are no T. Rexes left on the planet. That is a provable negative. I have reason to suppose that there COULD be T. Rexes; I have seen "Sue" after all. So it is a valid thing to actually ask the question about. And I have reports of conditions on all continents and all parts of all continents none of which report predation by T. Rexes, and I have Google Earth where a T-Rex would absolutely be distinguishable at the resolution that it covers much of the planet in. So its a plausible creature the present existence or non-existence of is an answerable question. I have a LOT more reason to consider the existence of the T. Rex than any god.

Am I being clear there?

So, back to the OP, the non belief in god, standing the same category as any other being of imagination, does not require consequent belief in anything else.

-Ben

[Civilized Worm]

What is horizontal gene transfer? It sounds interesting.

[BenBurch]

What is horizontal gene transfer? It sounds interesting.

Bacteria do this - they will share bits of DNA with each other, even if they are not the same sort of bacteria! And in higher creatures, a virus or a bacteria can take up genes from a creature, and then infect another creature and move them to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer

[DOC]

Well, not really. no. The only reason to assume that there is 1 and only 1 single entity that all life started from is to assume that genetic information is only passed down through generations. Since we know that horizontal gene transfer is possible, the concept of 1 and only 1 is out the window.

This is totally false. One minute you say all life coming from a single cell is one hypothesis and the next minute you make a bizarre statement 1 and only 1 is out the window.

And are you saying that these genes that got transferred (if it indeed happened) to the first cell were alive. I'm saying they (the genes) were not alive by our definition of life.

The first cell was certainly alive but any genes outside that first cell were not alive.

[DOC]

Define Prevailing hypothesis? It's definitely the most common simplified version of abiogenesis, but that's not the same thing as saying the most common universally accepted version.

What is the #1 scientific theory on how life started and what is your source?

I think the scientist in Ben Stein's movie "Expelled ..." put it best when he basically said "We don't know how life started".

With all our scientific knowledge, No living cell has ever been created by man from either inorganic or organic material.

[cyborg]

And are you saying that these genes that got transferred (if it indeed happened) to the first cell were alive. I'm saying they (the genes) were not alive by our definition of life.

No gene is "alive" by our definition of life. A gene is a component of life.

No wheel is a vehicle.

No cog is a clock.

No tuner is a TV.

[DOC]

No gene is "alive" by our definition of life. A gene is a component of life.

No wheel is a vehicle.

No cog is a clock.

No tuner is a TV.

A gene is not the simplest form of life, a cell is.

But even a simple living cell is tremendously complex, which is why science can't make one.

This is the whole driving force behind Intelligent Design. Life is too complex and well designed to have been the result of a fluke collision of non-living chemicals.

[cyborg]

A gene is not the simplest form of life, a cell is.

Right - so there's no distinction between "alive" and "not alive" genes.

But even a simple living cell is tremendously complex, which is why science can't make one.

That's an engineering problem, not a scientific one.

[DOC]

duplicate

[X]

This is the whole driving force behind Intelligent Design. Life is too complex and well designed to have been the result of a fluke collision of non-living chemicals.


Who said anything about a fluke collision? I believe the term is "chemical reaction". "Fluke collision" is misleading and disingenuous.

And what does this have to do with the question of whether or not evolution is essential to atheism?

Do you really think, DOC, that if evolution turned out not to be the best explanation, that the only other one is the Christian Creation Story?

Evolution is essential to science. Biology, specifically.
Atheists may tend to have an interest in science, for all I know (I've never studied any such link, no do I care to), but knowledge of scince or any field is not essential to not believing in god.

[cyborg]

Yes, I get that.

(As a sidebar there is a delicious irony is arguing that the cell must be the result of intelligent design because the only intelligence we see as designing anything er, can't build one...)

Now again you make the distinction "non-living chemicals". But again a simple molecule is not enough to be alive in its own right making such a distinction meaningless. I.e. there is no distiction to be made between "non-living" and "living" chemicals.

Do you or do you not get this?

[joobz]

This is totally false. One minute you say all life coming from a single cell is one hypothesis and the next minute you make a bizarre statement 1 and only 1 is out the window. Obviously, by context, I was refering to the fact that 1 cell is not the only possible hypothesis. This was a reasonable assumption when we didn't know HGT, but it isn't anymore.

