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. John Harshman: I find the terminology in that abstract and in your comment disturbing. All extant eukaryotes are in “the eukaryote crown”; that’s the definition of “crown”. It’s impossible for any living eukaryote to be “closest to the root”, and all are equally far from it. I’m not sure what the abstract means by “basal branches”, but usually it refers to the side of a divergence with fewer species, and that’s almost certainly true. There are probably many more species of protists than of animals or plants. Just remember that, topologically speaking, both sides of a node are equally “basal”; there is no “main line” or “side branch”.

    So what were they actually saying?

    You’re right using branch the way they do doesn’t make any sense as all extant biodiversity is in the crown. I guess they have to be speaking of relative timing of nodes (that land-plants, mammals and amphibians start diverging before fungi), otherwise it’s nonsensical.

  2. Rumraket,

    Exactly my point. I get the sense J-mac thinks the word hoax is basically synonymous with wrong. If someone miscalculates something, they’ve done a hoax.

    Yeah – certainly a bizarre notion when co-authors on one paper become opponents in others. Almost as if scientists aren’t following the script. But you never get an actual whistle-blower on ‘the hoax’ itself. It’s flat-earth territory.

  3. Mung,

    Rumraket sees his vaunted “twin nested hierarchy” crumbling before his eyes.

    It strikes me that, if one accepts the evidence for endosymbiosis of an alpha-proteobacterium and cyanobacterium, ancestral to mitochondria and plastids respectively, one has accepted the logic of the twin (rather, multiple) nested hierarchy. There are multiple character states that point to the same conclusion, in each case.

  4. Allan Miller:
    Rumraket,

    Yeah – certainly a bizarre notion when co-authors on one paper become opponents in others. Almost as if scientists aren’t following the script. But you never get an actual whistle-blower on ‘the hoax’ itself. It’s flat-earth territory.

    One would hope that scientists would ‘…follow the evidence wherever it leads…’ ..rather than the script to support preconceived ideas…

  5. Hey J-Mac, when you do whales, don’t forget about the marine iquana (marine reptile) and the cormorant (aquatic birds).

    Every time I watch a nature show it reminds me how silly Darwinism is.

  6. John Harshman: I find the terminology in that abstract and in your comment disturbing. All extant eukaryotes are in “the eukaryote crown”; that’s the definition of “crown”. It’s impossible for any living eukaryote to be “closest to the root”, and all are equally far from it. I’m not sure what the abstract means by “basal branches”, but usually it refers to the side of a divergence with fewer species, and that’s almost certainly true. There are probably many more species of protists than of animals or plants. Just remember that, topologically speaking, both sides of a node are equally “basal”; there is no “main line” or “side branch”.

    So what were they actually saying?

    And I’d thought I was the only disturbed by this nonsense… I’m glad Harshman pointed it out…

  7. J-Mac: One would hope that scientists would ‘…follow the evidence wherever it leads…’ ..rather than the script to support preconceived ideas…

    So, no evidence for your false charges, usual tripe.

    Yes, I’m afraid J-Mac does have a point, but it points away from those with the problem.

    Glen Davidson

  8. Allan Miller: one has accepted the logic of the twin (rather, multiple) nested hierarchy

    Yes. Multiple. Not twin. Twin means two. If all you mean by multiple is two why bother repeating yourself? So I infer that you recognize the difference.

  9. Mung:
    Hey J-Mac, when you do whales, don’t forget about the marine iquana (marine reptile) and the cormorant (aquatic birds).

    Every time I watch a nature show it reminds me how silly Darwinism is.

    I won’t ! Thanks lol

    I’m working on an OP where your input will be much appreciated…give me some time…

    BTW: Darwinism without the consensus on the mechanism of evolution is just as good as fairy-tale…That’s why I referred to it on this OP as ‘..being maintained on the respirator…’ lol

    Why do you think the third way of evolution is being promoted? Some see the nonsense of Darwinism but can’t let go of materialism…because they would lose their status, funding, pride…It’s sad…

  10. J-Mac,

    One would hope that scientists would ‘…follow the evidence wherever it leads…’ ..rather than the script to support preconceived ideas…

    Well it’s a damned good thing they do then, innit, your grasp of the process notwithstanding.

