Red Blood Cells

[performedge 0]

I am posting this topic primarily because I think it is evidence of God's creation. However, I also think the evidence of red blood cells in mammals defies evolutionary theory. So, I am asking evolutionist for any explanation they may have for this wonder of life.

 

As most of you know, our blood is predominantly red, because of red blood cells. The Hemoglobin in the cell joins with oxygen molecules in our lungs and transports this breath of life (spirit) to every one of the six trillion cells in the human body. But did you know that these cells really no longer fit the definition of a biological cell? In fact they are dead!

 

The red blood cells are manufactured in the bone marrow, and just like all other cells they are alive, have DNA to reproduce, and mitochondria to manufacture energy for the cell. But something "miraculous" happens about the seventh day (how interesting) of its life. The red blood cell extrudes out their nucleus with their DNA and the extrudes out their mitochondria. They can no longer produce any proteins. They basically die on purpose. They sacrifice their life. They do this so that they become smaller and can "hold" the oxygen without consuming the oxygen.

 

Because they are dead, they begin decaying. The hemoglobin proteins eventually start decaying and after about 120 days, they are no longer useful for carrying oxygen. The very oxygen that brings life to every cell in the body, destroys the hemoglobin over time.

 

Now to say the least, this is an amazing process. A process of self scrifice to give life to the body. Sounds like our Savior doesn't it? Maybe He designed it this way as evidence of His will and plan for us. I think He did! Throughout the Bible we see the correlation of life, blood, soul, and sacrifice.

 

Now I will stop the preaching and share why I think this is evolutionarily impossible.

 

As you know, evolutionary theory relies on the fundamental concept of self preservation and survival. All mammals have red blood cells that do the above biological process. In lower animals, from which we supposedly "evolved" their red blood cells do not extrude out the nucleus and the mitochondria. Therefore, mammalian red blood cells must have evolved. They don't teach this one in the schools!

 

So random mutations over time must have cause the red blood cells to sacrifice their life for the benefit of the organism. But hold on! This change in red blood cells is huge! Not small! Any organism that would have mutated to have living red blood cells turn into dead red blood cells would not have had the capacity to replenish these cells. The bones and the marrow would have had to changed to provide additional cells, because the red blood cells could no longer divide and mutiply on their own. But they would only have about 120 days for those changes to evolve. Then the liver system which filters the blood would have had to adapt to these new cells. The heart would have to adapt to these new cells. The blood pressure would change. The fluid dynamic of the blood would have changed, and all the other organs would have to compensate. And not only would they have to compensate, but they would have to all coordinate together to compensate before the 120 days.

 

Life is literally in the blood. Even small genetic changes in the blood system caused by mutations are catastrophic and at best cause fitness deteriation. The change of going from a living cell to a superbly functioning dead cell is enormous. And there is no evolutionary time for this. Death would be inevitable.

 

So here's the challenge that I predict will go unanswered. What "just so" story could explain an evolutionary pathway for living cells to sacrifice their life for the rest of the body??

[Adam Nagy 50]

Wow! That stuff is amazing! I just bought a book at Sam's Club called "The Human Body Book" (highly recommended) and I just learned that red blood cells don't have a nucleus, as they're used, but the dots you just connected are truly amazing.

 

As you know, evolutionary theory relies on the fundamental concept of self preservation and survival.  All mammals have red blood cells that do the above biological process.  In lower animals, from which we supposedly "evolved" their red blood cells do not extrude out the nucleus and the mitochondria.  Therefore,  mammalian red blood cells must have evolved.  They don't teach this one in the schools!

24915[/snapback]

Which animals still have 'living' red blood cells? Does this have anything to do with whether you're warm blooded or cold blooded?

 

So here's the challenge that I predict will go unanswered.  What "just so" story could explain an evolutionary pathway for living cells to sacrifice their life for the rest of the body??

24915[/snapback]

Evolution is a fact, you GodOfTheGaps fear monger. Give us time we're working on it.

[Adam Nagy 50]

BTW, that book I mentioned:

 

 

...is really excellent and I want to read an excerpt from it:

 

INTRODUCTION

 

"To understand the inner structure and workings of the human body, this book takes the "living machine" approach, borrowed from sciences such as engineering."

 

- emphasis mine -

I haven't seen one mention of evolution in this extremely detailed book yet.

[performedge 0]

Which animals still have 'living' red blood cells? Does this have anything to do with whether you're warm blooded or cold blooded?

24916[/snapback]

Red Blood Cell Nucleus

Erythrocytes in mammals are anucleate when mature, meaning that they lack a cell nucleus. In comparison, the erythrocytes of nearly all other vertebrates have nuclei; the only known exception being salamanders of the Batrachoseps genus.[7]

[jason777 1]

I haven't seen one mention of evolution in this extremely detailed book yet.

I'm sure the ACLU will soon be filing a lawsuit over that.

 

 

Performedge,great research.

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks.