Cell Theory Question

DChead22 · Apr 30, 2006

I have a question for those who don't believe in the existence of deity or in Intelligent Design, and try to use science to convince others that their beliefs are correct. If you are one of those people trying to convince others, using scientific facts and/or theories, there is no deity, then please put my question into consideration:

The Cell Theory states that cells can only come from other cells, this makes sense right? Well if this is in fact true, and the universe and all being was not created by a deity or intelligent creator, who or what created the first cell if cells can only come from cells before them?

I don't think this question can be answered by anybody scientifically, but if you can, please do. I'd like to hear your opinions on this as well. I'm not saying this one question will prove the existence of a deity, it's just something I've been wondering lately, and it's something that should be put into consideration.

Kandahar · Apr 30, 2006

DChead22 said:
I have a question for those who don't believe in the existence of deity or in Intelligent Design, and try to use science to convince others that their beliefs are correct. If you are one of those people trying to convince others, using scientific facts and/or theories, there is no deity, then please put my question into consideration:

The Cell Theory states that cells can only come from other cells, this makes sense right? Well if this is in fact true, and the universe and all being was not created by a deity or intelligent creator, who or what created the first cell if cells can only come from cells before them?

I don't think this question can be answered by anybody scientifically, but if you can, please do. I'd like to hear your opinions on this as well. I'm not saying this one question will prove the existence of a deity, it's just something I've been wondering lately, and it's something that should be put into consideration.

Cells can generally only come from other cells, yes. But the time intervals generally in play in cell biology are seconds, hours, days, or years. Even if we're talking about evolutionary biology, the time intervals are millions of years at most. So it's not EXACTLY accurate to say that cells can only come from other cells.

The mainstream theory for where the first cells came from go something like this:

In the beginning, there were quarks and electrons.
And quarks begat protons and neutrons.
And protons and neutrons begat nuclei.
And nuclei and electrons begat atoms.
And atoms begat molecules.
And molecules begat organic compounds.
And organic compounds begat simple self-replicating compounds.
And simple self-replicating compounds begat more complex self-replicating compounds.
And complex self-replicating compounds begat DNA.
And DNA begat multi-functional self-replicating entities (known as cells).
And single-celled organisms begat multi-celled organisms.

justone · Apr 30, 2006

Kandahar said:
Cells can generally only come from other cells, yes. But the time intervals generally in play in cell biology are seconds, hours, days, or years. Even if we're talking about evolutionary biology, the time intervals are millions of years at most. So it's not EXACTLY accurate to say that cells can only come from other cells.

The mainstream theory for where the first cells came from go something like this:

1.In the beginning, there were quarks and electrons.
2.And quarks begat protons and neutrons.
3.And protons and neutrons begat nuclei.
4.And nuclei and electrons begat atoms.
5.And atoms begat molecules.
6. And molecules begat organic compounds.
7.And organic compounds begat simple self-replicating compounds.
8. And simple self-replicating compounds begat more complex self-replicating 9. compounds.
10. And complex self-replicating compounds begat DNA.
11. And DNA begat multi-functional self-replicating entities (known as cells).
12. And single-celled organisms begat multi-celled organisms.

very interesting... they were sticking to each other... by attraction...
Very interesting, but - you were running so smoothly and all over suddenly you stopped at #12. WHY? HOW comes? What kind of wall are hiting? Is it really - the movie is over? there should be someway of multi-celled organisms sticking to each other in #13. I have ducttape.

and by the way, what was at #0?

jfuh · May 1, 2006

DChead22 said:
I have a question for those who don't believe in the existence of deity or in Intelligent Design, and try to use science to convince others that their beliefs are correct. If you are one of those people trying to convince others, using scientific facts and/or theories, there is no deity, then please put my question into consideration:

The Cell Theory states that cells can only come from other cells, this makes sense right? Well if this is in fact true, and the universe and all being was not created by a deity or intelligent creator, who or what created the first cell if cells can only come from cells before them?

I don't think this question can be answered by anybody scientifically, but if you can, please do. I'd like to hear your opinions on this as well. I'm not saying this one question will prove the existence of a deity, it's just something I've been wondering lately, and it's something that should be put into consideration.

