Cell theory states that cells can only come from other pre-existing cells. What about the first cell?

Question

I find it highly unlikely and improbable that something as complex as a cell could have formed by chance, much less formed increasingly complex multicellular organisms... and what about consciousness? Sentience? If we are only biological, natural, do we then have a soul?

Yet at the same time, there is plenty of evidence to support evolution. I've read up on it quite a bit.

How can we reconcile these facts???

Answer 1

All you need is one exception to the rule. Since the genetic code is essentially universal (there are a few minor variations), it appears to have arisen only once.

Actually, once a molecule forms that has the capacity to catalyze reactions that produce similar (not even identical) molecules, life is pretty much guaranteed. I'll admit the first molecule is a bit of a long shot, but having the vastness of the oceans and hundreds of millions of years helps. Of course, this is speculation since, to date, no chemical fossils have been found. The primordial soup, from which life arose, was consumed by that life.

The first cell was probably not much more than a bag with some molecules it it. The bag would get bigger until a chunk fell off. If the chunk has the full minimum set of molecues, the process would repeat. It's not very efficient, but good enough in the absence of competition. Organized cell division probably came later. Again, speculation, since the later more efficient cells outcompeted their primitive precursors. If any remnants of the pre-bacterial life remain, they are yet to be discovered.

Multicellular life came more than a billion years after life arose, unless you want to count chains of bacteria. The complex forms were limited until developmental genes such as the homeobox Hox gene allowed regional body definition. Complexity increased (although some organisms evolved back towards simplicity if it was a survival advantage), and nervous systems got bigger and bigger. I hate defining sentience and consciousness, so I'm going to just say a primitive, "Brain big enough."

As for the theological implications, first you need to define soul. There are three Greek definitions: logos (like bio-LOGY), word or reason; thymos, emotion; and pathos, passion or appetite which extend beyond the Hebrew nephesh of Greek anima meaning breath. Many creatures (mostly mammals and birds) can reason, the highest of the Greek triad. I would suggest that Homo habilis reached the point where the basest of the three, appetite, expanded to be an appetite (a void to be filled) by higher ideas.

Answer 2

Claim CB010.2:
The most primitive cells are too complex to have come together by chance. (See also Probability of abiogenesis.)
Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 44.
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 59-69.
Response:

1. Biochemistry is not chance. It inevitably produces complex products. Amino acids and other complex molecules are even known to form in space.

2. Nobody knows what the most primitive cells looked like. All the cells around today are the product of billions of years of evolution. The earliest self-replicator was likely very much simpler than anything alive today; self-replicating molecules need not be all that complex (Lee et al. 1996), and protein-building systems can also be simple (Ball 2001; Tamura and Schimmel 2001).

3. This claim is an example of the argument from incredulity. Nobody denies that the origin of life is an extremely difficult problem. That it has not been solved, though, does not mean it is impossible. In fact, there has been much work in this area, leading to several possible origins for life on earth:

* Panspermia, which says life came from someplace other than earth. This theory, however, still does not answer how the first life arose.
* Proteinoid microspheres (Fox 1960, 1984; Fox and Dose 1977; Fox et al. 1995; Pappelis and Fox 1995): This theory gives a plausible account of how some replicating structures, which might well be called alive, could have arisen. Its main difficulty is explaining how modern cells arose from the microspheres.
* Clay crystals (Cairn-Smith 1985): This says that the first replicators were crystals in clay. Though they do not have a metabolism or respond to the environment, these crystals carry information and reproduce. Again, there is no known mechanism for moving from clay to DNA.
* Emerging hypercycles: This proposes a gradual origin of the first life, roughly in the following stages: (1) a primordial soup of simple organic compounds. This seems to be almost inevitable; (2) nucleoproteins, somewhat like modern tRNA (de Duve 1995a) or peptide nucleic acid (Nelson et al. 2000), and semicatalytic; (3) hypercycles, or pockets of primitive biochemical pathways that include some approximate self-replication; (4) cellular hypercycles, in which more complex hypercycles are enclosed in a primitive membrane; (5) first simple cell. Complexity theory suggests that the self-organization is not improbable. This view of abiogenesis is the current front-runner.
* The iron-sulfur world (Russell and Hall 1997; Wächtershäuser 2000): It has been found that all the steps for the conversion of carbon monoxide into peptides can occur at high temperature and pressure, catalyzed by iron and nickel sulfides. Such conditions exist around submarine hydrothermal vents. Iron sulfide precipitates could have served as precursors of cell walls as well as catalysts (Martin and Russell 2003). A peptide cycle, from peptides to amino acids and back, is a prerequisite to metabolism, and such a cycle could have arisen in the iron-sulfur world (Huber et al. 2003).
* Polymerization on sheltered organophilic surfaces (Smith et al. 1999): The first self-replicating molecules may have formed within tiny indentations of silica-rich surfaces so that the surrounding rock was its first cell wall.
* Something that no one has thought of yet.

