The Mysteries of Evolution: 6. Endosymbiosis-The second miracle of life after the origin of life

This is one of the most fundamental mysteries of evolution and the origins of multicellular life often called endosymbiosis, which is supposed to explain the origin of eukaryotic cell.

It doesn’t!  Here is why…

What I found perplexing, or even disturbing, is that although it is presented as scientific fact of evolution, as evolution itself often is, there is absolutely not one fact to support that endosybiosis happened or could have happened…

And this the fact…

How could that be?

First of all, the difference between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cell is so staggering that even proposing such quantum leap in evolutionary change goes beyond macroevolutionary claim…

Here are some facts:

Prokaryotic cell above vs Eukaryotic cell below

Dr. Gauger at evolutionnews.org wrote a really good article on the miraculous appearance of the many structures in eukaryotic cells not found in prokaryotic cells that had to have evolved if endosymbiosis were true, such nucleus, mitochondria, etc…

“…There is no single proposed mechanism for the evolution of the nucleus or the other structures…” – wrote Dr. Gauger

However disturbing the theory of endosymbios already is, which makes one wonder how far and how deep preconceived ideology can reach, and the acceptance of evolution, common descent, the tree of life…right or wrong…

However…there is even more to it…

In his paper “Uprooting the Tree of Life”  W. F. Doolitle destroys the preconceived and fundamental dogma of evolutionary theory – the so called Darwin’s Tree of Life (which is worth another OP). His ammunition is mainly the horizontal gene transfer…but there is another thing that is very profound…

You can read about it  here:

http://labs.icb.ufmg.br/lbem/aulas/grad/evol/treeoflife-complexcells.pdf

On page marked 94 of the paper I linked above, Doolitle writes about the origin of  eukaryotic genes:

“…Many eukaryotic genes turn out to be unlike those of
any known archaea or bacteria; they seem to have come from nowhere.”

So, if eukaryotic cell evolved from prokaryotic cells, via the process of endosymbiosis, as evolutionists claim, not only there is not a single evolutionary mechanism to explain rather miraculous appearance  of the many structures not found in prokaryotes, that exist in eukaryotes, like nucleus, mitochondria etc. they don’t have many genes to account for in the supposed evolution of eukaryotes…

This is not a joke! It’s real...

Will these very facts overturn the evolutionary thinking and bring down the theory of evolution? One would hope… but of course not…

If it were to happen, it would have happened in 2000 when Doolitle published the world acclaimed findings about the horizontal gene transfer and the mysterious genes nowhere to be found if endosymbiosis is true…

Why?

As someone once said:

“…No amount of evidence disproving evolution will convince it’s faithful followers that the theory is wrong…”

If you don’t believe these words, just watch the comments below on how the faithful will post excuses to make them feel good and secure in their preconceived set of beliefs…

Let Darwin of the gaps begin…

God help us!

BTW: I’m willing to bet all my money that nobody can experimentally prove that endosymbiosis of prokaryotic cells to eukaryotic is possible… How could it be possible if many of the genes aren’t accounted for? Maybe gene-spermia happened? 😉

I’m pretty sure that Darwin’s faithful are willing to believe any nonsense… as long as they can pretend that the-long-dead theory of evolution is alive and kept on the respirator…for as long as possible…lol

447 thoughts on “The Mysteries of Evolution: 6. Endosymbiosis-The second miracle of life after the origin of life

  1. J-Mac:
    dazz,

    Perodona me senior dazz pero no tengo tiempo para tu disparates…
    Hasta la vista companista!

    BTW: If you are interested in the topic of homosexuality and such, in regards to Jesus or more precisely his teachings…, you should do and OP on that…I think it would be more than happy to comment on that….

    Can you seriously not see what I’m doing there? ugh

  2. dazz,

    I only see you referring to gays and strippers a lot…
    Unless you an angry gay, I see no point you bringing this theme up…

    BTW: I know a few people with let’s call it gender issues who often, subtly, bring up issue like that…

  3. J-Mac: I only see you referring to gays and strippers a lot…

    dazz thinks you love Jesus and hate gays. Just more bigotry on his part.

