Articles


The Cell: a Song of Praise to its Creator

 

1 The fact that the cell is the fundamental unit of life and that all living things are composed of at least one cell, is known to all. This unit, which is the same in all living creatures, has an average size of 20 microns and constitutes a very complex body, able to process energy and transmit information. Since a micron is one-millionth of a meter, the better understanding of its complicated and extraordinary activity has only been possible through the electron microscope, and the functions of this tiny lab are so amazing, that make us recall the words of King David to the Creator: «How manifold are your works, Yahuh! You made all of them with wisdom, the Earth is full of your creatures». (Psalm 104:24)

 

2 For those who do not accept the existence of a Creator, the different and abundant life systems on our planet, are due to a series of fortuitous accidents, and theorize about their origin and development: «The formation process of living forms started from simple organisms. This process began about 3,500 million years ago, with the origin of the first prokaryotes or unicellular organisms. In particular, the evolution process has to do with the formation of new species, and is an ongoing development.

It is not possible to know with certainty how the configuration of a primordial cell structure was verified, although many studious of this event agree that the key fact must have been the spontaneous formation of self-reproducing units» .

 

3 In fact, the theory of a spontaneous generation was already considered in the days of Aristotle, but the growth of agnosticism and atheism since the mid nineteenth century, revived the idea of a spontaneous arise of life, as the only alternative to the Creator, and despite its lack of scientific evidence, this theory became quickly accepted as a scientific truth, ignoring its gaps the fact that the discoveries presented as proofs, once reexamined through new techniques, have been found to be, when not fraudulent, only varieties within the same species, originated by degradation or by an adjustment to a particular environment.

 

4 Dr. David Pilbeam, paleo-anthropologist, Professor of Anthropology at Harvard University and director of the Peabody Museum, who excelled in the development of the study on human origins and in the application of new techniques for the study of fossil material, denounces the strong ideological component that influences the interpretation of past events, for it is clear that in sciences like anthropology and archeology, the ideological or biased load in scientific interpretation can be very large. Before a lack of evidence to support the own hypothesis, the tendency is to be partial in the interpretation of facts; precisely this bias motivated that the fraudulent Piltdown Man was so hastily accepted as a genuine evolutionary proof, and that up to this day, the Neanderthal man is presented on school books as an example of human evolution, while it is a well-known fact since the sixties, that his bones show degenerative features, and that he was contemporary to the so called Cro-Magnon man, who was basically similar to a man of our time.

 

5 In a conference delivered at the University of California, on the progress made by science after World War II, Professor Edward Teller said about the progress achieved in science after World War II: «Almost everything that we believed true for years, has been proven false or inaccurate in light of subsequent discoveries ... In practice ... today there is only one scientific statement that I would dare to absolutely confirm and it is: There is nothing faster than the speed of light, perhaps».

So we can ask ourselves: Is it scientifically possible that from inanimate matter, can spontaneously arise self-reproducing highly complex structures?

 

6 Any evidence submitted for the assessment and ratification of a hypothesis, has to be verified through the scientific method set in the fifteenth century by Galileo Galilei, a consolidated method remaining in force overtime, that can be summarized as follows: «So that scientific observations may acquire a character of universal truth”, each of the allegations must be documented by verifiable and repeatable proofs that provide always the same result». In fact, this method is applied in physics, chemistry, mathematics and all other scientific disciplines. Is it also applied to the observations presented as a proof of the evolution theory?

 

7 Let us consider the statements we read on paragraph 2: «The process of life started from simple organisms.

Where is the documented and repeatable verification for these assertions?

This process began about 3,500 million years ago, with the origin of the first prokaryotes or unicellular organisms.

Where is the documented and repeatable verification for this assertion?

In particular, the evolution process has to do with the formation of new species, and is an ongoing development».

Which is the support for this statement? And if evolution is an “ongoing development”, where are the documented and repeatable verifications?

