Protein Cannot Form Unless The Cell Exists As An Integral Whole

Darwinists can write as many deceptive books jam packed with formulae, produce as many false fossils as they like, make as many demagogic assaults on the scientific evidence for Creation as they choose or stick posters up full of fantastical illustrations and present these as exhibitions of evolution all over the place, but none of this will ever change the fact of their fundamental defeat. Because the worst nightmare for Darwinists is the very beginning of life. Darwinists HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE A SINGLE EXPLANATION of how just one protein came into being. This is an expression of the despairing situation into which, Dawkins, Futuyma, Tim White and all other Darwinists now find themselves. None of this demagoguery can resolve this great and stupendous rout in the face of a single protein. A SINGLE PROTEIN HAS TOTALLY DEMOLISHED DARWINISM.

Darwinists can write as many deceptive books jam packed with formulae, produce as many false fossils as they like, make as many demagogic assaults on the scientific evidence for Creation as they choose or stick posters up full of fantastical illustrations and present these as exhibitions of evolution all over the place, but none of this will ever change the fact of their fundamental defeat. Because the worst nightmare for Darwinists is the very beginning of life. Darwinists HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE A SINGLE EXPLANATION of how just one protein came into being. This is an expression of the despairing situation into which, Dawkins, Futuyma, Tim White and all other Darwinists now find themselves. None of this demagoguery can resolve this great and stupendous rout in the face of a single protein. A SINGLE PROTEIN HAS TOTALLY DEMOLISHED DARWINISM.

One important feature of Darwinist demagoguery is that Darwinists always tended to reduce the question of the origin of life to the very simple, despite all the complexity of life, by portraying everything within it as very simple. That is the reason for such myths as “the cell emerged from muddy water” and “DNA spontaneously began replicating itself.” Darwinists imagined it would be easier to deceive people in this way. But they have now seen that the time for such deception has passed. Not only do people now know that a single protein is far too complex ever to come into being spontaneously, they are also aware that neither a protein, DNA, RNA or any other minute component of the cell WILL SERVE ANY PURPOSE IN THE ABSENCE OF THE CELL AS A WHOLE.

This fact is of great important in terms of the defeat of Darwinism:

- DNA is essential for a single protein to form
- DNA cannot form without protein
- Protein cannot form without DNA
- Protein cannot form in the absence of protein
- Sixty separate proteins are needed for a single protein to form
- Protein cannot form in the absence of any one of these
- Protein cannot form with no ribosome
- Protein cannot form with no RNA
- Protein cannot form without ATP
- Protein cannot form without the mitochondria to manufacture ATP
- Protein cannot form without the cell nucleus
- Protein cannot form without the cytoplasm
- Protein cannot form in the absence of a single organelle in the cell
- And proteins are necessary for all the organelles in the cell to exist and function
- There can be no protein without these organelles.

This is an interconnected system that has to function simultaneously. You cannot have one part without the other. Even if one component exists, it will still not function in the absence of the others.

In short,

THE WHOLE CELL IS NECESSARY FOR A PROTEIN TO FORM. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A SINGLE PROETIN TO FORM IN THE ABSENCE OF THE WHOLE CELL, with its perfect complex structure we see today, but of which we understand only a very small part.

Even if this protein did form spontaneously (which is in any case impossible), it will still serve no purpose. It will just wander around alone and die.

Therefore, Dawkins’ claim of “a spontaneously replicating molecule” is utterly ludicrous and solely intended to deceive. NO MOLECULE IN THE HUMAN CELL POSSESSES THE ABILITY TO REPLICATE ITSELF SPONTANEOUSLY WITHOUT THE HELP OF ANY OTHER MOLECULE.

The Cambridge University Professor of Philosophy Stephen C. Meyer describes this in his book The Signature in the Cell:

Following the elucidation of the structure and function of DNA during the 1950s and early 1960s, a radically new conception of life began to emerge. Not only did molecular biologists discover that DNA carried information; they soon began to suspect that living organisms must contain systems for processing genetic information. Just as the digital information stored on a disc is useless without a device for reading the disc, so too is the information on DNA useless without the cell’s information-processing system. As Richard Lewontin notes, “No living molecule (i.e., biomolecule) is self-producing. Only whole cells may contain all the necessary machinery for self-reproduction... Not only is DNA incapable of making copies of itself, aided or unaided, but it is incapable of ‘making’ anything else... The proteins of the cell are made from other proteins, and without that protein-forming machinery nothing can be made.”¹ 

These statements once again reveal the inconsistency of these accounts by Dawkins, who has recently converted to the religion of outer space. The Earth is the most ideal environment in all of space for the survival of the living cell. But not even these ideal conditions by themselves make it possible for the cell to be able to form spontaneously. Dawkins has looked for a new explanation in the face of this and now maintains that a molecule capable of replicating spontaneously formed in space and subsequently made its way to Earth. The first insoluble problem here is that no such living molecule can form spontaneously. The second is, as set out above, that no living molecule can replicate spontaneously, not even on Earth. Aware of these insoluble problems, Dawkins eventually had to admit that such a molecule was created by a sublime intelligence.²