Is The "First Living Cell" Theory Credible? No!!

Before talking about cells, let us start with a question: could a team of engineers go into a forest and create a brand new Buick automobile from scratch using nothing but things that were already in the forest? The obvious answer is 'no' because the raw materials in a forest are dirt, trees, insects, water, etc., but a Buick is made of steel, paint, glass, rubber, plastic, etc.

The raw materials to build a Buick from scratch simply do not exist in a forest!!

Evolutionists claim that life on this earth began by a "first living cell" forming by accident in a warm sterile pond.

However, no team of scientists on this planet could go to a prebiotic (i.e. pre-life) sterile pond and DESIGN AND MAKE a "first living cell," with DNA or RNA inside; from the mud and rocks in a sterile pond!!

How can you make DNA and cells from sterile water, mud and rocks?? The raw materials to build a cell (i.e. the "first living cell"), with DNA or RNA inside, do not exist in a pond of sterile water!! Nor could accidents (i.e. evolution) have created a living cell from sterile water, mud and rocks!!!

In fact, a "first living cell" would have been far, far, more sophisticated than any Buick automobile!!! Cells today are massively more sophisticated than any automobile. Many scientists have PhD degrees in Cell Biology. And if you count the DNA inside of the cells, the absurdity of creating the RNA or DNA for a "first living cell" using nothing but sterile water, mud and rocks is far, far, far worse than creating a Buick in the forest. There is no such thing as a simple cell or a simple DNA strand and there never has been!!!

So if no team of scientists could build a cell with DNA inside, from the mud and rocks in sterile water or from any other raw materials, how could a series of accidents, called evolution, have created the DNA or RNA inside of a "first living cell" from scratch in an environment consisting of nothing but mud and rocks in sterile water??

But it is even worse than that. The first living cell would eventually die. Thus, in order to perpetuate the "first living cell species" the first living cell would have had to be able to divide into two cells. This is an even more absurd necessity for the first living cell. How did this "first living cell" have the mechanisms to divide into two cells in order to create two cells and two DNA strands? The process of cell division is amazing in complexity. For example, how does a Golgi Apparatus get "copied" for the new cell?

The Home Page of this website talks a lot about how the theory of evolution should really be called the theory of accidents!! And this would apply to the "first living cell" if there were no God to create the first living cell.

If you think scientists could make a DNA strand from scratch read this article and study the image at the top of this article (the right hand image is the axis of a DNA strand):
Image of DNA Double Helix (See Right Image - Click On Right-Hand Image To Magnify!!)

There is also the ordering (i.e. sequencing) of the nucleotides on any DNA strand. Humans could not even begin to order/sequence the nucleotides on the RNA or DNA of a single living cell. Each unique ordering is technically called a "permutation."

Furthermore, the cell must know how to get information from the DNA or RNA. By itself, this issue destroys the "first living cell" theory.

In other words, there are many, many, many things that must be functioning properly before the cell can be alive and be able to reproduce. In a similar way, an automobile must have 4 tires, a steering wheel, front seats, window glass (for safety), an engine, gasoline, oil, etc. etc. before it can be driven away.

The truth is that even if scientists had the raw materials to make DNA, DNA is so sophisticated that no team of scientists on this planet could design and build a single DNA or RNA strand from scratch, which a living cell could use!!

Every cell in every insect, plant and animal has unbelievably complex DNA inside of it.

In fact, it is the DNA that has the instructions to create the insect, plant or animal via many cell divisions. In other words, the length and ordering of the nucleotides on a DNA strand determines which insect, plant or animal is created by that DNA via cell divisions!!!

This would apply to the "first living cell" though the "first living cell" would not need the instruction to control cell divisions.

DNA is a computer program to create something and the length and sequence of nucleotides (i.e. the computer program on that DNA) determines what that DNA will create, from a single cell which can divide into two cells or a cockroach or a human.

The structure of the DNA of a cockroach and the DNA of a human are identical!! The main difference is that the DNA of a human is longer and vastly more sophisticated (in its sequencing) than the DNA of a cockroach.

But the mathematical problems are even worse. If the "first living cell" had only one million nucleotides, the number of permutations (i.e. the number of different ways the nucleotides on this DNA strand could be ordered), would be MASSIVELY MASSIVELY larger than the number of atoms in our Universe!!!

41,000,000 is massively larger than roughly 4500!!! Only a very, very, very, very, ..., small percent of these permutations would be able to create a viable cell which can divide into two cells!!!

Yet God could look at a sequence of nucleotides on a DNA strand and tell you which insect, plant or animal it will create. But no human could do that. God didn't create animals first. He designed and created DNA inside of cells first. An animal, such as a human, is made of cells and liquids and the DNA inside the cells determines how the cells (created by cell divisions) are put together to form an insect, plant or animal.

Nor could any team of humans build a "cell" from scratch. DNA or RNA must live inside of a cell because the cell could not function without its DNA or RNA. What goes on inside of cells is like the activities of a small city, it is unbelievably complex. And every human is made of billions of cells. And almost every cell needs DNA.

Nor could any team of humans create a cell that was alive in a sterile pond or anywhere else!! Scientists have tried to create life from non-life but they have never been successful at doing that. In fact scientists don't have a clue what "life" really is.

Cells are not simple, they are many times more sophisticated than an automobile.

Cells are so sophisticated that every year many college students get PhDs in cell biology!! Yet the theory of evolution is taught in almost every university in the world!! I know popularity is important to students, but where do you draw the line between popularity and rabid stupidity?

It is stupid, even if you have a PhD, to even think that DNA or RNA, inside of a cell, could be created from mud and rocks in a sterile pond that had never had life in it before!!

And DNA, even the DNA of a cockroach, is so sophisticated that scientists don't have a clue how it can create a cockroach via cell divisions!!

Creating Life From Non-Life

Let's talk more about creating life from non-life. The following things are necessary to create life from non-life:

1) All life consists of "cells" which are incredibly complex, so a cell needs to form by accident for life on this planet to exist,

2) A DNA strand (or RNA stand) is needed inside of every cell (except for some red blood cells, but these cells cannot divide) so the cell can create critical enzymes and for other reasons,

3) The sequence/ordering of the nucleotides on the DNA is critical to create enzymes the cell needs, to control cell divisions, etc., so just creating DNA is not enough,

4) Each cell has complex molecules to power the cell (i.e. ATP molecules) and the cell has many other things which are part of the complexity of what goes on inside of cells. Note that there is somewhat of a paradox here: in order to create ATP molecules, glucose is needed. Where did the glucose come from to create the ATP molecules (i.e. the energy for the cell) to keep a cell alive?? And how were enzymes (which are made from the patterns on DNA) created inside the first living cell??,

5) Plant and animal cells must be able to divide into two cells and each of these two cells must also be able to divide into two cells, etc.,

6) The division of these cells (e.g. to create a human baby from a fertilized egg), is far beyond human comprehension. For example, how to you create a copy of the Golgi Apparatus for the new cell?

7) How did these cell divisions know when to stop dividing?

8) A cell is alive but no one has a clue what "life" really is because no one has created life from non-life.

No team of humans on this planet could build a DNA strand from raw elements, much less put the nucleotides in an order that could create a living entity.

With regards to #8 above, if a team of scientists created a cell with DNA from scratch, an exact copy of a living cell, this cell would not be alive. It would just be a collection of molecules. No one really knows what "life" is.

So how did evolution (i.e. accidents) create a living cell by pure accident in a warm pond full of nothing but mud and rocks?? It didn't.

So if humans cannot design and create from scratch DNA or RNA, plus a cell for the DNA or RNA to exist inside, and give their new cell "life," why would anyone believe that a series of pure accidents (i.e. evolution) could have created the "first living cell" in a sterile pond of mud and rocks?

And what would the "first living cell" eat? It would have to "eat" dirt or other raw, non-living materials.

All of this is just for a single cell. What about creating an animal or an insect?

Imagine that a team of ten thousand of the smartest scientists in the world are locked in a large building and that they have unlimited access to every element on the periodic table. Suppose there are many jars, each of which contains exactly one individual element (including the gases). In other words there is ONE jar or beaker for ONE element on the periodic table.

Now suppose they are locked in that building until they can design and build from scratch, a male butterfly, including the DNA and cells of this male butterfly, such that the male butterfly they made from scratch could fly out of the building. They could never finish the project. Never. And what about doing the same thing for a female butterfly?

Now suppose these scientists are locked in the building until EVOLUTION could build the male and female butterfly? They would be there forever.

There is no aspect of the theory of evolution that has any scientific merit to it at all!!

Yet many people believe that the roughly one million species on this earth, along with their cells and DNA, were created by a series of accidents called "evolution." This is nonsense!!

For more reasons evolution cannot be true, related to cells, see the Cell Biology article on this website:
Article: Cell Biology

Click the back arrow or if you came to this page by a search engine, click this: Home Page