Two flaws in your argument. First is the argument against diety and intelligent design you realize of course are two completely different arguments within themselves. One states of the existance of a supernatural being, the other states that a supernatural being designed life.
Secondly, cells come from cells is consistent with the theory of evolution. Evolution is not origin of life, but origin of species. Thus consistent.
My suggestion is you re-word your argument.

Kandahar · May 1, 2006

justone said:
very interesting... they were sticking to each other... by attraction...
Very interesting, but - you were running so smoothly and all over suddenly you stopped at #12. WHY? HOW comes? What kind of wall are hiting? Is it really - the movie is over? there should be someway of multi-celled organisms sticking to each other in #13. I have ducttape.

What will happen next is speculation. My opinion (shared by many futurists including Ray Kurzweil and Vernor Vinge) is that uber-complex, uber-intelligent life/machines are next and will eventually permeate almost every molecule in our sector of the universe.

justone said:
and by the way, what was at #0?

There's not a lot of concrete evidence to answer this question yet. Hopefully we'll know the answer in the next couple decades.

Superstrings seem to be a likely component of quarks and electrons, but the experimental evidence to date for them is nil. As of now, string theory is just theoretical mathematics.

Australianlibertarian · May 1, 2006

DChead22 said:
I have a question for those who don't believe in the existence of deity or in Intelligent Design, and try to use science to convince others that their beliefs are correct. If you are one of those people trying to convince others, using scientific facts and/or theories, there is no deity, then please put my question into consideration:

The Cell Theory states that cells can only come from other cells, this makes sense right? Well if this is in fact true, and the universe and all being was not created by a deity or intelligent creator, who or what created the first cell if cells can only come from cells before them?

I don't think this question can be answered by anybody scientifically, but if you can, please do. I'd like to hear your opinions on this as well. I'm not saying this one question will prove the existence of a deity, it's just something I've been wondering lately, and it's something that should be put into consideration.

This really bugs me, so let me set the record straight.

I don't believe in intelligent design, because the theory is not based on actual scientific method, you can't measure the supernatural.

Secondly, evolution is not a belief, but a model or a theory. A model or theory differs from a belief, because evidence, and scientific principle must be used to support the model or theory. Belief on the other hand means that you accept something, without actual scientific basis for supporting your reasoning.

Lastly evolution does not say that god doesn't exsist, but merely that his role is very different to that stated in the Old Testement.... Which is the real threat to the creationists. Because if creationism can be proven to be scientifically inaccurate (and in plain words false), then what else is can be proven wrong??

justone · May 1, 2006

Australianlibertarian said:
Lastly evolution does not say that god doesn't exsist, but merely that his role is very different to that stated in the Old Testement....

What is the difference?

justone · May 1, 2006

Kandahar said:
What will happen next is speculation. My opinion (shared by many futurists including Ray Kurzweil and Vernor Vinge) is that uber-complex, uber-intelligent life/machines are next and will eventually permeate almost every molecule in our sector of the universe.
.

Why people always have to invent a religion? Any facts ( measurable observations) beyond specuiation to back up your opinion?

Kandahar · May 2, 2006

justone said:
Why people always have to invent a religion? Any facts ( measurable observations) beyond specuiation to back up your opinion?

It's not religion, as I acknowledged it's speculation. There are a few trends to suggest that this may be in the cards; the exponential increase in computer power means that we'll probably develop a computer as smart as a human brain by 2030 (2020 for the hardware). From there on out, smart machines can build smarter machines, likely resulting in runaway technological progress over very very short periods of times, dubbed the "Technological Singularity".

Since there's no fundamental physical law preventing this from happening, my guess is that it will. I don't think there's any way to avoid it, short of the destruction of the human race before we reach that point.

Scarecrow Akhbar · May 2, 2006

One doesn't use science or the scientific method to prove there is no god.

One uses good science to refute claims by the intellectually lazy that there is a god.