And are you saying that these genes that got transferred (if it indeed happened) to the first cell were alive. I'm saying they (the genes) were not alive by our definition of life.What's "our definition of life"?

The first cell was certainly alive but any genes outside that first cell were not alive.
This is not even wrong.


DOC, I'm tired attempting to explain this to you. I've wasted too much time on you and I'm done with it.

[joobz]

A gene is not the simplest form of life, a cell is.Are you sure about that?what elements must a cell have to be a cell? are you refering to prokaryotic cells?

But even a simple living cell is tremendously complex, which is why science can't make one.Yet.

This is the whole driving force behind Intelligent Design. Life is too complex and well designedFirst you are saying it's too complex, then you say it is well designed? If it is too complex for your to understand, you are not qualified to know if it was a good design or not.

[bokonon]

This is the whole driving force behind Intelligent Design. Life is too complex and well designed to have been the result of a fluke collision of non-living chemicals.
The human genome is 95% "junk" DNA -- mindless copies of broken bits of DNA which don't even code for a functional protein. What's so "well designed" about that?

[DOC]

;3729217']Who said anything about a fluke collision? I believe the term is "chemical reaction". "Fluke collision" is misleading and disingenuous.

So are you saying chemicals don't collide (or come in contact with each other) during a chemical reaction?

[DOC]

The human genome is 95% "junk" DNA -- mindless copies of broken bits of DNA which don't even code for a functional protein. What's so "well designed" about that?

I didn't say mindless copies of broken bits of DNA, I said life (the living cell) is too complex and well designed. If its such simple junk why can't we make a living cell.

[Fitter]

I didn't say mindless copies of broken bits of DNA, I said life (the living cell) is too complex and well designed. If its such simple junk why can't we make a living cell.
The same reason we can't send manned flights to Jupiter. The technology hasn't yet been developed. Please note the word "yet".

[Civilized Worm]

A likely story, you just don't want to face up to the fact that Jupiter doesn't exist!

[Fitter]

We all know it's proper name is Zeus. Usurper.

[Elizabeth I]

The theory of evolution is not essential to much, quite frankly. Most people's lives are not affected in the slightest by the level of their understanding of the theory of evolution. I am amazed and somewhat disheartened at the level of attention that this one scientific theory attracts.

Evolution makes us not special. That, in a nutshell, is the objection to it.

[BenBurch]

What is the #1 scientific theory on how life started and what is your source?

I think the scientist in Ben Stein's movie "Expelled ..." put it best when he basically said "We don't know how life started".

With all our scientific knowledge, No living cell has ever been created by man from either inorganic or organic material.

Well, thats actually untrue. Cells have been made. Viruses have been made. Its very recent, so I'm sure your Minister hasn't learned of it, but its wrong.

And proof of Origins is not essential to atheism, either.

The only relevant proof to atheism is a verifiable miracle.

Just one.

ONLY one.

But you don't even have that, do you?

Pitiful thing, this god of yours, eh, cobber?

[joobz]

I didn't say mindless copies of broken bits of DNA, I said life (the living cell) is too complex and well designed. If its such simple junk why can't we make a living cell.
what is a living cell? please explain the essential components required in a cell that would make it living vs. unliving.

[bokonon]

I didn't say mindless copies of broken bits of DNA, I said life (the living cell) is too complex and well designed. If its such simple junk why can't we make a living cell.
We have made things which are more complex and better designed. The cities we live in are more complex and have a better "junk to function" ratio (percent which doesn't serve a useful purpose to percent which does). Rockets, airplanes, and even the cars we all drive are more complex and better designed.

Part of the reason we haven't made a living cell yet is because there is no pressing need to do so. The world supplies abundant living cells, and for human needs, modification of existing cells is an effective way to design and build custom cells. We've barely known of the pivotal role played by DNA for 50 years, and are still learning about genes. It may be that we will never manufacture cells, except as a "proof of concept." We can turn lead into gold in a nuclear reactor, but it's more economical to use existing gold for our needs. I suspect the same economies will apply to living cells: nature makes them all the time naturally, so what is the incentive to build one from scratch?

