Abiogenesis & Cell Theory overlap?

[none]

Abiogenesis, life from non-life without outside agent...simply put I guess.
And Cell Theory tenets here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_theory

1) All living organisms are composed of one or more cells.
2) The cell is the most basic unit of life.
3) All cells arise from pre-existing, living cells.

The apparent overlap "all cells arise from pre-existing, living cells" and life coming from non-life don't seem to compliment each other.
Even a caveat of "the cell existed before there was life" doesn't seem to resolve the conflict and that caveat seems to interfere with the "all cells arise from pre-existing life, living cells"....
Is is safe to safe that cell theory is functional even though it conflicts with abiogenesis?

 

[PyramidHead]

Abiogenesis, life from non-life without outside agent...simply put I guess.
And Cell Theory tenets here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_theory

1) All living organisms are composed of one or more cells.
2) The cell is the most basic unit of life.
3) All cells arise from pre-existing, living cells.

The apparent overlap "all cells arise from pre-existing, living cells" and life coming from non-life don't seem to compliment each other.
Even a caveat of "the cell existed before there was life" doesn't seem to resolve the conflict and that caveat seems to interfere with the "all cells arise from pre-existing life, living cells"....
Is is safe to safe that cell theory is functional even though it conflicts with abiogenesis?

Sure it is. Cell theory tries to accurately describe/define life as it currently is, not as whatever form of proto-life it was billions of years ago. Even if the first cells emerged from something that we would not call a cell (which is true by definition), cell theory may still hold that all cells arise--present tense--from other cells.

 

[Rhea]

I'd be okay with a slight change:
3) replace "arise" with "reproduce"
and then add
4) Cells can arise from non-living structures, but this is extremely (!) rare and therefore discussed under biogenesis aka abiogenesis

 

[Keith&Co.]

4) Cells can arise from non-living structures, but this is extremely (!) rare and therefore discussed under biogenesis aka abiogenesis

But is this part of cell theory?

 

[fromderinside]

Catbird here. Not from my seat.

 

[Rhea]

4) Cells can arise from non-living structures, but this is extremely (!) rare and therefore discussed under biogenesis aka abiogenesis

But is this part of cell theory?

Perhaps not currently, but one thing science does rully rully well is adapt to new information. Cell Theory 2.0 may very well want to acknowledge first-cell mechanisms.

 

[fromderinside]

But is this part of cell theory?

Perhaps not currently, but one thing science does rully rully well is adapt to new information. Cell Theory 2.0 may very well want to acknowledge first-cell mechanisms.

... as is the requirement for supervening theories accounting for subordinate theories .... but it will be instituted from ambiogenesists or one of its intermediates and cell theory. Physics is subordinate to big bang, etc.

 

[Perspicuo]

Abiogenesis explains the existence of any cells at all.

If you read science news about space, the interviewees talk about the existence of life on other planets and organic molecules on other worlds, with the tacit supposition of abiogenesis. Panspermia also says nothing about creation −it doesn't do away with abiogenesis, just moves it around the cosmos a bit.

The relation between abiogenesis and cell theory, is similar to what you find in other fields of science. For example, psychiatrists talk about schizophrenia as if there were no psychopathology-causing demons. Implicit abiogenesis simply means we're not in the Middle Ages any more!

 

[untermensche]

A virus is not made up of any cells.

And it is a living organism.

So number 1 is nonsense.

 

[bilby]

All three are questionable.

1) All living organisms are composed of one or more cells - apart from viruses and prions; although whether these qualify as 'living organisms' is open to discussion.
2) The cell is the most basic unit of life - For a given value of basic. And unit. And life.
3) All cells arise from pre-existing, living cells - true today, as far as we know. But demonstrably not always true - once there was no cellular life; now there is cellular life; therefore at least once, a cell must have arisen without pre-existing, living cells.

It seems that 'cell theory' is more 'cell vaguely useful classification scheme that applies in some circumstances'

 

[fromderinside]

A virus is not made up of any cells.

And it is a living organism.

So number 1 is nonsense.

No it isn't living. Viruses require a living thing to reproduce.

 

[untermensche]

A virus is not made up of any cells.

And it is a living organism.

So number 1 is nonsense.

