This one was brought to our attention by one of our clandestine operatives. We’ll give you a few excerpts, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, and some bold font for emphasis. As we usually do we’ll omit the writer’s name and city. Here we go:
One-fourth of all cells are RBC’s (20-30 trillion). They contain no DNA, nucleus, nor most internal components that other cells have. Most other vertebrates do have nuclei.
Note that “RBC” is the letter-writer’s abbreviation for “red blood cells.” We assume he meant that one-fourth of a human’s cells are red blood cells. As for the number of cells in a human body, estimates vary between 50 trillion all the way up to 100 trillion. It depends on the size of the person, and the actual number is irrelevant to the letter-writer’s argument. It’s true that red blood cells have no nucleus and no DNA; they don’t reproduce. As for the letter-writer’s statement that “Most other vertebrates do have nuclei,” he’s probably referring to the fact that the red blood cells of most vertebrates have nuclei.
Does any of that disprove evolution? Stay with us as the letter continues:
Each RBC is replaced every 100 to 120 days; the “worn out” ones (entropy) are dismantled by macrophages (another complex cell) and recycled. The destruction and production are complex balancing acts extraordinaire.
Red blood cells are replaced as often as he says, but the connection to entropy is something we’ll leave you to ponder. As for the cells’ destruction and production being “complex balancing acts extraordinaire,” well, so is everything else.
We’ll spare you the letter-writer’s continued recitation of trivia. By now you’re wondering how this mindless (and somewhat garbled) outpouring of information about red blood cells is proof of creationism. The reasoning is a bit primitive, as with all creationist arguments, but here it comes:
This is just for starters. There are more than 200 different kinds of cells in the human body and each has its own chemical story of production, interdependence on everything else and organ formation. No computer could emulate cellular complexity, nor could evolution accomplish it in any number of trillions of years.
That’s it. That’s the whole letter. Dazzling, isn’t it?
What we come away with is that the letter-writer stumbled onto some kind of text about red blood cells — of all the things he might have focused upon. We don’t know his source, and it’s not important. Nor are we concerned with the garbled quality of his recitation. What matters is that upon reading the material he went into a bewildered daze and concluded that the only way to comprehend such things was to attribute it all to creationism.
As we analyze the letter-writer’s methodology, it boils down to these two steps: (1) recite data; and (2) declare Oogity Boogity! We told you the argument was primitive, but you gotta give the guy some credit — he did his research.
Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.