The first cell - evolved or created?
good question was asked by a listener to a recent Creation Corner speech. The question prompted me to study more
about cells because I needed to better understand how our bodies are made from new cells, yet scientists tell us
no new cells are being created.
The more I prgressed into the additional
study, the more I realized evolutionists have severe problems with their classic explanation of the first cell.
and creation agree - there was a first cell. The difference is that one side says it accidentally evolved
while the other side says it was created.
Darwin knew little about cells
we get into the origin of the first cell, though, it might be good to review what scientists have learned about cells. Until
fairly recent times scientists believed that the smaller a thing is in nature, the simpler it is. In other words,
they believed complexity increased with size. Thus Darwin and early scientists believed cells, being tiny in size,
were primitively simple.
How wrong that was! As microscopes became more and more powerful,
scientists were finally able to look into cells. They were amazed! Far from being simple, cells are incredibly
Exactly what is a cell anyway?
consider "what is a cell?".
Scientists now know cells are
the fundamental unit of life.
Simply put by this reference: "All visible living creatures
are themselves made up of living "creatures" called cells". (4).
example, our body, although one functioning unit, is made up of 5 trillion cells, each one a living individual
unit of its own. (4)
Our bodies have about 350 kinds of cells, such as blood cells, or liver,
bone, brain, skin cells and so on (4)
"Each second 25 million of our body cells are undergoing
division, replacing those that have worn out or died". (5)
"Blood cells alone have to be replaced
at the rate of 100 million per minute." (5)
"Every cell of your body
contains a complete set of all the information that went into building it." (4)
are not merely inert structural units,...but individual beings with lives of their own." (4)
must continuously talk to each other. They use electrical and chemical signals to control every action you take."
Cells are "miniature cities"!
how one researcher(11) explains it, "Every cell is like a miniature city and is capable of an independent
existence. It has
1) a power plant,
2) makes its food,
manufactures hundreds of chemicals,
4) has a communication system,
5) has highways,
6) a waste disposal system, etc."
end the article at this point by asking, "Do you think anything so complex evolved by itself from randomly
scattered chemicals"? But for the sake of argument, let's trudge on.
The first cell - evolved or created?
The necessary foundation information taken
care of, we can now move on to the real subject of the article. All of us are probably familiar with the classic evolution
teaching of the origin of the first cell. It has to do with
a hot, seething ocean,
a blob of something,
a bolt of lightning.
As one reference(23) put it, "We have had [DNA]
from the very beginning, built into the first cell to emerge, membranes and all, somewhere in the soupy water of the
cooling planet three thousand million years or so ago." Another reference(6), wrote, "The uniformity of the earth's
life...is accountable by the high probability that we derived, originally, from some single cell, fertilized in
a bolt of lightning as the earth cooled." A third reference(20) wrote an explanation similar to the last quote
above, but used the word "energized" instead of "fertilized".
So there you have
it! In just two dozen or so words - an explanation of the origin of the first cell and the origin of life
itself. Notice how the difficult matter of origins was so quickly and neatly disposed of!
But Frazier, isn't the creationist answer, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
also short and simple? Yes, it is. But it ends there - no more can be added - because it explains beginnings by a divine miracle.
Evolution, on the other hand, claims itself as a natural process that
moves step by step. Therefore, evolution's answer needs to show how it happened - step by step.- not dismissed
with just a few words.
Students are exposed to easy explanations
School textbooks contain similar simple statements that supposedly explain our not only origins, but other
phenomena in nature.. I referenced just three examples.
But should such
abbreviated conclusions be just accepted without questioning, without any thought at all? Shouldn't all minds,
especially developing minds, question and analyze what they are told?
doesn't it happen? Our schools are off track. As Henry Ford, (10) put it, "The object of education is not to fill
a man's mind with facts; it is to teach him how to use his mind in thinking." Unfortunately, in today's
society, teaching students to think, to analyze for themselves, is something to be feared because
it leads to individualism, which is against the group think that is being molded into today's society.
We will not follow the easy path of non-thinking
then "think through", step by step, the classic explanation of how the first cell emerged and was brought to life.
(Footnote (22) has more information.) As the saying goes, "The devil is in the details". The problem with
the evolutionist explanation is in the details, in the mechanics of how it had to have worked. Bear with
me, I think readers will find a prolonged "think through" analysis illuminating.