  4. Mung: dazz thinks you love Jesus and hate gays. Just more bigotry on his part.

    I try to love everybody… even my neighbor who hates me to death…It’s not easy…I’ll tell you that …;-)
    Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Jesus use a prostitute as an example of his willingness to forgive and love for sinners…or something like that?

  5. John Harshman,

    No, “nearly neutral” would introduce the complication of population size, but it still ought to happen at the neutral rate when it happens.

    Not just nearly neutral. There isn’t a discrete boundary. I don’t think it particularly meaningful to dichotomise selection and drift anyway. Drift is the ‘random’ element deriving from the fact that there is always a probability distribution in population resampling. Selection is a bias – the shift of the mean of the distribution. The distribution is still there, so drift is still there, albeit reduced in relative strength the more you turn selection up.

    The challenge, such as it was, was to decide who was ‘right’, pitting an imaginary position attributed to Coyne against an imaginary position attributed to Larry Moran. Since Moran isn’t just interested in the neutral zone, but the role of ‘randomness’ throughout, we can’t redefine his position just to make the ‘experiment’ easier, because it’s then not testing what it’s supposed to test.

    Then again, there is the role of things that bias distributions yet are neither selection nor drift – drive and drag, transposition, enforced HGT, hitchhiking and so on.

  6. J-Mac: I try to love everybody… even my neighbor who hates me to death…It’s not easy…I’ll tell you that …;-)
    Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Jesus use a prostitute as an example of his willingness to forgive and love for sinners…or something like that?

    Former prostitute

  7. Mung,

    So if someone says the twin nested hierarchy, you have to ask, which one.

    Not buying it Mung. You’re just feigning confusion, as you do. If someone says ‘twin nested hierarchy’, without qualification, they almost certainly mean morphological and molecular character states as their ‘twins’. I have never heard anyone use the term ‘twin nested hierarchy’ to refer to two specific character states within one category or the other. I can’t guarantee you can’t Google up someone doing that, but I’m doubtful, and I feel certain I could deduce what they meant from context.

    I prefer the term ‘multiple nested hierarchy’, or even ‘independent nested hierarchies’. But I am not even slightly confused when someone says ‘twin’, and I seriously doubt you are either.

  8. J-Mac: How long would it take me to see some evolutionary changes if I spend most of the day in the water? Can you make a prediction as evolutionists often do ?

    As has been pointed out already, this is not even wrong. But there is plenty of information about the transition from sea to land life. Just search for it and you’ll find it, if you are genuinely interested.

    If not, then sure, continue to bask in your misunderstandings and ignorance. As that statement alone removes you from the adult debate.

  9. J-Mac: You are not afraid of proving your own beliefs right…?

    Are you? In what sense have you proven your own beliefs right? What instances of special creation have you directly observed? None? Oh, well, it can’t be true, right? If we observe no real-time instances of large scale evolution currently then evolution is false, according to you. Same rules therefore apply to you.

  10. OMagain: When her son, Jesus, was born?

    It looks like you are getting two women confused; Mary, the mother of Jesus, and another woman (no name provided, possibly another Mary?) who gave up her prostitution after she met Jesus…

  11. OMagain: As has been pointed out already, this is not even wrong. But there is plenty of information about the transition from sea to land life. Just search for it and you’ll find it, if you are genuinely interested.

    If not, then sure, continue to bask in your misunderstandings and ignorance. As that statement alone removes you from the adult debate.

    OMGagian!

    Don’t you get it? I’m just trying to get to the truth!

    As you may have already seen, and you will definitely see in the future, religious dogmas, including Christian ones, have not been and will not be omitted…

  12. OMagain: Are you? In what sense have you proven your own beliefs right? What instances of special creation have you directly observed? None? Oh, well, it can’t be true, right? If we observe no real-time instances of large scale evolution currently then evolution is false, according to you. Same rules therefore apply to you.

    I haven’t and I shouldn’t have seen the acts of creation…but this doesn’t make evolution true does it?

    If scientist found an apparatus on Mars not resembling anything they have ever seen, and no one around who could be responsible for making it, they wouldn’t automatically assume it evolved would they? Would you?

