>Atheist Nightmare: Why can't atheist explain the origin of life properly?
What do you mean by 'can't explain it properly'? The reason we atheists can't say exactly how life on Earth originated is because it happened about 3.8 billion years ago and we weren't around back then to observe it and see how it happened. Asking an atheist to describe exactly how life started is kind of like asking a christian to describe exactly how Noah's Ark was built.
Also, on a side note, why can't christian use the plural of the word 'atheist' properly?
>Whether bacteria, animals, plants or people, we all have cells.
Yes, but bacteria, animals, plants and people aren't the only life forms on Earth. There are a number of other kingdoms of cellular life you didn't mention, and furthermore there are life forms such as viruses and prions which do NOT have cells.
>This poses an immediate problem. How do you get all the complicated machinery to work at the same time? It either all works or nothing works.
Ah, the good old irreducible complexity argument. Too bad it doesn't work. In my experience, creationist claims of irreducible complexity all base themselves on the assumption that more advanced, more dependent traits cannot replace more primitive, more independent ones. However, nothing in evolutionary theory suggests that this assumption is warranted.
>For example, the information to construct the apparatus to synthesize proteins is stored in the DNA. But the extraction of this information requires the apparatus to be in place already
Yep. All this means, though, is that one or the other of the two sides has replaced a more primitive kind of chemistry that served a similar purpose.
Consider this analogy. Let's say I have a computer that has a PS/2 port with a mouse connected to it. I go out and buy some USB connectors and attach them to my computer. Then I go out and buy a USB mouse and plug that into the USB connectors, and throw away the PS/2 mouse. Then I remove the PS/2 connector on the back of the computer case. I now have a computer which has a USB mouse connected to a USB port and no PS/2 port. The mouse can't run with a PS/2 port, and the computer can't be used without the mouse, so I must necessarily have bought both the computer (with the USB connectors) and the mouse all at once. Right?
Wrong. The reason it looks that way is because I've gotten rid of the old PS/2 mouse and PS/2 connector that I didn't need anymore. As I described above, I CAN actually convert the original computer with a PS/2 mouse and connector to a computer with only a USB mouse and connector. Just because the USB ports and the USB mouse are both necessary to use the computer does NOT mean that I must have bought them both at the same time. And life forms are the same way: They LOOK irreducibly complex because they have several interdependent parts, but that's only because the earlier parts that WEREN'T interdependent got replaced by the more efficient interdependent ones. These interdependent parts did NOT need to come into existence all at the same time.
>To explain the evolution of the cell requires imagining simpler "proto-cells". One such idea by Francis Crick (Denton 1985, 265) uses a proto-cell that is allowed to make mistakes in protein formation (termed "statistical proteins") to create new systems. This is challenged by the knowledge that even small errors cause devastating biological consequences.
So what? Evolution doesn't really care whether the mutations tend to be harmful or not. If a cell undergoes a mutation that is horribly bad for it, then that cell dies, and all the other ones without the mutation go on living and reproducing. This continues until one of the cells happens to get a good mutation, whereupon it reproduces faster and replaces all the other cells with cells of its own type. The chances of a mutation being harmful could be a million to one, and in a sufficiently large population of cells, evolution would still occur.