And "Cell Theory", whatever that may be, can't say that cells can only come from cells. "Cell Theory" has to be consistent with the rest of biology, and the bedrock of biology is the assumption that life formed from the self-organization of pre-biotic chemicals that established metabolism and genetics, or genetics and metabolism, take your pick as to which came first.

jfuh · May 2, 2006

Kandahar said:
It's not religion, as I acknowledged it's speculation. There are a few trends to suggest that this may be in the cards; the exponential increase in computer power means that we'll probably develop a computer as smart as a human brain by 2030 (2020 for the hardware). From there on out, smart machines can build smarter machines, likely resulting in runaway technological progress over very very short periods of times, dubbed the "Technological Singularity".

Since there's no fundamental physical law preventing this from happening, my guess is that it will. I don't think there's any way to avoid it, short of the destruction of the human race before we reach that point.

Simarities have already happened. Genetic algorithms

justone · May 2, 2006

Kandahar said:
It's not religion, as I acknowledged it's speculation. There are a few trends to suggest that this may be in the cards; the exponential increase in computer power means that we'll probably develop a computer as smart as a human brain by 2030 (2020 for the hardware). From there on out, smart machines can build smarter machines, likely resulting in runaway technological progress over very very short periods of times, dubbed the "Technological Singularity".

Since there's no fundamental physical law preventing this from happening, my guess is that it will. I don't think there's any way to avoid it, short of the destruction of the human race before we reach that point.

There is no laws of physics preventing this from happening, only pour knowledge of physics and math may suggest it may be in the cards.
Thus you are inventing a religion = speculation about things you have not observed and you cannot describe by math. Denying one religion you are inventing another one at same time.

justone · May 2, 2006

Kandahar said:
Superstrings seem to be a likely component of quarks and electrons, but the experimental evidence to date for them is nil. As of now, string theory is just theoretical mathematics.

1.In the beginning, there were quarks and electrons.
2.And quarks begat protons and neutrons.
3.And protons and neutrons begat nuclei.
4.And nuclei and electrons begat atoms.
5.And atoms begat molecules.
6. And molecules begat organic compounds.
7.And organic compounds begat simple self-replicating compounds.
8. And simple self-replicating compounds begat more complex self-replicating 9. compounds.
10. And complex self-replicating compounds begat DNA.
11. And DNA begat multi-functional self-replicating entities (known as cells).
12. And single-celled organisms begat multi-celled organisms.

What is experemental evidence for ## 12, 9, 8, 7. #?
I also doubt #10 but I don't know the subject, you can fool me.
and the most important question of the openning statement - what is experemental evidence of #12. And how much energy was consumed - produced at #12 step?
So far there is an idea that it takes a an uncontrolled thermonuclier reaction
AND what begat strings?

jfuh · May 2, 2006

justone said:
7.And organic compounds begat simple self-replicating compounds.
8. And simple self-replicating compounds begat more complex self-replicating 9. compounds.
10. And complex self-replicating compounds begat DNA.
11. And DNA begat multi-functional self-replicating entities (known as cells).
12. And single-celled organisms begat multi-celled organisms.

What is experemental evidence for ## 12, 9, 8, 7. #?
I also doubt #10 but I don't know the subject, you can fool me.
and the most important question of the openning statement - what is experemental evidence of #12. And how much energy was consumed - produced at #12 step?
So far there is an idea that it takes a an uncontrolled thermonuclier reaction
AND what begat strings?

It's spelled Experimental.
#7 There're several of such instances, the simplist would be the prion
#8 The example of this would be self-assembling molecules as is with the case of the cell membrane. Or even soap. Soap combines and forms vesicles so to speak that are much more complicated structures then a single soap molecule itself.
#9 Same as 8
#12 Bateria, which are typically single celled organisms have been shown to form colonies ie bacterial films. These films do indeed exhibit a certain degree of specialization and multicellular forms.

Finally everything you have shown with the exception of perhaps 12 is not evolution. You're asking about the origin of life, not origin of species.

justone · May 2, 2006

jfuh said:
It's spelled Experimental..