  13. J-Mac: I haven’t and I shouldn’t have seen the acts of creation

    Why not?

    …but this doesn’t make evolution true does it?

    No and nobody says or thinks that.

    If scientist found an apparatus on Mars not resembling anything they have ever seen, and no one around who could be responsible for making it, they wouldn’t automatically assume it evolved would they? Would you?

    No and no. So what?

  14. Rumraket:
    Why not?

    If you insist…The universe is not only expanding but also accelerating at the fine-tuned rate far exceeding anything ever fine-tuned and designed by intelligent mind on earth-the Hubble Telescope. Due to the expansion, spacetime, new planets and galaxies are being formed…If you think this is an accident, just change the fine-tuning of the universe but be careful, unless you are suicidal!!! Life can’t continue unless the fine-tuning is the way it is… lol

    No and nobody says or thinks that.

    Since there is no third option, only one of the above can be right? Right?

    No and no. So what?

    So, you would assume the apparatus was designed?

  15. Allan Miller:I have never heard anyone use the term ‘twin nested hierarchy’ to refer to two specific character states within one category or the other.

    So? What makes you think I’m using the term that way?

    Allan Miller:If someone says ‘twin nested hierarchy’, without qualification, they almost certainly mean morphological and molecular character states as their ‘twins’.

    What part of what I say don’t you understand? You have MORPHOLOGICAL characters. And you have GENETIC characters. Isn’t that what I’ve been saying? What on earth leads you to think I am talking about one to the exclusion of the other?

    WoW.

  16. OMagain: But there is plenty of information about the transition from sea to land life.

    Sure. Just ignore the transition from land to sea life as if it never happened. That statement alone removes you from the adult debate. But go ahead and continue to bask in your misunderstandings and ignorance.

  17. J-Mac: I haven’t and I shouldn’t have seen the acts of creation…but this doesn’t make evolution true does it?

    Quite so. And you don’t seem to be able to follow that thought through. If evolution was demonstrated to be false that does not make creation true either

    So instead of trying to disprove evolution you should instead be trying to prove creation.

    J-Mac: If scientist found an apparatus on Mars not resembling anything they have ever seen, and no one around who could be responsible for making it, they wouldn’t automatically assume it evolved would they? Would you?

    Well, that depends. Is there a population of such things? Are they reproducing over time? Do subsequent generations seem slightly different to previous ones?

    In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. … There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use. … Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.

    — William Paley, Natural Theology (1802)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

    Seems you are also unaware of that. So instead of me telling you why your analogy is wrong, I’ll allow others to do so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy#Criticism

  18. J-Mac: Don’t you get it? I’m just trying to get to the truth!

    LoL. None of the critics here believes that. And if you question evolution you simply have to be a fundy christian.

  19. J-Mac,

    If you think this is an accident, just change the fine-tuning of the universe but be careful, unless you are suicidal!!! Life can’t continue unless the fine-tuning is the way it is… lol

    Perhaps not life as we know it but you have not demonstrated that life is impossible without our particular set of cosmological constants.

    Or perhaps you did and I missed it. Did you?

  20. Mung: LoL. None of the critics here believes that. And if you question evolution you simply have to be a fundy christian.

    Are you suggesting nobody here cares about the truth?

  21. J-Mac: Are you suggesting nobody here care about the truth?

    You don’t! If you did you’d take some time out to make sure you were not critiquing a caricature of evolution rather then what it actually is.

    And why are you asking Mung if anybody here cares about the truth? Has Mung answered any of your questions to your satisfaction?

    And to be clear, Mung is simply wrong. Certain aspects of evolution are questioned all the time. There are huge debates going on over the relative importance of different aspects of what can be put under the umbrella of evolution.

    You can easily see the truth of this just by looking at a few blogs of people who actually know their stuff: http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/

    Does Larry agree with every other evolutionist out there? Hardly.

    So simply questioning evolution is insufficient to automatically be labelled a fundy. What labels you a fundy is when you question the parody of evolution that the churches promulgate!

