Did cells arise naturally?

[bob b]

Shoot...

I guess I assumed it would be assumed I stand on the only other argument that can explain the existence of cells.

You probably have perceived that I have been pressing atheists, agnostics, etc. to be forthright on these questions, so I felt it only fair that I do so for everybody.

 

[Real Sorceror]

Surely you must believe that they did. Am I right?

Its possible. In my system, God creates life. I don't know what that origenal life was.
Maybe it was the first cell, maybe it was just the perfect conditions for that cell to form.
It's pure speculation and educated guesswork as far as I'm concerned.

 

[bob b]

Its possible. In my system, God creates life. I don't know what that origenal life was.
Maybe it was the first cell, maybe it was just the perfect conditions for that cell to form.
It's pure speculation and educated guesswork as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks for your forthright answer. I guess we can assume that since you believe that God was involved in some way that you have not ruled out the supernatural.

 

[Nineveh]

Thank you Mr. b

 

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

Can I assume then that you believe that they arose naturally because you do not believe that they arose supernaturally (not naturally)? In other words, you have never seen any evidence for the supernatural so your working hypothesis is that the supernatural doesn't exist?

I don't wish to put words in your mouth though.

Your opening query, "did cells arise naturally?" would seem to admit only a few possibilities.

1. Yes, the supernatural was NOT involved.

2. No, the supernatural was involved. God gave rise to them

3. No, the supernatural was involved. God had nothing to do with them.

For the theist the answer would be fairly obvious. 2 or 3. For the Christian, only 2. For the non-theist, 1.

So any answer could be easily divined by simply asking if one was a theist or not. No further explanation necessary. But, knowing you're no dummy, I suspected you had something else in mind, something far more telling. Therefore I was curious as to what you had in mind by an unnatural appearance. As an agnostic I wouldn't be considering # 2 , and because I have already said, "how ever they arose, it was naturally," #3 would not be a possibility. So, I don't understand your hesitancy in accepting my answer.

As for the supernatural itself, I have heard of little credible evidence of it.

 

[Johnny]

In all honesty I have little logical grounds to take a stance either way (though I tend to answer "yes" based on personal views). At present I think it is largely beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. It's easy in this situation to commit the error of arguing from ignorance or by false dilemma.

 

[Unbeliever]

I believe that it happened without supernatural assistance, since I have no evidence that the supernatural exists.

BTW, here's some info on the question of the first cell.

 

[aharvey]

I'm interested in hearing arguments and opinions regarding whether cells arose naturally or not. Any takers?

Seems likely that organisms arose through natural processes. However, the first organisms probably didn't look much at all like modern cells.

 

[bob b]

Seems likely that organisms arose through natural processes. However, the first organisms probably didn't look much at all like modern cells.

So is it fair to say that you believe that cells developed naturally from those first "organisms"?

 

[aharvey]

So is it fair to say that you believe that cells developed naturally from those first "organisms"?

No, I'm saying the first organisms were most likely single-celled. The correlation isn't one-to-one today; lots of cells are specialized parts of complex organisms. That's why I think it's clearer to refer to organisms rather than cells in the present context (past context?).

 

[Highline]

I'll take a crack at this Bob B., but then I'll run for cover because I know this is a subject you have thought a lot about and your scientific background makes you more prepared to argue your case.

This is certainly an area that scientists do the most speculating on because the of the lack of fossil evidence. That said, they believe that life existed a long time on earth before the first bacteria developed; even a long time before the first cells developed. They specualte it took 500 million years; from the first life to the first bacteria. So as most things go when arguing about evolution- if you don't buy the timeline; if you believe in a young earth, you know there is not enough time for this. Scientists have found chemicals that indicate life, and fossilized pre-cell life in rocks in Australia and South Africa which are supposed to be the oldest on earth.

As far as replicating the creation of life in a lab, we haven't given it millions of years or the right chemical mixes and tempature. Who knows? Maybe one day, maybe not.

As far as for me; I think the creator of the universe set the rules but has not interfered since then. It maybe, with the right chemicals and elements, the very nature of them to form in chains; and then it is the nature of those chains to want to survive and replicate. The origin of life is hardest part of evolution to beleive for me.

One we get multicellular life; I think there is strong evidence for evolution. It explains a lot more of what we see in the world; as far as species and their locations, and fossils; than does creation theory, especially biblical creation theory. Genesis simply does not answer any questions to be of any use.

Evolution at explains interesting things, like why all South American monkey have tails, but not all African monkeys do; or why Australia has no mammals.

I'll take the teachings of Jesus as a framework for ethics and how to live life; but on an intellectual level I don't believe he walked on water.

 

[bob b]

No, I'm saying the first organisms were most likely single-celled. The correlation isn't one-to-one today; lots of cells are specialized parts of complex organisms. That's why I think it's clearer to refer to organisms rather than cells in the present context (past context?).

So would it be fair to say that you believe that there was no supernatural element involved in how the first organisms came about?

 

[SUTG]

I'm beginning to think there is some reason why you don't want to answer my question.

Would you mind telling us why you believe that cells arose by natural means?

I believe they probably arose by natural means beacause it is more plausible than any of the alternatives.