Links:
Robinson, Richard. 2005. Jump-starting a cellular world: Investigating the origin of life, from soup to networks. PLoS Biology 3(11): e396. http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030396

Answer 3

Evolution states conclusively that the cell did not come about by chance, but through natural selection. The two are quite different.

There is no biological evidence of any soul.

The study of consciousness is a new field and no prevailing theories exist yet, although thought has been proven to have a very physical, biological existence.

Answer 4

My answer may be difficult for you to understand, but I will use a parallel.

I saw a car today with registration number IGV 969. What are the odds of me seeing that specific number. Of all the cars in all the world, why that one? I saw that registration number then asked what are the odds, I could have used any number that I saw today and asked the same question

I'll tell you. If we look for the outcome with a specific result in mind (in this case the registration number, in evolution the development of mankind) it is huge because there are a huge amount of possibilities. But if we just look at the result After the event and say what are the odds the probability is 1 because all other possibilities have been excluded.

Mankind could have been anything, we could have been amphibians saying what are the odds, but we're not we are humans saying it. In the beginning any small influence could have ceated a different path for evolution The possibilities were enormous but we are the result

Answer 5

First of all, as extraordinary as a single cell is, I think God is probably more extraordinary and therefor more unlikely to simply exist.

Anyway, a very simple cell (not really even a cell -- just a sphere of molecules) is not very many molecules. It's not unconceivable that a simple cell-like organism could happen by chance.

Finally, not all life forms come in the forms of cells. Some are simpler proteins. That's most likely what came before cells. It's natural selection (the opposite of chance) from there.

Answer 6

There is an order of events that led from the beginnings to humans. We can observe the process at the macromolecular level. We can form theories that explains those facts (observations) using the scientific method. We know these theories as evolution and natural selection. We change these theories when and if more facts become known. We call this science.

Some believe that this process was created by some force, creationism or intelligent design. However, that is a belief not an observation. There is nothing in the process to support the notation of God.

We get our notation of God from revelation (reveal knowledge). From the revelation we know God existed before he created everything we can observe, our universe. This means that God exists in the observable and the unobservable. It is the unobservable that causes the scientific method to fail.

Again from revelation we know that God is spirit (wind).

We get into trouble when science is used to explain revelation and we also get into trouble when revelation is used to explain science. This means we have two belief systems.

Answer: Evolution and natural selection get your from chemical elements to complex organism. But neither evolution or natural selection gets you to God.

Answer 7

Time.

If billions of years pass with a universe of (approaching) infinite size, there arises the possibility of unique and fascinating occurrences. Given enough time, a single, reproducible cell seems hardly impossibly complex to me.

I don't know, it's either accepting that, or that a highly complex god to have done the trick. I opt for the less complicated of the two, and go for random generation of the first cell.

Answer 8

The current English word "soul" may have originated from the Old English sawol, documented in 970 AD. "Sawol" has possible links with a Germanic root from which we also get the word "sea". The old German word is called 'se(u)la', which means: belonging to the sea (ancient Germanic conceptions involved the souls of the unborn and of the dead "living" being part of a medium, similar to water), or perhaps, "living water"

The word "soul" did not exist in the times of Jesus, Socrates or Aristotle, and so the quotations, interpretations and translations of the word "soul" from these sources, means that the word should be handled very carefully. One might go as far as saying that the word "soul", in the sense we use it today, did not exist in Hebrew or Aramaic, but it existed in Greek Ancient Greeks typically referred to the soul as psyche (as in modern English psychology). Aristotle's works in Latin translation, used the word anima (as in animated), which also means "breath". In the New Testament, the original Greek word used is "Psyche" which in Ancient and Modern Greek means soul :

"For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" (Matthew 16:26)
The Latin root of the related word spirit, like anima, also expresses the idea of "breath". Likewise, the Biblical Hebrew word for 'soul' is nephesh, meaning life, or vital breath.

The various origins and usages demonstrate not only that what people call "soul" today has varied in meaning throughout history, but that the word and concept themselves have changed in their implications.

You know even animals have a consciousness. I am sure that you have heard of Cocoa the gorilla who has been taught sign language and communicates her feelings very well. There is also another gorilla named Micheal who was found alone in the jungle and raised with Cocoa and taught sign language. When he was about 4 yrs old he was asks about his mother. He signed that she had been killed and chopped for "monkey meat" and he had seen this happen. He cried when he relayed the story to his trainers. Makes you think don't it?

Answer 9

The biblical word soul means breath of life. I will never agree with evolution because I believe in God and his Holy words the bible. To me there are no facts to reconcile. God created.