I misspelled. I will be misspelling - as long as you correctly understand what I am trying to spell.

jfuh said:
#7 There're several of such instances, the simplist would be the prion
#8 The example of this would be self-assembling molecules as is with the case of the cell membrane. Or even soap. Soap combines and forms vesicles so to speak that are much more complicated structures then a single soap molecule itself.

So to speak - soap combines and forms are much more complicated due to you subjective view, - what objective definition of complication are you using. The only one I know exists in Cholmogorov ( spelling?)mathematics. if to apply it Soap combines may be just a cycled shortest description. But of course the only soap ( spelling) I know is in my bath and sometime I combine 2 in one.

jfuh said:
#9 Same as 8
#12 Bateria, which are typically single celled organisms have been shown to form colonies ie bacterial films. These films do indeed exhibit a certain degree of specialization and multicellular forms.

Certain degree = uncertain degree in math but you are avoiding a sure statement of two cell formation as it was spelled out in my previous comment.

jfuh said:
Finally everything you have shown with the exception of perhaps 12 is not evolution. You're asking about the origin of life, not origin of species.

frankly, i am not asking, i am commenting on different answers and having some simple fun; and I did not comment on yours, because I did not see a problem, it had nothing for me to argue – so far.

justone · May 2, 2006

"

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Cell Theory" has to be consistent with the rest of biology, and the bedrock of biology is the assumption that life formed from the self-

assumptions, assumptions, What's about measurements and counts 1,2,3,4..n? I don't beleive in your god, i cannot measure and count him.

jfuh · May 2, 2006

justone said:
So to speak - soap combines and forms are much more complicated due to you subjective view, - what objective definition of complication are you using. The only one I know exists in Cholmogorov ( spelling?)mathematics. if to apply it Soap combines may be just a cycled shortest description. But of course the only soap ( spelling) I know is in my bath and sometime I combine 2 in one.

Note, I brought soap as one of the two examples the other being the cellular membrane. A single soap molecule is very simple. Have a whole bunch lined together through amphiphillic attractions and you have a film, or vesicle, a much more complicated structure with physical and chemical properties different from that of the single molecule itself.

justone said:
Certain degree = uncertain degree in math but you are avoiding a sure statement of two cell formation as it was spelled out in my previous comment.

We're not talking about math now are we? Even the fact that we are not, hardly invalidates any of the points I've made.
As for the remainder you are dodging the argument all together. Next?

justone said:
frankly, i am not asking, i am commenting on different answers and having some simple fun; and I did not comment on yours, because I did not see a problem, it had nothing for me to argue – so far.

Comments that are inherently flawed.

Kandahar · May 2, 2006

justone said:
There is no laws of physics preventing this from happening, only pour knowledge of physics and math may suggest it may be in the cards.

Poor knowledge? How so? What exactly do you find implausible about the idea?

justone said:
Thus you are inventing a religion = speculation about things you have not observed and you cannot describe by math.

Umm no. I'm not saying that this is definitely going to happen and we're guaranteed to live to see it. You asked what my opinion was for the next stage after multicellular life, so I gave it, based on current trends.

justone said:
Denying one religion you are inventing another one at same time.

So you've never ever speculated about what the future might look like? How is that a religion? It isn't an article of faith for me; I've based my opinion on what I think the long-term trends indicate, and am perfectly willing to change it in light of new evidence.

Kandahar · May 2, 2006

justone said:
What is experemental evidence for ## 12, 9, 8, 7. #?

Just the fact that evolution in other forms has been directly observed. You're right in that we've never seen these steps actually happen in the laboratory, but there is still a general consensus for them for the simple reason that no better or equally plausible hypotheses exist.

justone said:
and the most important question of the openning statement - what is experemental evidence of #12.

Same as above. We've seen other kinds of evolution, so it's not a big stretch to assume that unicellular life could mutate into multicellular life. It's also possible that there was some "gray area," where there was some sort of organism that didn't exactly have distinct cells but was more complex than unicellular organisms.

justone said:
And how much energy was consumed - produced at #12 step?

Energy for multicellular life? I'm not sure what you're asking...

justone said:
So far there is an idea that it takes a an uncontrolled thermonuclier reaction
AND what begat strings?