Given that the fact of evolution explains the diversity of life we see today, it seems reasonable to guess that cells could have arisen by natural means.

 

[bob b]

I'll take a crack at this Bob B., but then I'll run for cover because I know this is a subject you have thought a lot about and your scientific background makes you more prepared to argue your case.

This is certainly an area that scientists do the most speculating on because the of the lack of fossil evidence. That said, they believe that life existed a long time on earth before the first bacteria developed; even a long time before the first cells developed. They specualte it took 500 million years; from the first life to the first bacteria. So as most things go when arguing about evolution- if you don't buy the timeline; if you believe in a young earth, you know there is not enough time for this. Scientists have found chemicals that indicate life, and fossilized pre-cell life in rocks in Australia and South Africa which are supposed to be the oldest on earth.

As far as replicating the creation of life in a lab, we haven't given it millions of years or the right chemical mixes and tempature. Who knows? Maybe one day, maybe not.

As far as for me; I think the creator of the universe set the rules but has not interfered since then. It maybe, with the right chemicals and elements, the very nature of them to form in chains; and then it is the nature of those chains to want to survive and replicate. The origin of life is hardest part of evolution to beleive for me.

One we get multicellular life; I think there is strong evidence for evolution. It explains a lot more of what we see in the world; as far as species and their locations, and fossils; than does creation theory, especially biblical creation theory. Genesis simply does not answer any questions to be of any use.

Evolution at explains interesting things, like why all South American monkey have tails, but not all African monkeys do; or why Australia has no mammals.

I'll take the teachings of Jesus as a framework for ethics and how to live life; but on an intellectual level I don't believe he walked on water.

So would it be fair to say that you are sort of a theistic evolutionist, one who believes that God created the universe and its laws, but left the rest of things (including cells) to develop naturally over billions of years?

BTW, I wish to thank all those here who have contributed so far to this discussion (and hope others chime in as well) since it is rare that people focus in on this narrow but important issue and are so forthright in their answers.

 

[aharvey]

So would it be fair to say that you believe that there was no supernatural element involved in how the first organisms came about?

bob b,

Read the posts on this thread starting at #169 (they're few and brief). Keep these in mind when I say I don't "believe" there was any more supernatural involvement in the initiation of life then there was in the initiation of any other component of the natural world. But it's not a "belief" that I attach much emotional importance to, nor is it one that's bolstered by lots of supporting evidence. Thus, if you hung around long enough to read my post #173 above, you'll agree that I wouldn't call it a strong belief!

 

[bob b]

bob b,

Read the posts on this thread starting at #169 (they're few and brief). Keep these in mind when I say I don't "believe" there was any more supernatural involvement in the initiation of life then there was in the initiation of any other component of the natural world. But it's not a "belief" that I attach much emotional importance to, nor is it one that's bolstered by lots of supporting evidence. Thus, if you hung around long enough to read my post #173 above, you'll agree that I wouldn't call it a strong belief!

I realize that you have touched on this topic before on other threads, but for the benefit of others I had hoped that you would have summarized your beliefs on this subject in a short posting on this thread.

 

[bob b]

I believe they probably arose by natural means beacause it is more plausible than any of the alternatives.

Given that the fact of evolution explains the diversity of life we see today, it seems reasonable to guess that cells could have arisen by natural means.

After this thread has run its course and as many people as possible have expressed their views, I intend to start a separate thread to discuss the reaction people of different stripes might have if somehow answers to this key question became clearer. But for now I hope everyone will limit their comments to the narrow questions which I asked.

 

[aharvey]

I realize that you have touched on this topic before on other threads, but for the benefit of others I had hoped that you would have summarized your beliefs on this subject in a short posting on this thread.

I did just that ("I don't "believe" there was any more supernatural involvement in the initiation of life then there was in the initiation of any other component of the natural world. But it's not a "belief" that I attach much emotional importance to, nor is it one that's bolstered by lots of supporting evidence. Thus, if you hung around long enough to read my post #173 above, you'll agree that I wouldn't call it a strong belief!"). The other thread to which I refer dealt with the concept of "belief" itself, not the origin of life.

 

[Real Sorceror]

One we get multicellular life; I think there is strong evidence for evolution. It explains a lot more of what we see in the world; as far as species and their locations, and fossils; than does creation theory, especially biblical creation theory. Genesis simply does not answer any questions to be of any use.

Whats up Highline? I agree with this statement entirely, but I'm gonna have to call you on this next statement, since I'm an amatuer zoologist freak.

Evolution at explains interesting things, like why all South American monkey have tails, but not all African monkeys do; or why Australia has no mammals.

Actually, Australia has a great many mammals (we've all seen kangaroos, right?). The unique thing about Australia is that all of the native mammals are marsupials(they raise their young in pouches). In fact, Australia is the only place on Earth where marsupials are found. The only non-Australian marsupial is the American Oppossum.

 

[bob b]

I don't "believe" there was any more supernatural involvement in the initiation of life then there was in the initiation of any other component of the natural world.

Perhaps I am stupid, but this seemed to me to be less than clear.

Was this meant to say that there was no supernatural involvement, period?

Or something else?