I fully expect that we will make a living cell at some point. Maybe it will be a simple "proof of concept," or maybe our understanding of cells and mastery of nanotechnology will become so sophisticated that we will begin to see ways to improve nature's design.

In any case, the fact that scientists haven't built cells yet doesn't mean the bible is true.

[Alric]

Actually....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/06/genetics.climatechange

[Ateius]

I can be atheist just fine without evolution. It's an easy three-step process.

1. There are a multitude of religions in the world, both past and present.

2. These religions are frequently mutually contradictory (in their tenets, description of creation, description of the appearance of deities, how many deities there are) if not mutually exclusive (claims that their deity is the only deity - I'm looking at you, God of Abraham). Therefore, it is not possible for all these religions to be right, and as they all operate on the same basis of belief (faith), there is no criteria to determine which, if any, is right.

3. It is, however, possible for them all to be wrong, and exist merely as social constructs.

In short, because there are so many different contradictory notions of God, it's much more reasonable to conclude that they are all fabricated than to conclude that they are all fabricated, except for one, which just happens to be the one you believe in.

No evolution required.

[DOC]

Posted by DOC

I didn't say mindless copies of broken bits of DNA, I said life (the living cell) is too complex and well designed. If its such simple junk why can't we make a living cell.



Well, thats actually untrue. Cells have been made. Viruses have been made. Its very recent, so I'm sure your Minister hasn't learned of it, but its wrong.

Many scientists believe viruses are not even alive because they can't reproduce on their own.

I would compare it to fire. Fire is not alive it. It gets its ability to grow and spread from the energy of the combustible material. Viruses get their energy to reproduce from the energy and life force of the living cell.

And no living cell has been made by scientists from non-living material.

[cyborg]

Viruses get their energy to reproduce from the energy and life force of the living cell.

Nope.

Viruses inject their genetic material into a cell to hijack the cell's own mechanisms in order that the cell starts producing copies of the virus.

The virus gets no "energy" to reproduce. Your analogy is not even slightly correct.

The best analogy is quite simply that of the computer virus - code cannot achieve anything until executed. Once the virus code is executed by the host machine the virus code can take over and start doing whatever it wants.

Viruses are code injection machines. Cells are computers. Viruses reprogram cells.

Nothing to do with energy. Nothing to do with "life-force". It's as mechanical as Lego.

[Civilized Worm]

Life force? Hahahahaha! You're not serious?

[Darat]

You mock yet can you explain the 21g of mass that is lost when a person dies!

Hah I knew you couldn't.

[bokonon]

You mock yet can you explain the 21g of mass that is lost when a person dies!

Hah I knew you couldn't.
How much mass is in a dying breath?

How soon after dying do they lose this mass? Maybe they're dehydrating.

How authoritatively documented is the mass loss in the first place?

[bokonon]

Viruses inject their genetic material into a cell to hijack the cell's own mechanisms in order that the cell starts producing copies of the virus.
Hmmm where do they get the energy to do the injecting?

Wait, I have a better question.

Has any work been done on inducing viruses to inject their payloads into tiny nanoprophylactics (whoa, FINALLY a neologism that Google's never heard of) instead of living cells? Surely they can't be smart enough to know whether or not there's a functional DNA replication system on the other side of that membrane. It would be like blanketing the swamp with sterile female mosquitoes which have more attractive pheromones than the originals.

I guess you'd still have to work out how to get the faux cells into the body in a way which wouldn't harm the host, and which wouldn't trigger an immune response. And I suppose each virus has a preference for the type of cell it will bond to, so you might have to know what type of infection you're fighting before it would be effective.

Come to think of it, you could probably get by with little pieces of "binding site" that would latch onto the injectors and refuse to let go.

Somebody PM me and tell me why this is a dumb idea.

[DOC]

Nope.

Viruses inject their genetic material into a cell to hijack the cell's own mechanisms in order that the cell starts producing copies of the virus.

Bokonon makes a good point. Where does the lifeless (according to many scientists) virus get energy to do the injecting. Isn't it the cell's energy that brings it into the cell. Also viruses do not move on their own. They can only come in contact with a host by accident.