  11. Mung,

    Yes. Multiple. Not twin. Twin means two. If all you mean by multiple is two why bother repeating yourself? So I infer that you recognize the difference.

    God, more linguistic nitpicking. When people talk of the twin nested hierarchy, they mean the morphological and the molecular. But multiple is better because, really, it’s all just character states, arbitrarily divided into the genotypic and phenotypic. The separate gene trees of 3 molecular datasets taken from different parts of the genome would be a multiple hierarchy, even though all-molecular and therefore only one part of the ‘twin hierarchy’ composed of morphology and molecules.

  12. Allan Miller: When people talk of the twin nested hierarchy, they mean the morphological and the molecular.

    Yes, I know this. And the two are supposed to match. Except when they don’t.

    That there is one single morphological hierarchy and that there is one single molecular hierarchy and that the two match each other is a myth.

  13. Mung: Yes, I know this. And the two are supposed to match. Except when they don’t.

    That there is one single morphological hierarchy and that there is one single molecular hierarchy and that the two match each other is a myth.

    What is the level of correspondence? More or less than one would expect by chance alone?

  14. Mung,

    Every time I watch a nature show it reminds me how silly Darwinism is.

    Sillier, I think, incessant use of the rather useless term ‘Darwinism’.

  15. Mung,

    Yes, I know this. And the two are supposed to match. Except when they don’t.

    That there is one single morphological hierarchy and that there is one single molecular hierarchy and that the two match each other is a myth.

    Something of a generalisation, and a strawman. You obviously aren’t saying that morphology and molecules never match. And no-one says they always do.

  16. newton: What is the level of correspondence? More or less than one would expect by chance alone?

    What is the correspondence between what? It depends on which trees you’re talking about, and there are not any two single “THE MORPHOLOGICAL TRUTH” and “THE MOLECULAR TRUTH” trees for someone to compare.

  17. Mung: Every time I watch a nature show it reminds me how silly Darwinism is.

    When all it should remind you is that you know very little.

  18. J-Mac: And I’d thought I was the only disturbed by this nonsense… I’m glad Harshman pointed it out…

    You weren’t disturbed by anything as you didn’t, and still don’t know what any of the words mean.

  19. Allan Miller: Sillier, I think, incessant use of the rather useless term ‘Darwinism’.

    Well, I thought of using evolution, or evolutionism, but then people would think I am one of those Creationists who deny evolution, lol.

    And Darwinism is alive and well, at least when it comes to pan-selectionism. I’m reading a recently published book now that makes that clear. Natural selection this, natural selection that. It’s all natural selection.

  20. Rumraket: When all it should remind you is that you know very little.

    It reminds me how little any of us know. But that doesn’t prevent at least some of us from pretending otherwise.

  21. Mung: Yes, I know this. And the two are supposed to match. Except when they don’t.

    That there is one single morphological hierarchy and that there is one single molecular hierarchy and that the two match each other is a myth.

    I’m glad I was able to teach you all these things you didn’t know last we spoke on the subject. (It all began here).

    A myth perpetrated by no-one and which every scientist will tell you. As I myself have informed you of several times.

    And the whole schtick about twin vs multiple nesting hierarchies is a red herring as I also informed you that I really meant multiple nesting hiearchies (though two is enough). And you believed all genes somehow “code for” morphology. Which is plain silly. And then I had to explain to you why incongruent trees for specific data sets would constitute falsification of common descent. Which is remarkable, because all of that is in the 29+ Evidences of macroevolution article which I’m sure you’ve read before. Or not.

    And now you’re here as if you’ve somehow made some great new “Darwinism” collapsing discovery. LOL

  22. Mung,

    Do you get as exercised within one of the categories as you do between? If people take a set of morphological character states (all they could do before we started sequencing), and construct a hierarchy based on a couple of characters, then construct another based on a couple more, and find congruence between, there is an apparent ‘morphological truth’ supported by the congruent hierarchies. Of course there must come a point, with increasing distance, where perfect correspondence breaks down if morphology is all one has to go on. But the signal does not disappear all of a sudden; it just becomes increasingly ambiguous within the resolution provided by the characters chosen and the available taxa.