Moreover, Enrico Tortonese, director of the Natural Sciences Museum of Genoa, says in his article “Evolution”, on the “Great Encyclopedic Dictionary”: «Although we cannot doubt of organic evolution, we find the greatest difficulties when we want to explain it, many theories have been discussed, but none of them can answer our questions ...» And recognizing that after years and years of searching for an explanation consistent with the physical laws and the verified facts, and after implicitly admitting (we cannot doubt ...) that organic evolution has to be accepted as the only “scientific” option, he recognizes that the way in which it occurred cannot be explained. Note that Tortonese justifies the blind faith in this theory by saying: «The difficulties we find to explain the evolutionary mechanism... have suggested the hypothesis that evolution is a concluded process».

The analyzed text goes on saying: “It is not possible to know with certainty how the formation of a primordial cell structure was verified, although many researchers agree that the key fact must have been the spontaneous formation of self-reproducing units». But what kind of a proof supply the words: “it must have been”, even they it reflect the opinion of many researchers?

 

8 The supporters of the evolution hypothesis, also recognize that the probability of an appropriate gathering of the right atoms and molecules that make possible the formation of one simple protein molecule is of 1 in 10113, a larger number than the total amount of atoms calculated for the whole universe, and yet, life needs much more than a single protein molecule, in fact, a single cell needs to remain active, 2000 different proteins.

This factor invalidates that a cell might have been constructed by chance; the possibility is so remote as that of the printing and binding of a book through the explosion of a printing press, and the unwillingness to accept  the other alternative, does not alter reality.

 

9 Mathematically considered, an event whose probability of occurrence is less than 1 in 1050 never happens. Sir Frederick Hoyle (1915-2001), English astronomer and mathematician, and Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University, shows in his book “The Intelligent Universe”, that a possibility of the spontaneous union of the amino acids needed for the construction of one human cell, is mathematically absurd. He illustrates the lack of credibility of a casual origin of life with the following analogy: «What are the chances that a tornado, passing through a lot of garbage that contains all the parts of a plane, joined them accidentally, and these became integrated to form a new plane ready for takeoff? The possibilities are so small and remote, that would be nil even if the tornado went through all the trash lots of the universe».

 

10 So to the question of whether life could have been originated by chance, two of the most important scientists of the twentieth century, Sir Frederick Hoyle and W. Chandraw Ph. D. after a 10 years research, reached the following conclusion: «The possibilities that life might be originated incidentally and through purely random resources are of 1 in 1040,000».

Or of 1 chance in 10. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000... and 37.891 more zeros.

 

11 Hoyle and Chandraw illustrate their conclusion, writing: «Another way to look at this huge number is in knowing that physical scientists tell us that in the number of  electrons in the entire universe is of 1x10130... Troops of monkeys typing randomly on typewriters could never produce the Encyclopaedia Britannica, if only for the practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough to hold the monkeys needed, the necessary typewriters, and certainly the necessary bins for disposing of failed attempts, and the same happens with living material».

And really, each cell has in its nucleus the DNA, a tiny spiral that contains millions of indications for self-reproduction, along with the instructions for a specific cell work. How might causality organize an orderly registration of a much larger and complex information than that found in any encyclopedia?

 

12 If these calculations were not clear enough, it is important to reflect about a verified and tested fact, formulated in the second law of thermodynamics, one fundamental physical law:

«Whenever there is a transformation of energy, i.e. during any process, physical, chemical, etc. the full use of the initially available energy is impossible, because in any process, a portion of the energy is dispersed».

 

 

In other words, any process or transformation requires energy, but any system isolated from an additional energy source, suffers a reduction of activity during the process, through the scattering of a part of its initial energy.

This exhaustion of a system or increase of entropy, means that no matter how organized or complex a system is, tends with time, to exhaustion and hence to disorganization and simplification.

There is no tendency in nature driving from disorder to order or from simplicity to complexity, as set forth in the theory of evolution; physical laws demonstrate the opposite.

 

13 In line with this argument, we reproduce the testimony of the brilliant physicist and mathematician Dr. Boris P. Dotsenko, a Russian scientist that before asking for political asylum in Canada, in 1966, was director at the Nuclear Laboratory of the Physics Institute of Kiev.

The education received in his country was based on atheist thought, however, by intellectual honesty and based on the scientific evidence provided by this “law of entropy”, came to believe in a creator God.