So for our next item of analysis: Didn't the statement actually mean this: "A blob of dead chemicals
and matter were brought to life by a bolt of lightning". Isn't that the thrust of the explanation? Yes it is. So
why choose fertilize? Could it be that "fertilize" is every day stuff, not nearly as strong as "brought
to life". Is it possible the use of this weaker word makes the explanation more plausible to the reader?
As mentioned, another writer used the word "energize" in his one-sentence explanation. Could that
have been another way to use a weaker word to make the explanation more plausible to readers?.
Maybe this writer has become suspicious and a cynic in his old age as he raises the point of using the weak
words "fertilize" and "energize". You, of course, decide for yourself whether the point is a valid one.
A logical analysis resulting in ten impossibilities
move on. With our scientific knowledge of cells, we will now logically "think through" the details by analyzing
what had to have happened if those, and similar, 24-word evolutionist teachings are true. As we
analyze, step by step, I call each step an impossibility. Let's have some fun as you bear with me on this.
Let's consider this first cell. As pointed out in our
review, a cell is a "miniature city". Scientists have discovered each "miniature city" has a
membrane and eighteen parts, not just one as you might think. All parts have to be present for the "miniature
city" to work and stay alive.
Picture then evolution's first
cell as it crawled out of the hot ocean. Do you think 18 separate and distinct parts just "happened" to come together
and place themselves inside a conveniently just-formed membrane? That is impossibility #1. (By the way, the membrane
is itself a marvel.)
18 parts cannot be jumbled up. Instead they have to be in their exact right positions inside the membrane. That is
Let's say this first
cell managed to evolve, by accident, from various chemicals, the 19 parts. And in their exact positions. What's the next
problem? The parts would immediately start to decay and rot wouldn't they? Without life, isn't that what
happens to matter? The evolution requirement that this first cell would not decay and rot while waiting to be found
by a lightning bolt is impossibility #3.
Source (6) told us this about DNA: "We have it [DNA] from the very beginning, built into the first cell
to emerge, membranes and all, somewhere in the soupy water of the cooling planet three thousand million years or so ago."
I agree DNA was built into the first cell. DNA is information; massive amounts of information. How
much information? Here is what Bill Gates said (24), "DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than
any software we've ever developed." A prominent evolutionist reported (25), "Each nucleus...contains a digitally
coded database larger, in information content, than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together. And this figure
is for each cell, not all the cells put together...the total number of cells in the body is about 10 trillion."
Where did the information come from? Evolution says it evolved by itself from
nothing. I say massive amounts of DNA information could only come from an intelligent source. Massive amounts
of DNA information that evolutionists admit was present in the very first cell - without an intelligent source
- I call impossibility #4.
say the first cell somehow managed to evolve all 19 parts, in the right positions, and managed to avoid decaying. Moreover
let's say it managed to magically evolve the massive amounts of instructions and information it its DNA.
Picture it then floating in a seething ocean or lying on a sandy seashore. It is waiting. Waiting
for what? Why for a bolt of lightning to strike and "fertilize" or "energize" it with life! So here it
is - one cell - smaller than a grain of sand; in fact it takes 40,000 blood cells to fill a capital "O" in
Now in your mind picture a grain of sand. Imagine that grain
of sand in the immensity of the earth. To make it easier, first imagine someone hid a grain of sand somewhere in your house,
then expand your picture to a grain of sand in the nearest city, then your state, then the United States,
then the whole earth. How would anybody or anything find one grain of sand in all of that immensity? Yet we are told
that's how it happened!
What are the odds that a bolt of lightning,
struck in just the
in just the
one cell that was much tinier than a grain of sand?
was much tinier than a grain of sand?
I have to laugh as I picture in my mind
what had to have happened under the evolution explanation. I can think of few things more ludicrous than this tiny, tiny,
speck of tender matter waiting for its miracle bolt of lightning. And waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting................
That hopeless scenario and the hopeless odds of it happening make for impossibility
lightning injure or destroy what it strikes? How could a speck of fragile matter, like the 19 parts of a cell, survive
a lightning stroke, intact and unharmed? This makes for impossibility number 6.