    Careers are made by questioning evolution. Even UncommonDescent reports on the different opinions in the evolution camp, however distorted a lens they view it through: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-altenberg-sixteen/

  22. Allan Miller: There isn’t a discrete boundary. I don’t think it particularly meaningful to dichotomise selection and drift anyway. Drift is the ‘random’ element deriving from the fact that there is always a probability distribution in population resampling. Selection is a bias – the shift of the mean of the distribution. The distribution is still there, so drift is still there, albeit reduced in relative strength the more you turn selection up.

    On a roll with the poor analogies, can we think of selection as a roulette wheel? Slots represent alleles. Equal-sized slots means neutral fixation. An allele will fix but without bias. Allow the slot size to vary and you have selective bias.

  23. J-Mac,

    If scientist found an apparatus on Mars not resembling anything they have ever seen, and no one around who could be responsible for making it, they wouldn’t automatically assume it evolved would they? Would you?

    There is an apparatus on Mars – Rover. Alien scientists may happen upon it one day, and barely notice the frazzled crisp one orbit on from whence it came. But they would assume it had been made, and they’d be right. If Rover was an actual dog, however, that would not be a safe conclusion.

  24. Mung,

    So? What makes you think I’m using the term that way?

    I’m not. I’m saying you appear to be feigning confusion about some unspecified use of the term. Either people mean morphology/molecules, or they mean two states within one or other category. What else is there?

    What part of what I say don’t you understand? You have MORPHOLOGICAL characters. And you have GENETIC characters. Isn’t that what I’ve been saying? What on earth leads you to think I am talking about one to the exclusion of the other?

    So you are not confused by the term twin nested hierarchy. Excellent, I knew you weren’t. So why attempt to cast it in the same light as the much vaguer term ‘Darwinism’?

  25. Alan Fox,

    On a roll with the poor analogies, can we think of selection as a roulette wheel? Slots represent alleles. Equal-sized slots means neutral fixation. An allele will fix but without bias. Allow the slot size to vary and you have selective bias.

    Hmmm. A better analogy would be an actual sampling process. Since not every member of a population contributes equally to the next generation, that generation is a sample of the prior. If all alleles have exactly the same chance of being passed on, that’s the neutral case. Selection occurs when there is any differential in that chance among alleles.

    So, try a lottery machine. The 49 balls are of equal weight. But suppose the painted number contributes significantly to the weight of a ball, which affects their flight in the machine and gives different likelihoods to some numbers over others. There is bias, though there is still a substantial ‘random’ element.

    Of course you could make the balls different sizes instead – then, it’s not much different to your roulette wheel; different sized balls going through one hole is equivalent to one ball ‘sampling’ different sized slots – although I think it’s better to have a population.

  26. J-MacJ-Mac: I haven’t and I shouldn’t have seen the acts of creation
    Rumraket: Why not?
    J-Mac: If you insist…The universe is not only expanding but also accelerating at the fine-tuned rate far exceeding anything ever fine-tuned and designed by intelligent mind on earth-the Hubble Telescope. Due to the expansion, spacetime, new planets and galaxies are being formed…If you think this is an accident, just change the fine-tuning of the universe but be careful, unless you are suicidal!!! Life can’t continue unless the fine-tuning is the way it is… lol

    If the only “act of creation” you think there has been, is the creation of the universe, then no you shouldn’t have seen it as you were not around back then.

    But you have insinuated many times that you don’t believe in evolution or the origin of life, as such it is at least logically possible that God could have created some life form after creating you, and so you might have witnessed that happen. So for that reason it wasn’t clear to me why you “shouldn’t have” see the acts of creation.

    Now that we have got it settled you think (apparently, if I understand you correctly) that there was only one such act, and it was the creation of the universe, then why do you even believe that? What kind of evidence do you have that the universe was created?
    And if your standard of evidence is experimental evidence, as it must be since this whole thread is about your demand for experimental evidence for evolution, where is your experimental evidence for divine creation?

    Since you don’t have any such evidence, is your demand for experimental evidence for evolution not a hypocritical demand? Do you not expose that you have a double standard?

