A century ago physics faced a problem. Its two-hundred year foundation of Newtonian thought was showing signs of weakness. In the seventeenth century Newton had overthrown the physics of another great thinker, Aristotle, but now Newton’s time had come. The quantum revolution was coming, but as with most revolutionists there would be tumult.

The new thinking that was emerging in physics a century ago would be rejected by those who were firmly affixed to the old Newtonian foundation, and it became clear to those such as the great Max Planck that science advances one funeral at a time.

The thought of intelligent, trained scientists clinging to their way of thought in spite of the evidence is not a happy one, but it is understandable. Movements and traditions gather their own momentum and they don’t occasionally stop to allow for graceful exit. Leaping from a moving train may cause injury and if you don’t see the cliff ahead then why jump?

But those with a keen sense do jump. They see the looming chasm and know what to do. They are the ones history will admire for their combination of knowledge, awareness and courage. They lead the way, even though the way may be unknown. Consider Stanley Salthe, author of, among other things, the 1972 Holt McDougal text Evolutionary Biology. Salthe understands that evolutionary theory is not a fact but rather an idea with substantial problems. He writes:

Moving now into consideration of details of the formal properties of the concept of natural selection, we can start very broadly by noting that it is basically a theory of, as Einstein might have remarked, higgledy-piggledy.

Salthe shows that we can transcend outmoded thinking.

As Francis Bacon pointed out so long ago, a key strategy in scientific research is to narrow the problem. Remove unknowns, freeze variables and pare back extraneous components. Often the best way to learn how nature works is to focus in and isolate one aspect of the problem. Once that aspect is understood, then freeze it and move on to the next. So when it comes to figuring out how the living cell works, one strategy is to begin with the simplest of cells to be found in nature. Enter Mycoplasma pneumoniae—a bacteria that causes a type of pneumonia.

Prokaryotes are far simpler then eukaryotes, and M. pneumoniae has one of the smallest genomes of the prokaryotes. Such small prokaryotes are a good starting point in the search for the minimal cell.

What is the difference between a living and dead cell? What functions and components are crucial and exactly what do they do? Constructing a minimal cell is a good step toward answering questions such as these.

There’s only one problem: M. pneumoniae is enormously complex.

Evolutionists expected that small bacteria such as M. pneumoniae, like a stripped down machine, would be simpler than the larger cells. But the tiny bacteria’s protein machines, metabolic reactions and DNA transcripts are all sophisticated and reveal fascinating novelties. As one evolutionist admitted:

At all three levels, we found M. pneumoniae was more complex than we expected.

Another evolutionist agreed with similar sentiment:

There were a lot of surprises, Although it's a very tiny genome, it's much more complicated than we thought.

And what are these surprises? Here are some of the novelties discovered:

● Many of M. pneumoniae’s molecules are multifunctional.

● M. pneumoniae’s transcribed DNS is much more similar to that of eukaryotes. As in eukaryotes, a large proportion of the transcripts produced from M. pneumoniae's DNA are not translated into proteins.

● M. pneumoniae’s gene expression is more complex than expected.

● M. pneumoniae is incredibly flexible and readily adjusts its metabolism to drastic changes in environmental conditions. This adaptability and its underlying regulatory mechanisms mean M. pneumoniae has the potential to adapt quickly.

It is exactly the opposite of what evolution would expect. Rather than an evolutionary pattern, M. pneumoniae designs are unique, novel, sophisticated and finely-tuned.