No one knows if strings even exist, let alone where they came from or what their nature is.

justone · May 3, 2006

Kandahar said:
Just the fact that evolution in other forms has been directly observed. You're right in that we've never seen these steps actually happen in the laboratory, but there is still a general consensus for them for the simple reason that no better or equally plausible hypotheses exist.

count me as a dissenter at any consensus which is not applied to observed reality.

Kandahar said:
Energy for multicellular life? I'm not sure what you're asking...

any process consumes or releases energy – it is an observed reality. Any process can be followed by energy equations.

Kandahar said:
No one knows if strings even exist, let alone where they came from or what their nature is.

Since the thermonuclear reaction of nuclear fusion shows a production of energy, the energy is supposed to come from gravitational forces acting inside the stars. In order to explain the forces one of the theories - strings- is that they come from different dimensions = universes and in those dimensions= universes different laws of physics may exist. As a dissenter I am not limiting my curiosity by laws of our dimensions. Who lives in other dimensions?

justone · May 3, 2006

jfuh said:
Note, I brought soap as one of the two examples the other being the cellular membrane. A single soap molecule is very simple. Have a whole bunch lined together through amphiphillic attractions and you have a film, or vesicle, a much more complicated structure with physical and chemical properties different from that of the single molecule itself.

We're not talking about math now are we? Even the fact that we are not, hardly invalidates any of the points I've made.
As for the remainder you are dodging the argument all together. Next?

Comments that are inherently flawed.

I have no clue what is prion. The question was a direct one, - go back and read - yes or no. I have no clue what is prion. You have to tell me directly - you have named two observed examples of a cingle cell organism forming a two ( multi) cell organism.
I am always talking about math - cannot think in other way.
You always can say that my Comments that are inherently flawed and that I am spinning :spin: and any other things. It is just the matter of touching keys of you keyboard. Computers are stupid they cannot argue.

justone · May 3, 2006

Kandahar said:
Just the fact that evolution in other forms has been directly observed. .

facts are stubburn, aren't they?

Kandahar said:
Same as above. We've seen other kinds of evolution, so it's not a big stretch to assume

big is measured in tons and meters, as basic units, the rest is a stretch, a speculation, a religion.

sometimes we do have to resort to assumptions in our theories, but the assumptions assume:
1. lack of our knowledge
2. all measurable observations will meet the assuptions , - if the measurable observations do not meet the assumptions, we have to change the assumptions, but not observations. And observations are not impressions of an observer.

justone · May 3, 2006

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
One uses good science to refute claims by the intellectually lazy that there is a god.

I claim Jesus Christ is son of God, refute with good science, please.

Befuddled_Stoner · May 4, 2006

justone said:
I claim Jesus Christ is son of God, refute with good science, please.

:roll: Well, it didn't exactly take prescience to see that one coming.

Sorry, Justone, but science only covers phenomenon existing in the observable universe. Until the day that your god stops being so damn ephemeral, you'll just have to settle for scientists debunking the claims you make that are posited on his existence as literally described in the bible.

However, I will give you this, assuming that Jesus did exist, and that he was male, and that God exists, and that he is the father of all life, than Jesus couldn't help but to be numbering among his many, many "sons".

Scarecrow Akhbar · May 4, 2006

justone said:
"

assumptions, assumptions, What's about measurements and counts 1,2,3,4..n? I don't beleive in your god, i cannot measure and count him.

No, it's not an assumption. A theory cannot stand in the face of facts that refute it. Any looney-toon theory that claims only cells can make cells is not consistent with the rest of biology, and hence, false.

No, you can't measure your god. I don't have a god, thus I'm free to use the resources of my mind to my fullest ability.

Cell Theory Question

DChead22

New member

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

justone

jfuh

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Australianlibertarian

justone

justone

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Scarecrow Akhbar

jfuh

justone

justone

jfuh

justone

justone

jfuh

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

justone

justone

justone

justone

Befuddled_Stoner

Scarecrow Akhbar

Cell Theory Question

New member

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency