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) warm sterile pond and DESIGN AND MAKE a "first living cell," with DNA or RNA inside; from the mud and rocks in a warm 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 using only the things 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 on this planet 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. In order to perpetuate the "first living cell species" (so we could exist) 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.

Also note that DNA by itself is worthless. The DNA must be part of a DNA strand to be useful. And the DNA strand would have to be part of a cell. And so on for us to exist.

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 or permutations) 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 first living cell could 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 a cell, cells are so sophisticated that no team of scientists on this planet could design and build a single living cell which is alive!! Much less one that could divide into two cells.


Creating Life From Non-Life

Let's talk about requirement of 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, help 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. As I mentioned above, 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.

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. "Life" requires a spirit!!!

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 a cell, how could pure accidents (i.e. evolution) have created the "first living cell" in a sterile pond out of nothing but water, mud and rocks?

And what would the "first living cell" eat if it was the first living thing? 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. Scientists can create DNA, but they cannot create a living cell!!!

Yet many people believe that the roughly one million species currently 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