The Cell's Complex Structure Can not Be Explained in Terms of Coincidence
To describe the cell's complex structure and the processes requiring information and planning that it carries out, many scientists resort to analogies. Some compare cells to specially designed spaceships, others to highly developed city centers, and still others to laboratory environments at a far higher technological level than those known today. Yet following such comparisons, they always state that the cell is actually far, far more complex.
W. Thorpe, a Cambridge University professor of zoology, refers to the complexity of the cell in these terms:
The accounts given by Darwinists regarding the beginning of life refer only to an allegedly very simple cell that came into being by coincidence and that gradually acquired its present-day characteristics—again by coincidence. Yet these illogical claims lead them into serious inconsistencies. For example, the cell possesses features that it cannot survive without. Moreover, the cell cannot wait to evolve these complex characteristics. Therefore, it's not possible for the cell to have ever been "primitive", as Darwinists so fondly imagine, nor to have evolved by stages. Indeed, today's Darwinists have had to admit that there was no such developmental process in the cell's formation. The evolutionist biologist Hoimar von Ditfurth admits this:
The cell can perform its functions only if all its elements and attributes exist, fully formed. Professor David Rosevear, a member of the British Royal Chemistry Society refers to the cell functioning when it exists as a whole:
To survive, one feature the cell needs to possess is the ability to recognize danger. Even if we assumed the existence of a cell lacking such ability, it would still be unable to survive. This difficulty is referred to in one Darwinist source:
As you have seen, a cell can remain alive only so long as it can distinguish between what is beneficial and what is harmful to it. The above quotation refers to abilities of the cell such as selection, differentiation, distinguishing, learning and sorting. Darwinists—who expect unconscious cells to acquire by coincidence these actions that require thought, reasoning and awareness—deliberately ignore this illogical position. They imagine that coincidences will somehow resolve all inconsistencies. They regard coincidence as a potent force that opens all doors, overcomes all difficulties and plans everything right down to the finest detail. This is indeed a superstitious belief!
In the face of the superior intellect in the cell, many issues leave Darwinists in a quandary. For example, how did coincidental accumulations of unconscious atoms bring into being a cell with exceedingly conscious processes? Darwinists maintain that the cell emerged as a result of chemical reactions that took place of their own accord in nature. Yet every detail in the cell is part of a specific plan and order. Every detail reveals the existence of a superior Creator.
Fred Hoyle, the well-known British scientist, examined this question in detail:
One evolutionist writer makes the following admission:
The researcher and writer Howard Peth states that there is no such thing as a simple cell:
No doubt Darwinists who emerged under the banner of science never imagined that science would one day invalidate their claims. In the 1800s, when there were no electron microscopes; when the science of genetics did not yet exist, no one realized the complex structure of the cell. Therefore, that life was the work of coincidences was a claim based on ignorance, able to deceive people for a time. Today, however, science and technology have shown that the cell actually possesses an exceptionally complex structure, so much so that despite all scientists' best endeavors and the advanced means at their disposal, they have been unable to create any structure like the cell.
People of intelligence and reason expecting the cell, which cannot be replicated by artificial means and technologies, to be the work of coincidence is a clear nonsense. In the face of this impasse, Darwinists hide behind the concept of "changes over time," maintaining that such changes are actually possible over millions of years. Yet no matter how much time is given, expecting a structure that possesses information, contains a particular order, and exhibits intelligent, purposeful behavior to develop by coincidence is only imagination. Time has no power to create an perfect order, nor to eliminate different coincidences by means of trial and error, nor to make decisions.
The biologist Professor Michael Pitman, who served with the Australian Academy of Science, describes how the effects of time will be the exact opposite of what Darwinists expect:
Ceaseless Activity within the Cell
A living cell is a marvel of Creation that astounds all scientists. Examined under an electron microscope, the cell can be seen to contain activity reminiscent of a beehive's. In the same way that life in the hive goes on even as hundreds of bees die and new ones take their place, millions of cells in the human body die every day, and are again replaced by new ones. And billions of cells work together in harmony to keep the body alive.
The molecules within the cell operate at an astonishing speed. Their organized and coordinated functions are of a complexity that defies description.
Despite being a confirmed atheist and who therefore sought to account for the origin of the cell in terms of coincidence, the American astronomer and biologist Carl Sagan referred to the activities in the cell:
Michael Behe, a famous professor of biochemistry from Lehigh University and one of the most prominent contemporary critics of Darwinism, has stated that everything inside the cell contains far more complex structures than it would appear:
The cell's "irreducible complexity" presupposes that a great many components need to be present and fully formed in order for the system to work. That being so, coincidences would need to bring all the components of the system into being in a conscious manner, capable of performing functions requiring intelligence, data and order, in a single action. Yet because all the parts constituting the system are exceptionally complex, there can be no progression from simple to complex. These components can exist only when they are all present together.
That the cell—the fundamental building block of life—has such a complex structure is one of the main reasons why Darwinists cannot answer the question of how life could have begun by coincidence. This complexity is at such a high level that it cannot be explained in terms of coincidence.
Michael Behe describes this impasse faced by Darwinist scientists with a quotation from the evolutionist James Shapiro:
Professor Gerald Schroeder, who works at MIT in the fields of physics and biology, describes the complexity of the cell with an analogy:
For a long time, Darwin and the Darwinist biologists who followed him looked at the cell only from the outside, which is why they regarded it as a simple structure and imagined they could account for its origins in terms of coincidence. In the second half of the 20th century, however, as the extraordinary complexity of the cell became increasingly clear, Darwinists found themselves astonished and despairing. Nowadays, they only hope that the origin of the cell will one day be explained by evolutionary mechanisms. They have no evidence, merely that faint hope, which is solely based on their dogmatism on the subject.
