Google the videos:.."Inner Life of a Cell" and
"Powering the Cell: Mitochondria."..Both videos were designed at Harvard University and made by BioVisions.

These two videos are a very, very small
peak inside the complexity of a living cell.

Note also that there are thousands of
mitochondria inside of every cell.

Also inside of cells..are very complex molecules.
For example, ribosomes are..very, very complex molecules which are involved in the conversion..from nucleotides to amino acids.

How were ribosomes created..by evolution for the..first living cell?

How could something as complex as a cell,..with highly complex RNA or DNA,form from the dust of the earth from nothing except sand, lightening andchemicals randomly mixed together!

Where did the first DNA or RNA come from?
Where did the first cell membrane..come from?
How was it enclosed so it didn't leak?..How were its ports made?

Where did the first mitochondria.. which would have provided the ATP molecules..inside the cells,..come from?

Even devout evolutionists admit that the cells of today..*could not have come to exist..from a pile of dirt and chemicals and a lot of fortuitous accidents.

To avoid such an inane claim,..evolutionists claim that the "first living cell" was a..lol..a "simple cell."..This "simple cell" would have had..lol..simple metabolism and simple DNA..(or RNA).

*The problem is..that there are no "simple cells"..*on this planet!

Yet, "life"..n this earth
*had to start..with a single cell..*if evolution is true!*!

Thus, evolutionists..
*must claim that the "simple cells" are all extinct.

*!*..How convenient,..all of their evidence is dead and missing!

But*..you cannot jump directly from..a "simple cell" (
the term "simple cell" is an oxymoron)..to any of the types of cells on the earth today.

*Thus,..if the theory ofevolution were true,..there would have had to have been an "evolution" or "progression"..*of many different types of simple cells ..each slightly more complex than the former)..just to get from the phantasm/first simple cell..to a complex cell of today.

But all of these intermediate semi-simple cells..are also extinct, leaving only..lol..complex cells on this planet.

lol..How convenient.
the silence..is noted :[

scientists ignore the absurdities of evolution..and continue to push
forward with their "theories,"..deceptions and creative thinking.

But here is the question
the reader needs to ask themselves:

"If evolutionists..cannot create life..from non-life
using carefully designed experiments,..[nor have ever recorded/reported/witnessed or observed..any new*..evolution into new genus*..

why do they claim..they have 'proven'..that evolution...and..the 'first living cell,'is true..and is science.*when their own science refutes it...and no falsifiable's..are presented..

its BY FAITH ALONE*

Evolutionists have never proven that randomness can create intelligence or even
a "simple" living cell.

This is the very origin of life..on this earth and the very
foundation of the theory of evolution.

They have no viable answers as to how random, natural events could have created the first life on this earth. They cannot prove any single aspect of the.."first living cell,"

so why do they continue to tout..that they have "proven" that
evolution is true and that creation scientists..are gullible..

As mentioned earlier, "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest," are valid
scientific principles which apply to microevolution.

*These are not the problem.
Scientists must use deception because there is no evidence for macroevolution.

What about the issue of "time." Evolutionists claim that it took evolution many
millions of years to create human DNA.

Evolution took lots and lots of time.
Does that help the theory of evolution?
Does it change the results of statistics?

What if you slowly constructed a new physics book using very slow computers
over a time period of millions and millions of years? Would creating the book
slowly make the book any better than by doing it quickly?

Obviously not.

These are yet more effects of randomness which evolutionists conveniently
ignore.

You don't increase intelligence when you randomize something, even if
you randomize it slowly.

Atheism, the official religion of evolution, prohibits any "intelligence" from
"designing" the DNA of the "child species" from the "parent species," because
that would imply the existence of God.

Creating a new species from an old species would require many changes to the
DNA of the "parent species." These changes are called "mutations." All
mutations must be totally random, by the definition of evolution, because they
reject the intelligence of God.
The three key mutation issues in deleting, modifying and adding nucleotides to
DNA are as follows:
The "location of the mutation" issue (i.e. where on the DNA is the mutation),
The "type of mutation" issue, and
The "which nucleotide ends up at that location (if any)" issue.
First, is the "location of the mutation" issue, meaning: exactly "where" on the
DNA of the "parent species" are the nucleotides that will be changed, added or
deleted by evolution (to create the new species)?
For example, if a DNA strand has 2 billion nucleotides, and we numbered these
nucleotides from #1 to #2,000,000,000, and if we made a random mutation, then
at which of the 2 billion nucleotide locations would there be a change, addition or
deletion? This is the "location of the mutation" issue.
Evolution has no intelligence, thus whenever evolution picks a location for a
mutation, the location is totally random, meaning it can be anywhere on the DNA.

Randomness (i.e. mutations) does a very, very poor job in choosing the correct
location for a mutation because evolution has no clue where the mutation should
happen, nor does evolution care because it has no direction and no intelligence!

For example, suppose the new species needed a nucleotide changed in location
#1,543,233,212, but suppose the mutation occurred in location #982,908,143.
That mistake does not "fix" the incorrect nucleotide, plus it damages a good
nucleotide that we didn't want to change!

As we try to change a nucleotide in the chosen location, a vast, vast number of
errors will occur before we accidentally change the correct nucleotide.

The location issue turns out to be the most important issue in this discussion, as
will be seen below.

