Biochemically, all cells are essentially the same.
From the single cell bacterium to anyone of the trillion cells of the human body,
all have the same key components.
Enzymes, hundreds of them, each catalyzing exactly one chemical reaction needed for life, and made from a 20 amino acid alphabet, made into impossibly long chains of some 500 amino acids.
DNA, with the code to tell the cell how to put the amino acid chain together.
Energy source, ATP needed for most reactions.
This is to say, there is no primitive cell. So it is unimaginable to think this amazing cell came about just through random chemical reactions from simple molecules like water, carbon dioxide, nitrogen gas, oxygen gasâŚIt had to be created.
1 Like
Hi Doug, and welcome to the forum! I hope you find it a good place for robust discussion on faith/science topics.
As to your post, I think youâll find âunimaginableâ is not going to hold up as an argument around here. There are lots of things I struggle to understand, but thatâs not an argument against any of them existing â just a statement of the limits of my own understanding.
But in that vein, the topic of protocells looks interesting for those curious about exploring the possible origins of cells: Protocell - Wikipedia
3 Likes
Good evening, @biochemist . Welcome!
Just a clarification, pleaseâyouâre discussing abiogenesis, not evolutionâright?
Also, there are a wide variety of cellsâprokaryotes, eukaryotes, etc. Iâm curious as to what you think would be irreducible complexity? How would you classify a virus, or a prion?
With regard to that, I hesitate to say that God is the only one who could do it, though Iâm a Christian. I would certainly think there are tons of reasons we rely on Godânot only for designing the laws of the universe that could start everything, but as being the ultimate source of justice, including the One to whom we are ultimately responsible, but also in whom we find our ultimate hope.
Thanks again, and welcome!
Randy
(BTW as an introductionâI am a lowly family doc in West Michigan with a bachelorâs in biology in undergrad. I love science, but am not a scientist. My favorite class was organic chem, though I found evolutionary biology and cell and molecular biology really interesting, too. I grew up in a missionary family in West Africa, and count learning about othersâ points of view and cultures as one of my greatest enjoyments!).
Thank you.
2 Likes
That reminds me, I have The Song of the Cell somewhere that I have not gotten around to reading.
2 Likes
There is no primitive cell now. But that proves no more than does the fact that you donât observe swarms of Model A Fords swarming the New Jersey Turnpike.
To whom? Iâd say that shows a distinct lack of faith in God â after all, He managed an entire universe merely by setting a small collection of constants!
1 Like
Hi,
Increulity does not go down well here as Laura said, not that it is unfounded, and the non existence niw, does not preclude it ever happening as has also been said.
âGod did itâ is a statment of faith that is virtually unprovable. It underpins much of the views of the Universe and science is trying to understand how hHe ight have done it either directy or by seting things in motion⌠Obviously science does not recognise God as such, although many scientist do have a faith.
Abiogenesis is an ongoing investigation. Those of us with a strong faith tend to think it is a foolâs errand but scientists will tell you that ubderstanding it does not preclude God from it. Like Genesis 1 it is a case of Who (God) not How, that matters to faith, whiie science goes from the other end.
You will find a plethera of indformation on the webb that many here will claim to keep you going without them, but sometimes it is good to toss things around and exchange ideas, without alteria agendas.
Letâs see where this one goes, for now,
Richard
So none of nuclei, chloroplasts. flagella, mitochondria, plasmids, etc are key components.
I suppose thatâs technically true, since there are cells that lack each of them, but on the other hand the cells that have them wouldnât function very well if those components were removed.
22 amino acids, not 20.
Many enzymes catalyse multiple reactions.
Most enzymes are shorter than that.
There are also ribozymes, which are RNA, not amino-acids.
And clearly 500 amino-acids isnât impossibly long.
Of course there isnât. All extant cells have been evolving for billions of years.
But the variation in extant cells is an indication that cells have evolved, as has the DNA code, suggesting that the cells that were around billions of years ago were less complex than todayâs cells. RNA based viruses provide indications too.
Reality isnât limited by your (or my) imagination.
2 Likes
Those of âstrong faithâ whose auxiliary belief mandates âthat God miracled life into existence instead of using the basic physical laws God embedded in creationâ may think itâs a foolâs errand. Then again, others of âstrong faithâ can be agnostic about it or think itâs not a foolâs errand. So, I donât think âstrong faithâ, per se has anything to do with it but what other attachments one includes to that faith.
1 Like
Thanks for the welcome to this historic forum.
Guess I used a poor choice of words.
I should have wrote âhard to imagineâ rather than âunimaginableâ.
1 Like
Thatâs fair! But âhistoricâ might be a stretch⌠
Well if you think you can come up with a combination of elements to create spontanious life, as you might spontanious combustion? Good luck with that.