Let's say all of the above managed to happen. Does a
bolt of lightning contain life? If it does, and there are thousands of bolts striking every day around the earth,
lightning would be creating life in dead matter or chemicals all over the place. A major scientific principle is
that life comes only from life. Evolutionists, however, put the rule aside when teaching their magic first life "explanations".
To say life can come from a bolt of lightning, or anything similar, is impossibility #7.
Let's say that our first evolved cell somehow passed
the previous impossibilities. There is another problem. Say our first evolved cell now starts to divide, which
is what cells do. How does it divide into an oak tree cell, a celery stalk cell, a dog cell, a horse cell, a whale cell, and
on and on and on? Remember, all cells divide from a parent cell.
There's more. Parent
cells split themselves off to become, in the case of humans, blood cells, brain cells, muscle cells, bone cells, etc. But
still human cells, not fish cells, not plant cells, not tree cells, etc. The problem, then, is this: How could one
parent cell become millions and millions of different species? That is impossibility number 8.
What was this supposed
first cell the parent of? Scientifically it was a parent and had to contain complete blueprints
to pass on to its daughter cells as they divided. What, exactly, was the daughter going to be? An oak tree perhaps? Maybe
a celery plant? Maybe a bird specie? Maybe even an early man? I think you get the point.
But wait a minute. It couldn't be anything could it? Because according to the evolution explanation- there
wasn't anything yet, just this one first cell. No grass, no trees, no plants, no animals, no birds, no apes,
This first tiny cell was the beginning of everything.
This first all by itself, nothing like it ever before, cell would have to be neuter. But wouldn't a neuter
parent cell be a useless parent? What would a neuter cell divide itself into?
insoluble paradox is impossibility #9.
We know science tells us no new cells are being made today. Instead, today's cells come from
the division of existing cells. What does this tell us?
was a point in time when parent cell production stopped! But wait a minute. If evolution is true - that all cells came from
one parent cell that divided itself into new and different parent cells - such division would never stop.
New parent cells making new species would still be going on today all over the world.
But wait a minute.
If evolution is true - that all cells came from one parent
cell that divided itself into new and different parent
cells - such division would never
stop. New parent cells making new species would still be going on today
all over the world.
Question - who or what stopped new parent
cell formation? Evolution has no answer because the stoppage is contrary to the theory itself.
who or what stopped
new parent cell formation? Evolution has no answer because the stoppage is contrary
the theory itself.
A completed analysis
there you have it. An actual analysis of the one sentence classic evolution explanation of the origin of the
first cell and of life itself. Wasn't it actually fun to think through and analyze the details? For students
especially, try to analyze instead of just accepting textbook easy explanations.
One possibility after ten impossibilities
After looking at ten impossibilities,
I submit to you that what is logical, what fits the facts that science tells us about cells - is
that all cells, for all species, were created at one time. And once created, there were no more
because the creation process was finished.
not an event, but a process
The fact that evolution is not an event,
but an ongoing process is quite often lost in the evolution vs. creation debate. The importance of keeping that always
in mind has, I think, been nicely underscored by this article about the first cell.
The problems summarized
We have analyzed in depth a common evolution explanation
and find it has ten severe illogical problems.
The first cell needed to have evolved 19 distinct
and separate parts, including a complex membrane holding the 18 inside parts intact.
inside parts could not be jumbled up, they had to be in exact positions for the "miniature city" to function.
The parts would immediately start to decay and rot while waiting....and waiting....and waiting for the first
cell's required special bolt of lightning.
The cell had to have evolved by itself the massive amounts
of DNA information it contained.
How could the special bolt of lightning find this incredibly
tiny speck of one cell in all the immensity of the earth?
If true, that special bolt of lightning,
that managed somehow to find the first cell, needed to contain life-giving power, something other lightning bolts
seem to lack. A
Don't lightning bolts harm or destroy what they strike? How could these tender bits
of first matter survive a lightning bolt?
Every cell is the parent of one specie. How could
one cell be the parent of millions of species?
Exactly what was that first cell the parent
of anyway? It couldn't have been anything because it was itself all there was. Yet the scientific knowledge
about cells tell us it had to be a parent whose dividing cells would make something.
evolution dogma, parent cells are no longer evolving.