Dotsenko says: «At that time I had a particular interest in the Law of Entropy, a fundamental law of nature concerned with the probable behavior of the particles (molecules, atoms, electrons and so on) of any physical system. This law, also known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, says that left to itself any physical system will decay as its matter becomes increasingly disorganized. As I thought it through, it occurred to me that as the universe was still intact there must be an amazingly powerful organizing force at work, keeping the universe controlled and in order. What is more, this force must be non-material or it would disintegrate».

Pondering the Second Law of Thermodynamics, he wrote:

As I thought about all of that, it suddenly dawned on me that there must be a very powerful organizing force counteracting this disorganizing tendency within nature, keeping the universe controlled and in order. This force must not be material; otherwise, it too would become disordered. I concluded that this power must be both omnipotent (all-powerful) and omniscient (all-wise and all-knowing). There must be a God - one God - controlling everything!” (Barrett and Fisher, Scientists who Believe, pg. 5)

 

14 Whenever paleontologists find an arrow-shaped hewn stone, recognize without hesitation that it comes from the work of an intelligent being and is intended for hunting or defense, providing a tool that is by no means accidental. Then, how is it possible that the same scientist who recognizes the intentional manufacturing of a rough-hewn stone, claims that the complexity involved in living organisms responds to chance?

Now, free from prejudice, let us briefly examine a cell, the fundamental unit of life, and consider its complex components and functions.

The membrane is the outer wrapper which contains the whole and is a living structure with a basic metabolic activity. The body of the cell is the cytoplasm, and houses the mitochondria, the ribosomes, the lysosomes, the Golgi apparatus, the centrioles, the vacuole, the nucleus with its membrane and the chromosomes; these are only some of the cell components.

 

 

15 The neurons are special cells that in practice, operate as a sophisticated computer. Some are used by the brain to store and to remember the seen and heard things, and research suggests that neurons act as “thinking cells” because they are able to specialize in certain evocations previously selected by the brain. They are connected to each other by links called synapses, to form extraordinary ensembles with more powerful capabilities than any computer, originating the word, the thought, the ideas and the creativity, and storing images and memories.

Neuron

 

Neuronal connections

 

Synaptic connection

 

16 The mitochondria are cellular organelles responsible for supplying and managing the energy needed for the cellular processes. In one cell there are several mitochondria, which act as power plants, synthesizing adenosine triphosphate or ATP (adenine, ribose and three phosphate groups) from metabolic fuels (glucose, fatty acids and amino acids), and as the cell lacks electrical conductors, the ATP provides power transmission. The ATP releases the stored energy by breaking the high-energy bonds that join the phosphate groups.

Mitochondria

 

17 Other components of the cell are the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) the RNA (ribonucleic acid) and the ribosome. The RNA is an organic robot produced directly from DNA. In one cell are produced many RNA, with functions that vary according to requirements, as for example, the messenger RNA and transfer RNA.

All the genetic information of one cell is in the DNA; when the production of a particular type of protein is needed, a messenger RNA copies the information from DNA, then comes the intervention of the ribosomes, which in the field of genetic engineering, are tiny machines of the size of 30 nanometers approximately (nanometer = a billionth of one meter).

Ribosomes have to sort in the correct position, the molecules and the amino acids needed for protein synthesis. The process is as follows: the ribosome reads from the messenger RNA, a group of three nucleotide or letters, which encodes one amino acid, and takes from the transfer RNA the amino acid corresponding to these three letters, then reads the following three letters and joins the corresponding amino acid to the preceding, and so on until it receives the indication that the protein is complete.

 

 

18 DNA is the substance that forms the chromosomes and therefore, the genes. It is only constituted by four sub-units: the chemical or deoxyribonucleotides substances, which contain the basis (A) adenine, (C) cytosine, (G) guanine, and (T) thymine. These sub-units, also called nucleotides, are coalesced together, forming a very long linear filament. A typical DNA molecule consists of two long chains linked by the interaction of the A and T bases, and the C and G bases.

The DNA structure is shaped like a spiral staircase called “double helix”; it consists in a code, that is, in signs transmitting information, as happens with language and writing.