The miracle of life still eludes science. We can diagnose everything except that one spark. AI is not life as such, being a simulation at best. If it was a case of getting the right formula or ingredients science would have got there years ago.
Mapping the DNA is not the same as understanding it. It would be like knowing the symbols of Chinese but not the meaning or syntax.
Richard
1 Like
Not true.
We have little reason to expect all variations from the most primitive would exist today, since competition logically favors those with the better capabilities.
But even so, not all cells today are the same and some are indeed more primitive than others. Prokaryotic cells have no nucleus nor many of the other membrane bound organelles found in our cells (called eukaryotic cells). Nor are prokaryotic cells all the same, there are both archaea and bacteria (the latter including cyanobacteria capable of photosynthesis). But saying which are the more primitive is a complicated question since our eukaryotic cells apparently evolved from an endosymbiotic fusion of the two (archaea and bacteria). But archaea are considered older probably because the modern bacteria seem to be more specialized adaptations to a world filled with eukaryotic organisms.
So you are correct only in so far as the eukaryotic cell is not simply a product of individual evolution but like the multicellular organisms on the planet also involved a process of cooperation. In fact it is even more unique in that multicellular organisms come from the cooperation of cells with the same genotype where as eukaryotic cells came from the cooperation of cells with different genotypes. And for this reason eukaryotic cells have more than one genetic makeup â one inherited only from mother and the other from a combination the genetics of both parents. Though we do see other symbiotic relationships with such as the bacteria in our digestive system.
God-of-the-gaps arguments like this in an era of such rapid developments in abiogenesis and pre-biotic evolution is rather foolish. More and more the evidence is pointing to a process of evolution from self-organizing cyclical chemical processes to cellular life (called pre-biotic evolution) and this is in a universe filled with self-organizing processes of all kinds.
But none of this means God doesnât exist. It just requires faith in God rather than faith in false arguments â the latter leading to (or propping up) a lot of incorrect conclusions about both God and the universe.
1 Like
That is not God of the Gaps, unless you mean beyond the reach of science. That woud be a shame, wouldnât it. Something science couldnât replicate or understand. A bit like God Himself.
Richard
1 Like
Hi Richard,
Are you elaborating or clarifying what you meant when you wrote about âthose of us having strong faith tend to think âŚâ. What faith or which faith? Is that faith in God, Christianity, the Bible, some particular religious position or is it a strong faith in something else? There are those like many YEC that declare itâs a matter of strong faith in what the Bible says. Is that the sort of faith you describe? Can someone believe otherwise about the origin of life and still be of âstrong faithâ in your view?
Iâm certainly not disputing that abiogenesis is a very open and unsolved question in science. But thatâs orthogonal to the question what constitutes âstrong faithâ or who possess more or less faith.
2 Likes
Faith in whom?
God or man.
What is it that dictates that humanity must understandeverything? Is there no room for mystery or even miracles in life?
Perhaps it is religious vanity instead of scientific vanity, but vanity comes in there somewhere.
Not particularly. I think what i said above is sufficient. I refer to leave God some powers to Himself. I am lless comfortable with humanity interfering in life, be it eugenics, genetic engineering or abiogenesis. It is not whether we can, but whther we have the wisdom and wider knowledge to do so. History is replleat with examples of humans mucking up ecosystems with their interference, but history has to keep repeating itself because no one listens.
Richard
I would think a âstrong faithâ is one which courageously accepts all new information with the confidence that all of these will work together with a belief in God. It is the âweak faithâ which requires closing eyes, ears, and mind in order to cling only to what you believed in your childhood and thus not requiring you to think about your assumptions and what you have been told. And I think the latter is like the slothful servant in the parable of the talents who fearfully hides what he has been given instead of working to make it grow into more.
2 Likes
but it isnât belief in God.
it is beleif in science.
(and humanity)
Richard
The strong faith is belief in GOD who doesnât fill the universe with lies.
On the contrary it is the âweak faithâ which isnât a belief in God. It is a belief in people of the past, that they got everything right in their interpretations of scripture and understanding of the world.
1 Like
Who is to decide what is truth?
Science?
Just because science cannot identify it, does not make it a lie. Science cannot identify God!
There is no law that says humanity must know the answer.
Richard
Science doesnât decide what is truth.
Science investigates and looks at the evidence.
Just because the religiologs cannot identify it does not make it a lie. The religious cannot limit God to their definitions.
Only God can identify Himself and it is for Him to choose whether and how to do so or not.
It is for each of us to decide for ourselves what truth to believe in and it is certainly not for any other human to decide this for them whether they claim it comes from some âgodâ or not.
Exactly. And thus science keeps investigating no matter what people think they know.
2 Likes