So evolution's classic explanation
of the first beginnings, when logically analyzed, reveals multiple problems and inconsistencies.
Doesn't the creation alternative make more sense?
Consider how the creation
explanation - a mass of cells all at one time -solves the problems found in the evolution scenario.
Creation does not require that things go from the simple and advance to being more complex. It does not say
it all began with one cell that divided into two, then four, then eight, finally somehow into millions of species.
Creation rather says everything was made all together as finished products.
produced completed, living organisms. Trees had fruit, animals lived and breathed, plants were ready for harvest,
and the first man and woman were fully functioning mature adults
There was absolutely no need for a
magic first cell that would grow into more complex units.
The creation alternative is that each creation
finished item contained its own cells, fully formed and alive, that would re-produce themselves after their kind.
And that is the alternative that fits modern scientific research into cells.
For example, fully developed
oak tree cells were in a created oak tree, whale cells in a created whale, plant cells in a created plant, human cells in
a created human, and on and on for millions of finished species and kinds.
The cell parts didn't
have time to decay or rot because the cell was given life at the same the host was created and came to life.
Multiple cells were brought into existence at the same time, each cell the parent of its own kind.
Massive amounts of DNA were put in every cell at their creation. A highly intelligent creator put information
into cells; information did not come by itself by accident.
By their own research, scientists tell us
no more cells are being created - but instead have to divide from an existing cell. Doesn't that indicate someone
or something had to have said, "This many parent cells and no more"?
The final important question
The final important question
have analyzed, "thought through", step by step, the classic evolution explanation of the first cell and how it got
life. We have compared evolution's explanation with the creation alternative.
Weighing all the scientific
discoveries about cells just presented; which explanation seems more logical, which one makes more sense to you?
Did the first cell evolve -
or were cells created?
References and footnotes:
Please note: italics,
boldface, or underlining sometimes added to quotes for emphasis.
(1) "World Mythology" by
Donna Rosenberg, published 1994 by NTC Pub. Group, Lincolnwood, IL.
(2) "Myths and Legends"
by Neil Philip, published 1999 by DK Publishing, NY.
(3) "Creation Corner" article "Evolution
and Humans are just Animals".
(4) "The Way Life Works" by Mahlon Hoagland and Bert Dodson,
published 1995 Times Books, NY.
(5) "Cell and Molecular Biology" by Gerald Karp, published
by John Wiley and Sons, NY.
(6) "The Medusa and the Snail" by Lewis Thomas, published 1979
by Viking Press, NY.
(7) "Introductary Biology" by Linda R. Berg, published 1997 by Saunders
(8) "Science News" Oct. 24, 1998, article by Sarah Simpson.
From the web site spacedaily.com/news/life-03h.html.
(10)"My Life and Work" by Henry Ford,
published 1973 by Arno Press, Inc. From the original work published in 1922. (This book should be on everyone's to read
(11) "Sex and the Origins of Death" by William R. Clark, published 1996 by Oxford
University Press, NY.
(12) For more details, see the article "Evolution vs. Humans are just Animals".
(13) Encyclopedia Americana 2002 edition, article "Earth".
(14) Isaiah 40:22.
According to Strong's Concordance, the Hebrew word for circle means just that, a circle.
Book Encyclopedia 2004 edition, article "Atoms".
(17) "Discover" magazine, columnist
Bob Berman in his column, "Sky Lights".
(18) "Super Nature" by Lyall Watson, Bantam
Books edition published 1974.
(19) Isaiah 40:12
(20) Sorry, I really did read
it, but not realizing it fit in somewhere, did not note the source.
(21) "Vixi: Memoirs of a Non-belonger"
by Richard Pipes, published 2003 by Yale University Press, New Haven and London, CT.
(22) Yes, evolutionists
have advanced other explanations of the first somethings. My article about matter and information lists seven of them. This
writer likes to point out that the fact evolutionists have come up with so many, and can't agree even among themselves,
tells us a lot right there!
(23) "The Medusa and the Snail" by Lewis Thomas, published 1999
by Viking Press, NY 10022.
(24) "Where Darwin Meets the Bible" by Larry A. Witham, published 2002, Oxford
University Press, Osford, England and New York.
(25) "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins, published
1996 W.W. Norton Company, NY.