Second,..for each mutation in a location,..what is the "type of mutation" that will occur...These are the three "types of mutations":

Type 1)...A mutation can change an existing nucleotide..(e.g. an 'A' can be,..changed into a 'G');
Type 2)..A mutation can add a nucleotide..(e.g. a 'T' can be added between two..existing nucleotides);
Type 3)..A mutation can delete*..an existing nucleotide ..e.g. a 'C' can be deleted).

Third,..for type 1 and type 2 mutations,
what nucleotide will result at that location..from the mutation, an A, C, G or T?

This is the.."which nucleotide ends up at that..location" issue...Of course,..if there is a deletion,there will be no nucleotide at that location and we are concerned about which type of nucleotide was deleted.

We can summarize some of this with examples:

1)..Will a mutation..(at a random location).change an existing nucleotide,

and if so,.what will the new nucleotide be..(on the DNA),
1/a..will it advance or retard..evolution

2)..Will a mutation..(at a random location)..insert a new nucleotide into the DNA..and what will the new nucleotide be,

or
3)..Will a mutation,,(at a random location)
delete an existing nucleotide on the..DNA
and which type of nucleotide..*was deleted.

As a more complete example,..the new species may need a nucleotide changed..from an 'A' into a 'T'..in location #1,543,233,212...But the mutation may delete a,,'G'..in location in #982,908,143!

Not only has this not fixed the nucleotide in location #1,543,233,212, but a
perfectly good nucleotide at location #982,908,143 was deleted,..thus possibly damaging the functionality of the DNA!

This is not a good thing to happen to the new species because the deletion has.*likely damaged the functionality of the DNA and has certainly not fixed it.

Every time evolution creates..a new species,..several new highly sophisticated genes..*must be created..(note that the nucleotides in a gene..are clustered together,..*but statistically,..randomness does not cluster mutations).

Furthermore,..he old "morphing of the embryo"algorithms..(which are part of the DNA sequence)..*would..need to have incredibly precise changes made to them,..as we saw above.

Changing the old "morphing of the embryo"..algorithm is like changing the compiled code of an incredibly complex computer program,..but with the changes..being made.,.,*totally randomly.

Randomness" and "precision"...(which requires intelligence)..do not yield the same results!

Let us dig deeper..into these concepts

The "Prime Directive" of the Post-DNA Debate
The "Prime Directive" of Evolution:..If evolution were true, scientists should be able to look at two animals..(which have a parent-child relationship on the..*phylogenetic tree)

and easily demonstrate..how the DNA of the parent species
could randomly mutate into the DNA of the child species.

That is so important I am going to repeat it
because it is central to the post-DNA evolution debate:

The "Prime Directive" of Evolution:..*If evolution were true, scientists..*should be able to look at two animals (which have a parent-child relationship on the phylogenetic tree)..*and easily demonstrate..*how the DNA of the parent species could randomly mutate into the DNA of the child species.

The reason it has to be "easy" is because evolution claims it has happened many
millions of times, with few or no failures, and something highly improbable is
not likely to happen a single time in a few million years timeframe.

Thus,
evolution..*must be shown to be "easy."

As mentioned, there must be very, very few errors in this process or there would
be billions of "dead" animals which were born as mutated forms of valid
animals but had flawed mutations to their DNA such that they could not mate
with any other animal.

This is the "prime directive" of the post-DNA evolution debate. Scientists must
demonstrate how easy it is to take existing DNA, randomly mutate it and then
end up with new and improved intelligence on the new DNA!

This is the heart and sole of macro-evolution after the discovery of DNA.
The mutations to create a new species have to occur in pinpoint locations on the
DNA, the correct type of mutations must occur and the correct nucleotides have
to end up (or be deleted) in the correct locations on the DNA.

The key word is "randomly"!

How do you "randomly" make incredibly
precise changes to existing DNA in order to create new and improved
DNA?

This is the oxymoron..

It is equal to the phrase: "randomly precise."

..The word "randomly" means exactly the opposite of "precise," yet with evolution.."random" mutations must be incredibly "precise."

The concept of "randomly
precise" (or "random precision") is the quintessential oxymoron.

In short, evolutionists..*must demonstrate and prove how an animal with perfectly good DNA (the "parent" species) can have its DNA randomly mutated and end
up with a new and improved species (the "child" species).

The "child species" are always considered to have superior DNA to the DNA of
the "parent species," meaning the DNA of the child species is always an
improvement.(not just a change) over the DNA of the parent species.

This
makes the claims of evolution more absurd.
Applying the Three Key Mutation Issues

Now let us apply the three key issues related to mutations to the issue of
improving the DNA of a parent species to test the feasibility of the "prime
directive" of evolution.

According to evolution, every location on the 2 billion nucleotide DNA (assuming
the parent species has 2 billion nucleotides) must have the same probability of
being chosen as the location of the mutations because the new child DNA will
likely have many changes scattered throughout the parent DNA

and evolution
doesn't have a clue where to make the changes, what kind of changes to make
or what nucleotides need to end up in each location.

For example, let us say that we want to change a specific nucleotide. We must
first pick a "random location" on the DNA (e.g. nucleotide #45,119,004), then the
mutation..*must change that nucleotide to a new nucleotide (the new nucleotide..*must randomly end up being an A, C, G, or T).

Because every nucleotide has the same chance of being changed, and we know
which nucleotide needs to be changed (i.e. #45,119,004), note that there is a..*one in 2 billion chance that the correct nucleotide will be "changed" because
every nucleotide has the same probability of being changed and there is only one
nucleotide

(*(out of 2 billion nucleotides) we want to change and we know where it
is..(but evolution..*doesn't know!..where it is!*!