The DNA code is structured by the combination of four molecules or letters, A, T and C, G, which construct the genes (phrases) and are grouped into the chromosomes (chapters); before and after the genes, there are also phrases that provide the instructions for each one's function.

 

 

19 Adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine have each its own meaning, constituting a real alphabet. The combination of millions of these letters faces another complementary chain for a reciprocal control and mirroring of the sequence (double helix), constituting a linear information common in all life forms present on Earth, which generates a text with all the necessary and sufficient information to define a living organism. The text recorded in the DNA can be read, understood and interpreted; it is a program protected against delete and write, and designed to perpetuate physiological characteristics. It is a specific text of  life for each organism and unique for each of the species, including man.

In human cells, DNA contains 46 chromosomes and around 30,000 genes.

 

 

20 No one would ever think that a computer could be casually constructed and programed, progressing, replicating and diversifying itself, even through millions of years. How, then, can be even thought that the enormous complexity of the functions within the wonderful simplicity of the high biochemical technology contained in cells, arose by chance from inert matter?

Scientifically speaking, to accept the theory of a spontaneous and casual emergence and evolution of life, really requires much more faith than to accept the existence of a Creator God.

Life is organized to the smallest of details, and through the ever more sophisticated microscopic techniques made ​​available to researchers, many new organization levels of cell tissues structure have been identified, allowing the observation of a dynamic order, which is difficult to represent.

It can also be said that the similarity of cell functions in the different forms of life, both vegetal and animal, should not be considered as the indication of an evolutionary mutation, but as the demonstration of a common origin, due to the activity of the same creative intelligence.

 

21 Why then so many people, scientific and not, are eager to accept the evolution theory as an indisputable truth? Is it perhaps because the concept that God is the «Creator of heaven with all that it contains and of earth with everything in it» (Revelation 10:6) has become unacceptable for today’s society?

History of science shows the tendency of so many scientists to consider only what has been taught to them, avoiding the problems of pronouncing themselves against established theories, true or not.

In fact, the theory of a spontaneous emerging of life from inanimate matter ignores the physical laws of nature, those that have been tested and confirmed and documented, and so requires a great contribution of unconditional support. Therefore, in the atheist and agnostic context of modern society, the evolutionary hypothesis has been explicitly presented from school texts on, as an established scientific truth and the only intellectually credible explanation for life, systematically omitting all scientifically proven facts that make it unsustainable. Interestingly, this prejudiced ideology causes that those who more realistically, believe in the creative activity of an intelligent force, be considered scientifically ignorant.

This thing brings to mind the tale of the two shrewd experts in human nature, who stating to be tailors, offered to make the king a magnificent dress. They described it as unique and exceptionally rich, and so marvelous and magic, that ignorant and obtuse people could not see it; only the people with a superior intelligence would be able see its beauty. After asking the king for many jewels to adorn it, they said to have finished their work, and before quickly leaving, they simulated to display before the king and his servants the supposed magnificent costume, which all of them praised, not wanting to be considered dim-witted.

 

22 Speaking of the wisdom and thoughts of humanity, Paul wrote: «Has not God made foolish the philosophy (or wisdom) of this world? Since by its own wisdom, the world has not come to recognize God, He, in his wisdom, judged appropriate to save those who believe, by means of something considered absurd (in the world): The things that we preach». (1Corinthians 1:20...21)

Indeed, the biblical account of creation is not in contrast with the sequence accepted by science of the appearance of plant life, and animal and human life on Earth, but it stands in contrast to man's assumption, because it implies that humanity does not follow an upward trend, progressing towards perfection, but that fallen into sin, man cannot get rid of it and needs the salvation that comes from God through Jesus Christ.

All the writers of the canonical books of the Bible claimed since ancient times, that the entire creation, animate and inanimate, comes from the creative work of God, and when this fact has been discussed without prejudice, it has not been credibly denied  or realistically replaced by any other alternative, despite all efforts made.

Therefore we, who believe in a creator God and are disciples of Jesus, share the words of praise that John heard in his vision: «You, Yahuh, are worthy of the glory and the power, for you created all things, and because of your will, they are and came to be». (Revelation 4:11)