Mamalian red blood cells

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 evolutionists 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 then extrudes out their mitochondria (sequence not importatnt). They can no longer produce any proteins, or reproduce. They basically die on purpose. That is the definition of sacrifice. 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. It is a process of sacrifice to give life to the rest of the body. Sounds like Jesus 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 impossible under an evolutionary process.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!Therefore, random mutations over time must have caused 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 change (mutate)to provide additional cells, because the red blood cells could no longer divide and multiply on their own. But they would only have about 120 days for those changes to evolve. Then the kidneys which filter 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, because the capilaries would have to adapt. The fluid dynamics 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 in avery short period of time.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 topic, what "just so" story could explain an evolutionary pathway for living red blood cells to give up their life and that change be beneficial for the entire organism without having catastrophic consequenses for the life of the organism.Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : Changed last sentence

quote:

---

It's an interesting question. If you were a scientist, how would you go about seeking an answer? What kind of research do you think is required here? What kind evidence would lead you to say "Oh, yeah, I get it. That's obviously how the function of hemoglobin evolved."

---

First of , you don't know that I am not a scientist. And secondly, you may want to explore the differences between hemoglobin and red blood cells. Hint: It similar to the difference between pebbles and Mt. Everest.

quote:

---

More to the point, since you have established right at the beginning of your post that you are making an argument from ignorance, do you think anyone should even try? Is your faith increased by your ignorance? Would it be diminished if the evolutionary pathway to hemoglobin were to be determined? Did those who lived in the (quite recent) era before the function of hemoglobin was understood have a poorer understanding of salvation than you? I fail to see any point to your post, or to your argument.

---

If you think I am using argument ad ignoratiam, then please spell this out. I have stated quite a few facts about red blood cells. Some from a religious perspective, but most from a biological perspective. Then I have asked a question about you and others supplying evidence of how this process of extrusion of the DNA and the mitochondria evolved. This is not about hemoglobin! It is about mammalian red blood cells. You have created a strawman/red herring.First off, you don't know that I am not a scientist

Ok, lets go to Biology 101, oops I mean 9th grade Biology...

quote:

---

The cell is the structural and functional unit of all known living organisms. - wiki

---

quote:

---

Each cell is at least somewhat self-contained and self-maintaining: it can take in nutrients, convert these nutrients into energy, carry out specialized functions, and reproduce as necessary. Each cell stores its own set of instructions for carrying out each of these activities.-wiki

---

Now please note that the cell is the smallest known living organism. When red blood cells are created in the marrow, they are living. But after they extrude out their DNA and their mitochondria, they no longer self maintain, they can't produce any more proteins, they can't convert nutrients into energy, and they can't reproduce. The cell is nothing more than a dead organism that is performing a function. Just like decaying leaves fertilize the soil.If you look up "life" you will also see these same definitions involved.Now you did a good job searching the internet for some science on the subject, But this science says zero about how this process evolved. That is my question. Do you have an answer?

Well you guessed wrong. I was trained in college for a scientific field. I was employed in a scientific field when I graduated. And since that time, I have been managing a company that produces products for a scientific field. I also have been published in a scientific publication. Does that make me a scientist?

quote:

---

A scientist, in the broadest sense, refers to any person that engages in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge or an individual that engages in such practices and traditions that are linked to schools of thought or philosophy. In a more restricted sense, scientist refers to individuals who use the scientific method.[1] The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science.[2]-wiki

---

Hey guys, I'm sorry I haven't responded, but I will. I have been working a major project that has deterred any blogging time. I should be able to jump in this weekend.