    It was into this world that the molecular approach landed. It was really an embarrassment of riches, because the general patterns of congruence were already well established by morphology alone. As Pauling drily noted, flogging a dead horse, though it turns out to have been very useful for fine-scale resolution.

  23. Mung: It reminds me how little any of us know. But that doesn’t prevent at least some of us from pretending otherwise.

    Then stop pretending please. I emplore you.

  24. Mung

    And Darwinism is alive and well

    Darwinism is alive and well when you define it a particular way, but people have to guess how you are defining it. When someone uses the term, it is impossible to know what they really mean except typically, in the hands of a Creationist, someone who accepts that ‘natural’, non-interventional evolution happens. And that would include you, unless you’ve changed your tune.

  25. Mung doesn’t really ever say what the hell he believes about how evolution happens, or in what sense, if any, he accepts common descent.

    I’m starting to suspect he doesn’t accept common descent as it is understood by scientists, but rather that all organisms share a common origin in creation by God. There’s some chance he says yes when asked about whether he accepts common descent, but really just means they all come from the same source (“descent” from God) in a process that has nothing to do with macroevolution.

    Mung could of course just set me straight here by stating in unambigous terms what the hell it is he even believes. I wonder if he even knows himself, I suspect he never thinks much about it. As all creationists, his introspection seems to stop completely at just-not-accepting-unguided-evolution.

  26. Rumraket: You weren’t disturbed by anything as you didn’t, and still don’t know what any of the words mean.

    That would make two of us …lol

  27. Allan Miller:
    Mung

    Darwinism is alive and well when you define it a particular way, but people have to guess how you are defining it. When someone uses the term, it is impossible to know what they really mean except typically, in the hands of a Creationist, someone who accepts that ‘natural’, non-interventionalevolution happens. And that would include you, unless you’ve changed your tune.

    Is Darwinism as Jerry Coyne sees it or as Larry Moran?

    Coyne insists natural selection is has the molding power in evolution and Moran thinks is the drift…

    Experimental evidence would help, if you were to speak on the theme rather than speculation … 😉

  28. J-Mac: That would make two of us …lol

    Ahh so you concede. Great. Then why the hell did you claim you were somehow clued in?

  29. J-Mac: Is Darwinism as Jerry Coyne sees it or as Larry Moran?

    Coyne insists natural selection is has the molding power in evolution and Moran thinks is the drift…

    Experimental evidence would help, if you were to speak on the theme rather than speculation …

    I like how you fail to accurately portray both Coyne’s and Moran’s positions.

  30. J-Mac,

    Is Darwinism as Jerry Coyne sees it or as Larry Moran?

    Why you askin’ me? I’m saying it’s a useless term.

    Coyne insists natural selection is has the molding power in evolution and Moran thinks is the drift…

    Izzatso?

    Experimental evidence would help, if you were to speak on the theme rather than speculation …

    How would experiment help? Can you even conceive of an experiment that would settle the question in the general terms you state it?

  31. Rumraket: Ahh so you concede. Great. Then why the hell did you claim you were somehow clued in?

    I don’t ….but Harshman indicated you had no clue…I had no clue what you wrote… If you can read my mind then I’ll think about it… but don’t raise you hopes too much… 😉

  32. Allan Miller:
    J-Mac,

    Why you askin’ me? I’m saying it’s a useless term.

    Izzatso?

    How would experiment help? Can you even conceive of an experiment that would settle the question in the general terms you state it?

    If you think experimental evidence would’t help, I think you are wasting your time trying to prove something you don’t want experimental evidence for…

    Wait for my #7 just submitted

    Excuses? I knew that…lol

    OP on Coyne vs Moran coming up…

    Get your experimental evidence ready! Mind you if such a thing exists…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdghRwWfaOQ

  33. J-Mac,

    If you think experimental evidence would’t help, I think you are wasting your time trying to prove something you don’t want experimental evidence for…

    Another Creationist who thinks science is done by people in white coats. It’s not that I don’t want experimental evidence, I just don’t see how in hell it would show anything. You want experimental evidence to show whether selection or drift is the predominant force in nature. The whole of nature.