No it isn't living. Viruses require a living thing to reproduce.

That's an arbitrary definition.

Mine is; If it is invading and reproducing then it is living.

 

[bilby]

No it isn't living. Viruses require a living thing to reproduce.

That's an arbitrary definition.

Mine is; If it is invading and reproducing then it is living.

That's an arbitrary definition too.

 

[untermensche]

That's an arbitrary definition.

Mine is; If it is invading and reproducing then it is living.

That's an arbitrary definition too.

I said it was my arbitrary definition.

 

[bilby]

That's an arbitrary definition too.

I said it was my arbitrary definition.

But you failed to say why you felt it was better than that proposed by fromderinside, either in general, or in the specific circumstances under discussion.

His arbitrary definition is more commonly accepted than yours; Why should we use your definition rather than his?

 

[untermensche]

I said it was my arbitrary definition.

But you failed to say why you felt it was better than that proposed by fromderinside, either in general, or in the specific circumstances under discussion.

His arbitrary definition is more commonly accepted than yours; Why should we use your definition rather than his?

Where is it commonly held that viruses are not living organisms?

 

[Perspicuo]

Viruses are handicapped living organisms.

Other organisms are handicapped in different ways. There are bacteria which would not survive without making hosts sick. Most parasites would not survive if not for their hosts. We would not survive without certain archæa living in our gut.

Dependency is no reason to consider something abiotic.

 

[untermensche]

Viruses are handicapped living organisms.

Other organisms are handicapped in different ways. There are bacteria which would not survive without making hosts sick. Most parasites would not survive if not for their hosts. We would not survive without certain archæa living in our gut.

Dependency is no reason to consider something abiotic.

Yes, a virus is a parasite.

That doesn't make it non-living as others contend.

 

[Underseer]

Abiogenesis, life from non-life without outside agent...simply put I guess.
And Cell Theory tenets here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_theory

1) All living organisms are composed of one or more cells.
2) The cell is the most basic unit of life.
3) All cells arise from pre-existing, living cells.

The apparent overlap "all cells arise from pre-existing, living cells" and life coming from non-life don't seem to compliment each other.
Even a caveat of "the cell existed before there was life" doesn't seem to resolve the conflict and that caveat seems to interfere with the "all cells arise from pre-existing life, living cells"....
Is is safe to safe that cell theory is functional even though it conflicts with abiogenesis?

First of all, abiogenesis just means "life from non-life." If abiogenesis is impossible, then the Talking Snake Theory of Creation is also disproved.

Secondly, you seem to be under the impression that abiogenesis involves a fully-formed cell just popping into existence out of a vat of chemicals. That is not abiogenesis, that is  spontaneous generation, which has already been debunked long ago.

For abiogenesis, all we have to do is show that it is possible to produce a chunk of RNA in a particular sequence. Do that, and you have a big molecule that copies itself, doesn't always make perfect copies, and which influences the formation of proteins around it. Those are all the ingredients you need for evolution to take over and produce everything else we see. The evolution of the cell is actually fairly well understood.

So to argue that abiogenesis is impossible, one has to argue that it is impossible for molecules to combine to form bigger molecules. In essence, one would have to argue against everything we know about basic chemistry (which is essentially what those creationist arguments about "information" and the second law of thermodynamics does).

 

[skepticalbip]

But you failed to say why you felt it was better than that proposed by fromderinside, either in general, or in the specific circumstances under discussion.

His arbitrary definition is more commonly accepted than yours; Why should we use your definition rather than his?

Where is it commonly held that viruses are not living organisms?

It is a point of contention in biology but most widely held that a virus is not alive but "are more complex biochemical mechanisms than living organisms." It really boils down to how "life" is defined. Current most accepted definition leaves viruses out of the alive category since 1935.

http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/yellowstone/viruslive.html

When researchers first discovered agents that behaved like bacteria but were much smaller and caused diseases such as rabies and foot-and-mouth disease, it became the general view that viruses were biologically "alive." However this perception changed in 1935 when the tobacco mosaic virus was crystallized and it was shown that the particles lacked the mechanisms necessary for metabolic function. Once it was established that viruses consist merely of DNA or RNA surrounded by a protein shell, it became the scientific view that they are more complex biochemical mechanisms than living organisms.