Did cells arise naturally?

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

The unique thing about Australia is that all of the native mammals are marsupials(they raise their young in pouches).

Not even close. The echidna and platypus, both monotremes, are native mammals. And a whole slew ( six families) of bats, placental mammals, are indigenous to Australia. Then there are Rattus fuscipes, the bush rat, and Hydromys chrysogaster, the water rat, also placentals, which are considered native to the continent.

Australia is the only place on Earth where marsupials are found.

The only non-Australian marsupial is the American Opossum.

Care to explain this contradiction? And in case you're thinking the American opossums live in Australia, they do not. They live in the Americas. And, it isn't a single species or genus, as implied by "the American opossum," but about 75 species classified in two subfamilies.

 

[Real Sorceror]

Not even close. The echidna and platypus, both monotremes, are native mammals. And a whole slew ( six families) of bats, placental mammals, are indigenous to Australia. Then there are Rattus fuscipes, the bush rat, and Hydromys chrysogaster, the water rat, also placentals, which are considered native to the continent.

It appears you are the superior zoology freak! I stand corrected and better informed :e4e:

Care to explain this contradiction?

It was not intentional, and there is no contradiction. It was just poor word choice.

And in case you're thinking the American opossums live in Australia, they do not. They live in the Americas.

Buddy, now you are insulting my intelligence. Cool down.

And, it isn't a single species or genus, as implied by "the American opossum," but about 75 species classified in two subfamilies.

Really? Wow, I thought there was only like 5 species.

 

[aharvey]

Really? Wow, I thought there was only like 5 species.

Unfortunately, here in North America we've got the only ugly one!

Although we did have the chance to handrear some orphaned babies, and I have to say they are much cuter than the adults, and have a much nicer temperment.

 

[aharvey]

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?

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but that statement's about as clear as I feel on the subject. I don't 'believe' life requires any more supernatural initiation than any other natural phenomenon, but I don't have any clear 'beliefs' on how much involvement that is, if any. I don't see the evidence for any, but I'm also quite comfortable in realizing that this doesn't mean that there wasn't any (enough negatives in there for ya?).

 

[aharvey]

Not even close. The echidna and platypus, both monotremes, are native mammals. And a whole slew ( six families) of bats, placental mammals, are indigenous to Australia. Then there are Rattus fuscipes, the bush rat, and Hydromys chrysogaster, the water rat, also placentals, which are considered native to the continent.




Care to explain this contradiction? And in case you're thinking the American opossums live in Australia, they do not. They live in the Americas. And, it isn't a single species or genus, as implied by "the American opossum," but about 75 species classified in two subfamilies.

Just because, here's a thread I started a while ago on the interesting distribution, both past and present, of Australian and non-Australian mammals, back before I fully recognized the necessity of making my signature a link to a web site dedicated to teaching folks about logical fallacies.

 

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

Buddy, now you are insulting my intelligence. Cool down.

Certainly didn't mean to, but considering your contradictory statement it was the only reasonable explanation that came to mind, particularly when one considers the many misnamed animals we have: the Barbary ape, an Old World monkey; the pronghorn antelope, not an antelope at all; the snow grouse, a ptarmigan; the pygmy sand cricket, a grasshopper; and the jackrabbit, which is really a hare. Then there's the European toad, which can be found in Africa, the Japanese beetle that is found in the USA; and the Tibetan water shrew that lives in China and Nepal.

 

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

Just because, here's a thread

Thanks, it's a good read and a good poke at creationism. :thumb:

 

[Real Sorceror]

Certainly didn't mean to, but considering your contradictory statement it was the only reasonable explanation that came to mind, particularly when one considers the many misnamed animals we have: the Barbary ape, an Old World monkey; the pronghorn antelope, not an antelope at all; the snow grouse, a ptarmigan; the pygmy sand cricket, a grasshopper; and the jackrabbit, which is really a hare. Then there's the European toad, which can be found in Africa, the Japanese beetle that is found in the USA; and the Tibetan water shrew that lives in China and Nepal.

You certianly know your stuff! :up:
I generally take it for granted that an animal named the North American So-and-so is located in America. I guess common sense does not always prevail.

 

[GuySmiley]

Yes, they did.

Hmmm . . . I'll have to give this some thought. :think:

 

[SUTG]

Hmmm . . . I'll have to give this some thought. :think:

My One Eyed Jack posting techinique was only meant to stick in bob b's craw. I'm really not that certain about the answer to the question (it is a good one) but do lean towards an affirmative answer as I've explained in my later post.

