Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Cell City

A ‘simple’ cell is nothing of the sort. Ernst Haeckel couldn’t have been more wrong when he called a cell a “homogeneous globule of protoplasm.” Since developing far more powerful microscopes than in Haeckel’s day, we have found that a cell is more akin to the tiny speck of dust in Dr. Seuss’ “Horton Hears A Who,” where the “speck of dust” turns out to be a tiny planet, home to a city called "Whoville,” inhabited by microscopic-sized inhabitants known as ‘Whos.’

A single cell is so complex, having many different compartments in which different tasks are performed---specialized areas partitioned off for specific jobs and duties---that it is much like an industrial city containing businesses, highways, departments of government, energy and utility companies, cargo storage, way stations, and sanitation engineers. The nucleus is where the DNA resides; the mitochondria produces the cell’s energy; the endoplasmic reticulum processes proteins; the Golgi apparatus is a way station for proteins being transported elsewhere; the lysosome is the cell’s garbage disposal unit; secretory vesicles store cargo before it must be sent out of the cell; and the peroxisome helps metabolize fats. Just as a house or building has rooms separated by walls or doors, each compartment is sealed off from the rest of the cell by its own membrane. Even the membranes can be considered separate compartments, because the cell places material into the membranes that is not found elsewhere. In fact, there is much more to the complexity of a cell than this little mini-summary has shown, but this will serve as a brief glimpse to demonstrate just one of the many reasons why the occurrence of macroevolution is astronomically improbable. In fact, Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation (life arising from non-life), also called abiogenesis, in 1864.

8 comments:

kingpinned said...

In fact, there is much more to the complexity of a cell than this little mini-summary has shown, but this will serve as a brief glimpse to demonstrate just one of the many reasons why the occurrence of macroevolution is astronomically improbable. In fact, Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation (life arising from non-life), also called abiogenesis, in 1864.

It will be interesting to see if you receive a naturalistic response.

Good information.

Russ:)

Jeff said...

Yeah.


If I drop a pen on the floor over and over again for 6 billion years, will it eventually turn into a calculator?


Or if I mix milk, water, chocolate, protein, strawberries and bananas in a blender, and shake that up or blend it for 6 billion years, will life eventually come from that?


If I take 500 pennies and put them in a jar, and shake that up for 6 billion years, will they eventually turn into hundred-dollar bills?


No. No. And no.

thekingpin68 said...

Good reasonable points, Jeff.

Jeff said...

Thanks, Russ.

I'm sure an evolutionist would find faults with those, but the point is that several billion years of chaotic accidents would never result in the formation of intelligent human beings, not to speak of the thousands of different species and types of living things that exist today. When you think of the awe-inspiring complexity of a single cell, and multiply that by all the varied cells in one person or animal (or even plant), and all the different tasks that different types of cells perform, then multiply that by all the different species that exist today---to say that all that was caused by accidents is to claim something that just doesn't add up. Sure, you can simplify it all and just look at the surface level of Evolutionary theory, but no one has ever been able to explain, in step-by-step detail, how even one species evolved. Oh, you can say this came from that, and that came from some other thing; but that's not even touching the tip of the iceberg as far as giving a detailed explanation of everything that would have to occur in order for even one species to evolve from a single-celled creature.

On the other hand, those who don't believe in God really have no alternative but to believe in Evolution. Unless they believe that aliens planted us here, but you still have to then explain where the aliens came from.

Bunc said...

Let me show why your analogies are completely daft, banal and wrong by giving you a different analogy in two versions.

Let us say the starting conditions are that we beginning with a complete mixture of red and white sweets inn a bowl.

This then is our analogy for the starting conditions - an amorphous mix of things with no order or "apparent design".

The end condition - A human being say - will in our analogy be an end point where we have a bowl with only white sweets in it.

Ok, now your objection to evolution is " oh how absurd that we could just throw a handful of all these sweets at the bowl and end up with just white sweets. True. Indeed probably very unlikely.

But fatally for your analogy that is exactly not how natural selection and evolution works.

Evolution works through a process of natural selection. The selection "agent" being the effects of the environment ( taken in its broadest meaning )

So we need to introduce a selection agent into our analogy and allow it time to do its work.

Ah, here comes my daughter who will eat nothing but red sweets. She does this at the rate of a couple of sweets per day ( because I want her to keep nice teeth).

So I put the bowl in her room and I come back a week or two later later and - lo and behold we have a bowl of white sweets! Oh the Lord is mighty in his works says you - see the imntelligent design!

Now there was no "intelligent design" that produced the bowl of white sweets. She did not intend to produce a bowl of white sweets. She didnt even necessarily intend that there shoudl be no red sweets left. She simply likes eating red sweets and doesn't like white ones. We ended up with a "designed" bowl of white sweets simply because the red sweets were preferentially selected for mortality ( yum yum).

The white sweets it turns out where "fitter" for surviving in a world where the selctive agent liked eating red sweets.

That is a, very simplistic, analogy for evolution but one which shows how idiotic some of the creationist " airplane from a junkyard" arguments are.

Before you criticise a scientific theory you would do well to actually understand it. Unless of course you do understand it and are nevertheless peddling untruths. I can't believe that of you - surely that would be a very un-christian thing to do?

Jeff said...

Bunc,

Your example uses an intelligent being (your daughter) making intelligent choices (eating nothing but red sweets), and therefore lends more toward Intelligent Design/Creationism than it does toward natural selection/Darwinian Evolution. You come out swinging, but knock yourself out with your own argument.

tom shields said...

it's far more complex than you describe. Cells are dynamic "cities" that function at or near maximum efficiency. Maintenance is constant and their systems are open being dependent on flow of resources delivered by blood. These highly oregonized cities are complete with actual roads or tracks that machines with kinase driven motors move on.

Security is unbelievably paranoid and does it's job to the T. If you mean we are made in god's image you must mean DNA or RNA machines. Evolution is real. Love is real. Compassion and emotion from intelligence is more complex than the single cells.

Arguing over what will never be agreed upon turns the softest hearts to steel converted by frustration and anger. Ditching the anger and being able to love is lesson that is important, not frivolous crap like labeling love as gay or calling fat people fat.

People know what they need to do. If I pissed you off, I am sorry. I love facts, but truth is painful. I am willing to discuss truth and I always will if you demand it. But the lesson of unconditional love is the greater importance.

Jeff said...

Tom,

Thanks for your comment. No, you didn't tick me off. I'm sure that cells, etc. are far more complex than it sounded like. To properly explain the complexity would take far longer than my article, for sure. And yes, love is the most important thing; even the Bible says that. And truth is definitely important.