The virus gets no "energy" to reproduce. Your analogy is not even slightly correct.

So where does the energy that replicates the virus come from.


Viruses are code injection machines. Cells are computers. Viruses reprogram cells.

Nothing to do with energy. Nothing to do with "life-force". It's as mechanical as Lego.

So once again you're saying no energy is required to replicate viruses, this would be incorrect. Even computer viruses need the computer to be plugged into a power source (energy) before they could be activated.

It seems to me a virus is a lifeless particle that causes havoc on living cells. Maybe that's why its name means "poison" in Latin. Many Poisons are also lifeless and cause havoc on living cells.

[joobz]

Nope.

Viruses inject their genetic material into a cell to hijack the cell's own mechanisms in order that the cell starts producing copies of the virus.

The virus gets no "energy" to reproduce. Your analogy is not even slightly correct.

The best analogy is quite simply that of the computer virus - code cannot achieve anything until executed. Once the virus code is executed by the host machine the virus code can take over and start doing whatever it wants.

Viruses are code injection machines. Cells are computers. Viruses reprogram cells.

Nothing to do with energy. Nothing to do with "life-force". It's as mechanical as Lego.
quoted for truth.

I can't help but notice that DOC said, "Scientist's don't say viruses are alive..." But he has yet to define life for himself.

[bokonon]

Bokonon makes a good point.
Shoot me now.

[Irony]

Shoot me now.

Don't feel bad, being misinterpreted by DOC puts you in the company of the likes of Jefferson and Einstein.

[joobz]

Bokonon makes a good point. Where does the lifeless (according to many scientists) virus get energy to do the injecting. Isn't it the cell's energy that brings it into the cell. Also viruses do not move on their own. They can only come in contact with a host by accident.
Well in the most general sense, A combination of geothermal/solar sources. Like all things on this planet.



It seems to me a virus is a lifeless particle that causes havoc on living cells. Maybe that's why its name means "poison" in Latin. Many Poisons are also lifeless and cause havoc on living cells.
Yet viruses unlike poisons, can evolve.

[joobz]

Shoot me now.
Don't feel bad. You did make a good point, just not the one that DOC thinks.

I saw a paper a couple years ago about people using viruses to load polymer vesicles. But I have not seen imposter carriers as a means of blocking viral exchange. Afterall, I do not think all viruses operate on a injection method like the TMV. BUt your idea is close to how HIV antivirals work, inhibition of key entry/transfection mechanisms through inhibition (typically competitive).

[arthwollipot]

How much mass is in a dying breath?

How soon after dying do they lose this mass? Maybe they're dehydrating.

How authoritatively documented is the mass loss in the first place?Darat was being sarcastic.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

[arthwollipot]

Apologies for the multiple posting. I'm getting network problems at this end.

[temporalillusion]

Bonus points for multipost style!

[X]

8 posts, Arthwollipot.

Wow.

That's gotta be a record of some sort.

:p

[arthwollipot]

Yep, my previous record was 3. Personal best.

[Hokulele]

Yep, my previous record was 3. Personal best.


No, no, no. The correct answer is "Goddidit". ;)

[arthwollipot]

No, no, no. The correct answer is "Goddidit". ;)It's tempting to attribute random computer problems to God. Perhaps God is a technophobe.

[bokonon]

Apologies for the multiple posting. I'm getting network problems at this end.
It's probably not at your end. If your experience is anything like mine, it's the "response time" problems on the server's end.

What I've started doing when it looks like my post is just spinning, is cntl-a cntl-c to copy the text I've entered to my clipboard, and then clicking on the thread link to see if it's posted and just not gotten back to my computer to let me know.

In every case so far, it's actually submitted my post, and just failed to give me the feedback. I've never had to go back to the clipboard to resurrect the post.

[Hokulele]

It's tempting to attribute random computer problems to God. Perhaps God is a technophobe.


Hey, if he wants all the credit, he should also take the blame. ;)

[cyborg]

Where does the lifeless (according to many scientists) virus get energy to do the injecting.

Where does the lifeless (according to many scientists) rock get the energy to roll down a hill?

Until you get to grips with what the the word "life" means you'll get absolutely nowhere.