The complexity that emerges in the cell proves that there was Creation here. Moreover, however, an astonishing intelligence is on display. No doubt that cells are devoid of such abilities as intelligent thought, learning, decision-making or planning. When we examine the processes they perform, however, we see that cells work in a more far-sighted, rational and precautionary, careful and scrupulous manner than even the most intelligent humans.
This superior intellect displayed in the cell is that of our Lord:
He created everything and determined it most exactly. (Surat al-Furqan, 2)
The Cell Cannot Exist Without the Cell Membrane
Before examining the cell membrane's structure and its selective permeability, it will be instructive to touch on Darwinist views on this subject. We have already detailed in earlier books how truly unscientific and unrealistic is the Darwinist claim that the first cell formed spontaneously as the result of coincidences. (For details, see Harun Yahya, Darwinism Refuted, and The Evolution Deceit.) But let's ignore all the impossibilities and assume that some organelles of the first cell actually did come into being spontaneously. In that event, the Darwinists' position becomes even more problematic. The first candidate cell would have to acquire, coincidentally, a cell membrane in order to survive—especially in a primordial environment, where atmospheric conditions are known to have been harmful.
Did a living thing alleged to have come into being by coincidence also take the appropriate precautionary measures by coincidence? No matter how irrational that claim may be, let us again assume that this actually happened and continue with what is no more than conjecture: the first cell, having come into existence by coincidence, disappeared due to an inability to withstand the atmospheric conditions. New cells then emerged—again as the result of coincidence. But these, too, could not survive. The cells that formed later learned from what happened to their forerunners and decided that they should not enter that primordial atmosphere unprotected.
Again with the help of coincidence, by means of trial and error, they acquired an outer shell—in other words, a membrane, with all the necessary characteristics—to protect them from these harsh conditions. But consider: can an unconscious cell with no mind or brain come up with such an effective solution for itself, or can coincidence do so? To explain in terms of coincidence for the cell possessing a membrane to protect it from harmful external substances and to arrange for the requisite nourishing substances to enter is a violation of science. A cell cannot survive for even a short time in the absence of these features, and even the slightest error would have fatal consequences. In addition, this flawless perfection would have to be present not only in the first cell, but would have to be maintained in all those that came after.
Darwinists' explanations regarding the first cell are nothing more than accounts, based entirely on assumptions. The evolutionist biologist Hoimar von Ditfurth offers the following explanation for the cell membrane:
How clearly irrational von Ditfurth's explanation is! It is impossible for a cell that came into being by coincidence to reason that it needs an enclosure and then to immediately manage to implement one. Such an event may happen in science fiction films, but to claim that each one of a great number of cells came about by coincidence and displayed the same intellect is an irrational and far-fetched claim.
In conclusion, the cell's very existence requires the existence of its cell membrane. And it is impossible for that membrane to come into existence through the cell's own decision or by any string of coincidences. Professor Gerald Weissman of the New York University Medical Center has emphasized the essential nature of the cell membrane in order to be able to speak of life:
Scientists agree that it is impossible to speak of life in the absence of the cell membrane. However, do not forget that the cell membrane also must exist with its present-day complex structure and characteristic of selective permeability. It is out of the question for that feature to develop by stages, as Darwinists hypothesize. If the cell membrane does not possess its present features, then the cell itself cannot survive. The cell membrane must therefore be able to know the external environment, identify the cell's needs, determine whether substances about to enter the cell are harmful, and make no errors in these selections. Clearly chemical reactions, the laws of physics and coincidence cannot endow this thin membrane—consisting of inert fats and proteins, with such conscious selectivity.
7. W. Thorpe, "Reductionism in Biology," Studies in the Philosophy of Biology, 1974, pp. 116-117. [emphasis added]
8. Hoimar Von Dithfurt, Im Anfang War Der Wasserstoff ("Secret Night of the Dinosaurs") Vol. 2 (pp. 22-23 in Turkish edition). [emphasis added]
9. http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-313.htm; Dr. David Rosevear, The Myth of Chemical Evolution," Impact, No. 313, July 1999. [emphasis added]
10. Hoimar Von Dithfurt, Im Anfang War Der Wasserstoff ("Secret Night of the Dinosaurs"), Vol. 3 (p. 39 in Turkish edition).
11. Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1983, p. 256.
12. David E. Green and Robert F. Goldberger, Molecular Insights into the Living Process, New York: Academic Press, , 1967, p. 403.
13. Howard Peth, Blind Faith: Evolution Exposed, Amazing Facts, Inc., 1990, p. 77. [emphasis added]
14. Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, 1984, p. 233.
15. Peter Gwynne, Sharon Begley, Mary Hager, "The Secrets of the Human Cell," Newsweek, 20 August 1979, p. 48.
16. Michael J. Behe, "Darwin Under the Microscope," The New York Times, 29 October, 1996.
17. Carl Sagan, "Life" in Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia, 1974, pp. 893-894.
18. Michael J. Behe, "Darwin Under the Microscope," The New York Times, 29 October, 1996.
20. Gerald L. Schroeder, How Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth, p. 60.
21. Hoimar Von Dithfurt, Im Anfang War Der Wasserstoff ("Secret Night of the Dinosaurs"), Vol. 2 (p. 28 in Turkish edition).
22. Maya Pines, Inside the Cell, Diane Publishing, p. 46.