Blood Cells ARE Alive!

You may have arrived here because you selected the "Yes" Button from

this Newsletter published March 7, 2007.

If you clicked on "NO" you would have gone to THIS page.

There are certainly people (including doctors with fancy credentials) who agree with you, read below.

Here is one "scientific study" that refers to:

The human red cell has a life span of 120 days

For something to have a "life span" it must be, first, alive. It is commonly believed in society that the blood cll like othercells is alive.

The source is Dr. Robin Geller, Vice President of a Health Care institution specialty in "Biology" -- the study of "life."claims that red blood cells are alive! She is an expert!

Return to Top

Message from Dr. Geller:

Red Blood Cells are certainly alive, they have an intact cell membrane and contain numerous enzymes and other proteins which carry out a variety of metabolic functions. They use sugars like most living things to produce energy. In fact their survival is dependent on the continuous use of sugars such as glucose for energy which is used to to to operate a pumping mechanism in the red cell membrane to maintain the normal gradients (differences in concentrations) of ions such as sodium. Energy is also required to convert methemoglobin to oxyhemoglobin and to prevent the oxidation of other constituents of the red cell.

Since the erythrocyte lacks a nucleus, the amount of oxygen required by the cell for its own metabolism is very low, and most of the oxygen carried by the hemoglobin can be freed into the tissues.

Red blood cells are produced in the bone marrow. The precursor cell is call an erythroblast. It has a nucleus but does not produce hemoglobin. As the cell matures hemoglobin appears and the nucleus and mitochondria becomes progressively smaller. After several days the nucleus disappears completely and the cells enter the bloodstream. Mature red blood cells have a life span of about 120 days. Since they can't produce proteins they are unable to repair any damage that might occur and eventually the metabolic activities necessary for survival are impaired. Such damaged red blood cells are taken up by phagocytic cells which destroy the damaged red blood cells.

Here is a "mere"highschool studentteaches the truth to a medicl doctor who is both ignorant and arrogant in Australia who proves that an MD of Cell Bilogy Ddoesn't understand "cells."(Source)

Red blood cell contain no nucleus and no DNA, hence it cannot, and does not, reproduce itself.

Since it has no DNA it cannot produce RNA and subsequent proteins necessary for various function. Do red blood cells absorb any nutrient in the blood stream? and do they breath and use up the oxygen it carry?

As far as i know their only function is to bind to oxygen, preventing oxygen from turning into gas form, and then float around in the blood stream, unable to direct its own course. If they don't metabolize nor breath nor reproduce, how could they be consider a living thing? So are red lood cells a "living" cell? or are they just a complex compound of molecules and chemical?

Life is motion -- all life includes the concept of motion.  Not all motion indicates life, so let's look more technically.

Even if most doctors don't deal with the viewpoint of life, they do have to at least include that word in their dictionaries. Here's what a typical medical dictionary says about "life:"

Life: Generally, living things share, in varying degrees the following characteristics: organization, irritability, movement, growth, reproduction and adaptation.  [Footnote #1]

That seems sufficiently materialistic to be acceptable within the field of medical science.

Even though this word is defined in a medical dictionary, it was not defined in a typical medical textbook of more than 2,300 pages. The word is surely used a lot, but not defined. [Footnote #2]

One of the most famous text books in all of medicine has certainly been the famous Gray's Anatomy.  While that book is out of print, almost every medical student and certainly every doctor has a copy and has had that Book as one of his course assignments.   My copy has a cover like the image to the right, and is called "The Classic Collector's Edition" of Gray's Anatomy.   Unbelievably, that famous Book does not include a definition of life!

How about a standard, non-medical, dictionary?

Life: The property or quality manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, response to stimulation, and reproduction, by which living organisms are distinguished from dead organisms or from inanimate matter.

How about a standard, non-medical, dictionary?

Life: The property or quality manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, response to stimulation, and reproduction, by which living organisms are distinguished from dead organisms or from inanimate matter.

 

Here is the history of the origin of life:

One of the most fundamental axioms of biology is that all life comes from pre-existing life. Still, until the later part of the 19th century, life was believed to arise from non-living matter by a process called "spontaneous generation." Ancient Egyptians, for example, thought mice arose from the mud of the Nile. In 1600, J. B. Helmont even reported "proof" for the spontaneous generation of mice claiming that if wheat, cheese, and soiled linen are placed together in a jar, mice will eventually appear! This idea of the spontaneous generation of life from non-life was so deeply ingrained in biological thought that it took nearly 200 years of experimental evidence to completely disprove it.  (source)

 

The concept of life from mud was furthered by Charles Darwin, and is still believed by many "scientists."

Most evolutionists are dead certain that life evolved by chance (without divine intervention) from non-living chemicals through a process called "chemical evolution." Some evolutionists even insist that life must have independently evolved more than once on earth. Most evolutionists are confident that life has evolved many times in many other places in the universe. Although Darwin spoke longingly of the chance origin of life from simple chemicals in some "warm little pond," there has never been evidence that anything remotely like this has ever happened. In fact, the evidence for chemical evolution is so embarrassing, some evolutionists insist that the whole idea of the origin of life is not even a part of the theory of evolution but rather is a creationist plot to discredit evolution!

Evolutionists speculate that life gradually evolved from mere hydrogen in a series of stages. The first stage began about 15 billion years ago with the "Big Bang" which produced an expanding cloud of hydrogen gas -- all else was void. With time and energy, hydrogen transformed into all the other chemical elements. Then, about 4 billion years ago, the earth's atmosphere consisted of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water, from which life would inevitably evolve. (source)

Psychology was, originally, the "study of the soul" and when they couldn't find it, they fell into the Darwinian camp, believing only that man is an "animal" that rose from the mud -- and that you can plumb the depths of his character by measuring his reaction to stimuli.  Chemicals, electric shock and brain surgery are the stock in trade of those who believe that man came from the mud -- I would put most doctors and virtually all drug companies in this category, too.  Click here for my history of psychology, starting with the effect Aristotle was having on the Catholic Church.