[DeusPhasmatis]

Where does the lifeless (according to many scientists) rock get the energy to roll down a hill?

Gravitic potential energy, of course. The virus uses chemical potential energy.

[BenBurch]

Gravitic potential energy, of course. The virus uses chemical potential energy.

Only a detail of implementation. Chemicals are just energy storage.

Suppose we had a self-replicating machine of the mechanical sort, it would absolutely be possible for it to use external energy (perhaps solar) to lift a weight that would then be allowed to fall as the machine needed energy. And you don't even need photovoltaics to do this, sun could expand a metallic bar that pushes the weight up in a ratchet-like fashion. Of course you might have to wait a long time before your weight had been lifted high enough to do much work, but its suitable for a gedankenexperiment.

And has been pointed out, a virus does not use ANY energy per se.

[DeusPhasmatis]

Only a detail of implementation. Chemicals are just energy storage.

Suppose we had a self-replicating machine of the mechanical sort, it would absolutely be possible for it to use external energy (perhaps solar) to lift a weight that would then be allowed to fall as the machine needed energy. And you don't even need photovoltaics to do this, sun could expand a metallic bar that pushes the weight up in a ratchet-like fashion. Of course you might have to wait a long time before your weight had been lifted high enough to do much work, but its suitable for a gedankenexperiment.

I wasn't arguing, just pointing out the answers. I wasn't claiming that chemical potential energy defines life or anything.

And has been pointed out, a virus does not use ANY energy per se.

Oh come now, don't let DOC's semantic ******** force us into misdirection. Energy is everywhere, all the time, doing all sorts of mundane and interesting things.

Obviously, the error in DOC's analogy is that fire is a specific chemical process. A virus is actual matter, not a chemical process.

[joobz]

I wasn't arguing, just pointing out the answers. I wasn't claiming that chemical potential energy defines life or anything.



Oh come now, don't let DOC's semantic ******** force us into misdirection. Energy is everywhere, all the time, doing all sorts of mundane and interesting things.

Obviously, the error in DOC's analogy is that fire is a specific chemical process. A virus is actual matter, not a chemical process.


Yes. You are correct. Actually, my original answer to DOC was going to be chemical potential, but I decided to be a little more generic in defining the source of nearly all earth proccesses:Geothermal and solar energy.

[DOC]

As a sidebar there is a delicious irony in arguing that the cell must be the result of intelligent design because the only intelligence we see as designing anything er, can't build one...

It's not ironic, it just means that any designer would have to be smarter than humans.


Now again you make the distinction "non-living chemicals". But again a simple molecule is not enough to be alive in its own right making such a distinction meaningless. I.e. there is no distiction to be made between "non-living" and "living" chemicals.

Do you or do you not get this?

Was there any part of Albert Einstein that was not made up of non-living chemicals?

[Ocelot]

Was there any part of Albert Einstein that was not made up of non-living chemicals?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division

I'd asy that in this context, life is a property apllicable to the whole rather than to the parts.

[DOC]

Obviously, the error in DOC's analogy is that fire is a specific chemical process. A virus is actual matter, not a chemical process.

When the DNA of the Virus causes the host cell to replicate the virus would you say any chemical processes are going on?

[DOC]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division

I'd asy that in this context, life is a property apllicable to the whole rather than to the parts.

So I gather you're saying that all the chemicals that make up the entity Einstein worked together in such a way that the formula E=MC squared was created from those chemicals.

[joobz]

When the DNA of the Virus causes the host cell to replicate the virus would you say any chemical processes are going on?DOC, his point is that fire IS the chemical Process where a virus isn't. Your analogy compared Fire to the virus. If you were talkiing about replication, that would be a different analogy. This attempt at avoiding admiting your wrong exposes your scientific illiteracy.

So, How's that definition of life coming? Any chance you'll explain, in your own words, Horizontal gene transfer?

[joobz]

So I gather you're saying that all the chemicals that make up the entity Einstein worked together in such a way that the formula E=MC squared was created from those chemicals.
It is E=MC^2. E=MC squared makes nearly no sense.

And to answer your question. No. It was the matter that made up einstein PLUS all of the external interactions that matter had with external sources.