If all cells are made from exsisting cells, where did the first cell come from?

[idea]

When I was referring to nothingness, I was referring to such an empty void without boundaries. It was only my suggestion that this "void" was not perfect. It was indeed something, it was a form of Potential. Sorry to be so misleading.

In the beginning, there was a form of potential.
I like it! :yes:.

What is life but a form of potential? Life grows, changes, has potential.
rock vs. plant - the plant grows. the universe has grown.

Potential was there, life was there, life has always been.

self-existent entities are eternal.
life is eternal. no beginning, and no end.

 

[Runewolf1973]

In the beginning, there was a form of potential.
I like it! :yes:.

What is life but a form of potential? Life grows, changes, has potential.
rock vs. plant - the plant grows. the universe has grown.

Potential was there, life was there, life has always been.

self-existent entities are eternal.
life is eternal. no beginning, and no end.

Yes, I believe that such Potential can even be a form of energy in and of itself. Potential has always existed.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Even if you were standing right in the place where life started on earthm, at the time it started, you would not have known it. Knowing how life actually started will never be known for sure.

That is possible. However, perhaps it is a matter of perspective. If from my perspective everything that exists, every atom or particle of energy has the potential for life, and possesses that animating principal, then I have no reason to question where life came from. The answers are all around us and inside of us. There is no big mystery about life as far as I'm concerned. I have all the answers I need.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

OK, well, I think the same logic can be used to take it a step further. For example, let's say you were hungry, and I had food, so I gave it to you. I would feel good about myself, until I later learned that you had recently died from food poisoning. If I had not known the food was bad, I can't be "blamed" for killing you, can I? I'm limited not only by available exterior options, but also by available choices in my head (knowledge). I argue that I can't decide to do something I don't know about, yet someone else may know about it, therefore that person has that option. We're still predetermined IMO by our previous experiences. It's the incredibly complex matrix of experiences that I think give us an illusion of free will. I'm not 100% certain of my theory, but so far it's the most reasonable I can come up with. I hope I can refine it further, cuz if not, it means there's really no such thing as fault.

Yet you were free to take all safeguards against giving me tainted food and you chose not to.

 

[MSizer]

Yet you were free to take all safeguards against giving me tainted food and you chose not to.

We couldn't live that way. Taking all safeguards would require me to grow the peas, become a lab technician and test them, can them myself, keep them in my sight at all times.... Not possible.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

We couldn't live that way. Taking all safeguards would require me to grow the peas, become a lab technician and test them, can them myself, keep them in my sight at all times.... Not possible.

Possible, not probable. Also how you choose to feel about my supposed demise is also an act of your free will.

 

[logician]

who says life had to have a start? What is wrong with saying life is as old as matter?

who says life started on Earth? The Earth is not a closed system.

Not me.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Thinking I have an image of god at the breaking of perfection, I'd have to assume we are at least the third universe. Damn threes.

Caught god in the beginning with a fistful of numbers; so, number.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

And all movement must have been caused by another movement, right?
So there must have been some sort of "Unmoved Mover".



Basically, everything has to come from something.
...or someONE.
I believe that someone is God.

But I'd like to hear your arguments.

An age old argument and long refuted. Its sad that every now and then it pops up again.

First of all why would all and everything have to come from "something"?
Why do you think the number of sources would have to be reduced to "one"?
There could be paralel chains.

Secondly if (as you say) ALL must be caused then there can't be something uncaused, which means God can't be uncaused either. IF he can be then why not something else?

Your Argument is not conclusive.

 

[RomCat]

Which came first?
The chicken or the egg?
The chicken of course.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Which came first?
The chicken or the egg?
The chicken of course.

The T. Rex
T. rex was 'chicken' -- ancestor, that is - USATODAY.com

 

[Runewolf1973]

The T. Rex
T. rex was 'chicken' -- ancestor, that is - USATODAY.com

Ha Ha!! That's what I was going to suggest...The dinosaurs came first.

 

[logician]

It may be incorrect to say Trex was an "ancestor" of the chicken. I think it is more correct to say they are on the same evolutionary branch of a tree, i.e. they had a common ancestor.

 

[Vile Atheist]

If all cells are made from exsisting cells, where did the first cell come from?

Good question! I apologize in advance for the over-simplification and briefness. But this is a very difficult topic to summarize without leaving a whole lot of important things out.

The atmosphere of early Earth was probably composed mainly of hydrogen gas, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, and methane. In the conditions of early Earth, allowed conditions for these chemicals to mix and stew and form the nitrogenous bases of nucleotides. I refer you to the 1961 work of Juan Oro. Nucleotides are composed of a nitrogenous base, a sugar (ribose), and a phosphate group.

The origin of the sugar is still being debated and biochemists have a pretty good idea of how the phosphate came about, but it hasn't been conclusively proven as of yet.

There is a mineral called montmorillonite. Montmorillonite has a special property in which is elongates peptides. When the nucleotides got in contact with the montmorillonite, they were "stuck" together, forming a long chain called a polypeptide. Some of these long-chained polypeptides are able to self-replicate (RNA).

Montmorillonite also has another special property of which it can produce something called micelles. Micelles are basically blobs of phospholipids. RNA being formed at montmorillonite would probably be encased in micelles. The RNA would find greater protection in the micelles from the outer environment and so the RNA that found itself in these micelles, replicated with them.

This is the first protocell. Very simple compared to modern cells. This is because of evolution. With a lot of time, RNA evolved to DNA and evolution and natural selection started forming cell organelles, eventually culminating in the complex eukaryotic cells in our bodies now.


Hope that answers your question.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Which came first?
The chicken or the egg?
The chicken of course.

RNA came before everything.

 

[Vile Atheist]

The Earth is not a closed system.

Yes and no.

It's approximated to be a closed system, but matter and energy still obviously escape the system. Meteorites come in, astronauts and trace helium go out. But the masses of these objects that enter and exit Earth are so small in comparison to the size of the Earth, Earth is approximated as a closed system.

 

[Jose Fly]

Typically, the terms "open system" or "closed system" refer to thermodynamics. And thermodynamically, the earth is decidedly open as it receives a large input of energy from the sun.

 

[Vile Atheist]

You're confusing an isolated system (no exchange of energy or matter) with a closed system (an exchange of energy, but not matter). In contrast to an open system where there is an exchange of both energy and matter.

Source: My Geology course.

 

[Jose Fly]

I guess you could categorize my source as "Just about everyone else".

 

[Vile Atheist]

Had you actually opened up the first link on your source (The Wikipedia one), it gives you the exact same definition as I gave you.

• Isolated systems are completely isolated in every way from their environment. They do not exchange heat, work or matter with their environment. An example of an isolated system would be an insulated rigid container, such as an insulated gas cylinder.

• Closed systems are able to exchange energy (heat and work) but not matter with their environment. A greenhouse is an example of a closed system exchanging heat but not work with its environment. Whether a system exchanges heat, work or both is usually thought of as a property of its boundary.

• Open systems: exchanging energy (heat and work) and matter with their environment. A boundary allowing matter exchange is called permeable. The ocean would be an example of an open system.

Nice try, though. It might just help if you read your own "sources" before you post them.