    J-Mac:…but this doesn’t make evolution true does it?
    Rumraket:No and nobody says or thinks that.
    J-Mac:Since there is no third option, only one of the above can be right? Right?

    No, not right. It is logically possible for something other than evolution vs divine creation to explain the diversity of life. However absurd it seems to us, it is at least a logically possible third option that the entirety of existence came into being by statistical fluke. No evolution, no intelligent design, no act of creation. Just, *poof*, but without a guiding intelligence or cause, and then The World.

    And one can imagine an endless number of options in between these. It isn’t a true dichotomy.

    J-Mac: If scientist found an apparatus on Mars not resembling anything they have ever seen, and no one around who could be responsible for making it, they wouldn’t automatically assume it evolved would they? Would you?
    Rumraket: No and no. So what?
    J-Mac:So, you would assume the apparatus was designed?

    Maybe, it depends. I’d have to know more.
    You say it is an “apperatus”. What do you mean by that? What does this apperatus look like? What is it made of? What does it do?

  27. Alan Fox,

    Something else to consider, or confuse matters further: suppose one divided a large population into 49-member cohorts. A species of static habit would be best for visualising this. Each cohort has the same 49 alleles. Within any one cohort, a small enough differential in selection among those alleles would be effectively neutral. Within each cohort, alleles would be ‘fixed by drift’. But pooling all cohorts, we would encounter the strange, possibly counter-intuitive result that, in fact, there had been selection all along. The Law of Large Numbers at work.

  28. Rumraket: Maybe, it depends. I’d have to know more.
    You say it is an “apperatus”. What do you mean by that? What does this apperatus look like? What is it made of? What does it do?

    The driving intuition behind ID is that one doesn’t need to any of those pesky little details in order to just “know” that it’s an apparatus.

    And that’s why ID is bullshit.

  29. Allan Miller: Either people mean morphology/molecules, or they mean two states within one or other category. What else is there?

    I’ve already answered that question. And so have you.

    If I ask you whether there is one true twin nested hierarchy would you answer yes, only one, and could you show i to me? Or would you say there are multiple twin nested hierarchies, as you did earlier?

    So the answer to your question in this post is that there are multiple trees based on morphology and there are multiple trees based on.molecules and if they all agreed on all points we wouldn’t be debating it. But they don’t.

  30. Kantian Naturalist: The driving intuition behind ID is that one doesn’t need to any of those pesky little details in order to just “know” that it’s an apparatus.

    And that’s why ID is bullshit.

    You don’t think it’s possible for any creature to “just know” something?

  31. Mung,

    If I ask you whether there is one true twin nested hierarchy would you answer yes, only one, and could you show i to me? Or would you say there are multiple twin nested hierarchies, as you did earlier?

    At no point did I say there were “multiple twin” nested hierarchies. I said I prefer the term ‘multiple nested hierarchy’ to the term ‘twin nested hierarchy’. A multiple nested hierarchy, as I meant it, is given by taking one set of characters from a set of taxa, contructing trees, then taking further sets of characters from the same set of taxa and producing other trees. If these hierarchies are congruent, that is a curious fact well explained by common descent.

    You seem to think I am talking about ‘multiple’ in the sense of doing that exercise for one group of taxa, and then doing it for other groups independently. I’m not. The word ‘multiple’ refers to sets of character states, not sets of taxa. Which is also the case with the word ‘twin’, except that here it’s used to delineate two categories of character states for the same set of taxa.

    You don’t take the trees from one set of taxa and just ‘guess’ that they are commonly descended with trees from another set. You pool those sets, then check the multiple nested hierarchies obtained from that superset. Obviously, congruence does not have to be perfect to be significant – well above chance will surely do?

  32. Allan Miller: I said I prefer the term ‘multiple nested hierarchy’ to the term ‘twin nested hierarchy’. A multiple nested hierarchy, as I meant it, is given by taking one set of characters from a set of taxa, contructing trees, then taking further sets of characters from the same set of taxa and producing other trees.

    You said that very well. And that’s what I meant by there not being one single twin nested hierarchy. Multiple trees based on morphological characters. Multiple trees based on molecular characters. Multiple hierarchies.