 

[Highline]

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.

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.

Sorry about that. I did not realize marsupials were a category of mammals. I also did not know that marsupials were almost exclusive to Australia. Interesting, thanks.

 

[Unbeliever]

My One Eyed Jack posting techinique...

What other nasty habits are lurking in the dark recesses of you mind?

 

[Highline]

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.

Yes, that is a fair summary.

 

[Real Sorceror]

Sorry about that. I did not realize marsupials were a category of mammals. I also did not know that marsupials were almost exclusive to Australia. Interesting, thanks.

Its all good. You might wanna check Dr. Hfuhruhurr's post #41. It seems I was wrong as well, and there are quite a few non-marsupial mammals in Australia.

 

[Highline]

Its all good. You might wanna check Dr. Hfuhruhurr's post #41. It seems I was wrong as well, and there are quite a few non-marsupial mammals in Australia.

That's OK. It won't change my weekend plans.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Sorry about that. I did not realize marsupials were a category of mammals.

You mean all that hair wasn't a clue? Granted, the primary defining characteristic of mammals would be mammary glands (now you know why we call them mammals), but other than a few arthropods, I believe only mammals have hair.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

My One Eyed Jack posting techinique...

...needs work. You keep posting the wrong answers.

 

[mighty_duck]

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

I Believe they did.
My reasoning - Everything I have seen happening has natural causes. I have never seen anything that can reliably be attributed to supernatural causes. I have seen no evidence to suggest the supernatural even exists.

So we have one suspect in this mystery, one that has a long history of doing difficult things given enough time.The defense can't come up with any other plausible explanations. That's probably enough for me to believe the suspect is our guy. Like aharvey mentioned, this is a belief with little concesquence.

There is also the issue of the track record. For thousands of years man has attributed things he can't explain to the supernatural. It's an easy out. Time after time this has turned out to be false, as we discover nature is more complex and powerful than we had imagined. I have no reason to think this case is any different. The fact that science can't explain something at this point in time is no reason to throw a God of the Gaps at it.

 

[bob b]

I Believe they did.
My reasoning - Everything I have seen happening has natural causes. I have never seen anything that can reliably be attributed to supernatural causes. I have seen no evidence to suggest the supernatural even exists.

So we have one suspect in this mystery, one that has a long history of doing difficult things given enough time.The defense can't come up with any other plausible explanations. That's probably enough for me to believe the suspect is our guy. Like aharvey mentioned, this is a belief with little concesquence.

There is also the issue of the track record. For thousands of years man has attributed things he can't explain to the supernatural. It's an easy out. Time after time this has turned out to be false, as we discover nature is more complex and powerful than we had imagined. I have no reason to think this case is any different. The fact that science can't explain something at this point in time is no reason to throw a God of the Gaps at it.

This thread appears to have just about run its course.I was a bit disappomted because so few believers offered any reasons why they felt that cells did not arise naturally.

The above posting is a good one because it pretty well sums up the situation from the atheist and agnostic viewpoint.

I will try to summarize the rationale of both camps as follows:

Naturally.
There is essentially zero information, but plenty of speculation, which could tell us how cells first arose. People who feel that cells did arise naturally seem to base that belief on the fact that everything in the natural world seems to occur naturally, and short of any evidence that things could occur supernaturally, it is logical to believe that cells probably arose naturally. Perhaps future research will demonstrate how it happened.

Not Naturally.
This belief is apparently based on either one of two of the following considerations (or sometimes both):

1) cells are incredibly complex, and the perceived complexity is growing rapidly as more research uncovers new previously undetected "incredibly neat" cellular subsystems, making it very unlikely that a "natural" solution will ever be found,

and/or

2) Genesis teaches that in the beginning God created life in multiple types, some advanced, that lived in the sea, land and air.

 

[mighty_duck]

1) cells are incredibly complex, and the perceived complexity is growing rapidly as more research uncovers new previously undetected "incredibly neat" cellular subsystems, making it very unlikely that a "natural" solution will ever be found,

Bob,
Isn't that just an appeal to ignorance?
Admitedly, science has not completely figured out the processes that could have brought about abiogenesis. But going from an "I don't know" to "it's impossible" is just ignorance.

Two examples:
1. Before mankind figured out what caused lightning, it seemed unexplainable. It was usually attributed to the supernatural. Ignorance rears it ugly head.

2. If you are unaware of a process like Gravity, and start calculating the chances a 100 grains of sand land in a thin film at the bottom of a bucket of water, you will reach impossible odds. Labeling this as supernatural is again ignorance.