    If these hierarchies are congruent, that is a curious fact well explained by common descent.

    I agree. I’m not questioning whether common descent is a fact.

  33. Rumraket: If the only “act of creation” you think there has been

    So, you think that by twisting my statements you will feel better?
    Why would you lie to yourself?
    What a pity…

  34. J-Mac: Rumraket: If the only “act of creation” you think there has been

    So, you think that by twisting my statements you will feel better?
    Why would you lie to yourself?
    What a pity…

  35. Rumraket:

    I knew you wouldn’t quote the thread of our WHOLE CONVERSATION…
    So you cherry-picked one sentence and twitted it to the way you wanted it to be…

    It’s not even sad to think to what extent some go to lie to themselves…

    It’s pointless to continue…

    Goodbye!

  36. Mung: They already know the truth. Don’t disturb them.

    Yeah…I know…the truth as they see it…or rather… as they wanted it to be… 🙁

  37. J-Mac: Yeah…I know…the truth as they see it…or rather… as they wanted it to be…

    If that gives you some comfort as to why your “arguments” have failed then continue to think that.

    The real point is that you don’t understand what it is you are attempting to critique and so all that remains is to convince yourself that you do understand it, but people are just rejecting your argument for a reason unrelated to the argument’s quality.

    The people you are taking to are in the main actual real scientists. As such, if you can tell them there is a more productive, useful way to do science then they will bite your arm of. They win you see if that happens. They get to publish a paper that shows why what we thought up to now was wrong and how it really is.

    People win Nobel prizes for such work.

    But stick with your “they are sticking with the truth they want rather then the truth I am offering because they are atheists” if you like. But I wonder how long you’ll be able to convince yourself of that.

  38. J-Mac: It’s pointless to continue…

    Goodbye!

    Yes, do you see a pattern emerging yet? We all have seen the pattern. Creationist comes along with “killer” arguments, get’s them dismantled (where they are coherent enough to be dismantled) then vanishes to try out the same arguments somewhere else where hopefully people won’t be as knowledgeable.

    I imagine things are different at UncommonDescent for you, where everyone oohs and ahhs over your ideas. And if your audience is the already convinced, that is great.

    Tell you what. Why don’t you ask KariosFocus at UD why he refuses to publish his extensive writings on FSCI as a paper? His excuses are your excuses. And they are just that, excuses for cowards.

  39. J-Mac: It’s not even sad to think to what extent some go to lie to themselves…

    You know that’s you right? You are lying to yourself about your knowledge and ability regarding evolution.

    Or are you. Do this: https://www.studocu.com/en/document/university-of-manitoba/evolutionary-biology/practical/practical-sample-exam-questions/321256/view?has_flashcards=true

    then let me know your score. Otherwise, continue to believe you are as expert as those you are engaging with here on the basis of what your pastor said in the church basement last Sunday.

  40. Mung: You don’t think it’s possible for any creature to “just know” something?

    I think it’s safe to say the answer is no, since KN doesn’t believe in “given” knowledge

    But I think he’s referring to ID’s total lack of explanatory power. How are we supposed to “know” ID is the explanation of something if it doesn’t explain anything?

  41. The origin of eukaryotes was a major evolutionary transition and a hard problem of evolution. The endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria is closely coupled to eukaryogenesis, in fact, so closely, that no primarily amitochondriate eukaryotes are known. Whether eukaryotes were evolved directly because of mitochondria or the mitochondrion was the last step in the process is heavily debated, but eukaryogenesis was certainly closely coupled to endosymbiosis.

    https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13062-017-0190-5

    Personally, I think I’d at least be tempted to cut someone some slack if they did equate the two. Unless it was an evolutionist.

  42. Mung: Personally, I think I’d at least be tempted to cut someone some slack if they did equate the two. Unless it was an evolutionist.

    Harshman will continue to insist that edosymbiosis has nothing to do with eukaryogenesis…but than again, who would pay attention to what he says after this…

    “… They are at most clues of miraculous intervention at various points in the evolutionary tree…”

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/a-prediction-tested/comment-page-1/#comments

Leave a Reply