    Apart from it not being a binary matter … it’s your stupid idea. Justify it – give an idea of what an experimental test of the issue would look like. You can’t do that, it’s a fair bet that you don’t even know what you mean by ‘experimental evidence’.

  34. Allan Miller: You want experimental evidence to show whether selection or drift is the predominant force in nature. The whole of nature.

    It seems to me that could be done, depending on how one defines “predominant” and “nature”. If you mean what results in fixation at the majority of sites, that shouldn’t be extremely difficult. Just assay a lot of sites, randomly, in a lot of taxa, sampled randomly. Any site accumulating differences at the neutral rate should be judged neutral, while any significantly faster or slower should be judged subject to selection. There would be operational complications: what’s “significantly”? what’s a big enough sample? how to determine the neutral rate, and what about differences in that rate among taxa and sites? But I think you could get at least a ballpark estimate. I’m also pretty sure that drift would come out as predominant. Or perhaps you mean to define “predominant” differently.

  35. Mung,

    So like the term “twin nested hierarchy.” Which Darwinism? Which twin nested hierarchy?

    You know damned well which twin nested hierarchy. It was discussed above, and you agreed. Unless ‘yes, I know this’ doesn’t mean what I think it means. Your word gaming is getting really tiresome.

  36. Rumraket: Mung could of course just set me straight here by stating in unambigous terms what the hell it is he even believes.

    I believe that evolutionists confidently claim as known far more than what is actually known. Ignorance posing as knowledge. I believe that much of what passes for “reasoning” by evolutionists is actually fallacious. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

    Does that help? 🙂

  37. Mung: I believe that evolutionists confidently claim as known far more than what is actually known. Ignorance posing as knowledge. I believe that much of what passes for “reasoning” by evolutionists is actually fallacious. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

    Does that help?

    We are about to see what evolutionists are made of… 😉
    There is only one way to expose ignorance….just like OP#7 indicates….

  38. Allan Miller: You know damned well which twin nested hierarchy. It was discussed above, and you agreed.

    Let me spell this out.

    I denied that there is any one single “master” nested hierarchy derived from morphology that anyone can point to as being THE ONE.

    I denied that there is any one single “master” nested hierarchy derived from genetics that anyone can point to as being THE ONE.

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

    Then I point out that even you admit there are multiple: “the twin (rather, multiple) nested hierarchy.”

    So no, I don’t know WHICH ONE. There are many.

    How many nested hierarchies are derivable from morphological characters? Just one? No, many.

    How many nested hierarchies are derivable from genomic characters? Just one? No, many.

    So when someone says the twin nested hierarchy matches up, I get to ask, which one? How many did they actually compare?

    And then comes convergence.

  39. John Harshman,

    Or perhaps you mean to define “predominant” differently.

    Not only – I would define ‘selection’ and ‘drift’ differently. You seem to be reserving drift for the neutral case.

    But yes, if one looked at bacteria, say, the ‘predominant’ force would probably be selection, as you’ve used it. Likewise if one looked at regulatory sequence and functional RNAs. The rest of noncoding, mostly neutral. But trying to get an overall, pooled result for the ‘whole of nature’, even by sampling … what would that even mean?

    If we are taking an imaginary census of all DNA everyhere, trying to determine which bases or indels were subject to selection and which were neutral, and accumulating the results according to – what – organism numbers? Species numbers? – the results would be heavily influenced by the way you counted, and not produce the definitive result desired. Bacteria would skew the picture considerably.

    Also not at all what J-Mac is imagining.

  40. Allan Miller:
    John Harshman,

    Not only – I would define ‘selection’ and ‘drift’ differently. You seem to be reserving drift for the neutral case.

    But yes, if one looked at bacteria, say, the ‘predominant’ force would probably be selection, as you’ve used it. Likewise if one looked at regulatory sequence and functional RNAs. The rest of noncoding, mostly neutral. But trying to get an overall, pooled result for the ‘whole of nature’, even by sampling … what would that even mean?

    If we are taking an imaginary census of all DNA everyhere, trying to determine which bases or indels were subject to selection and which were neutral, and accumulating the results according to – what – organism numbers? Species numbers? –the results would be heavily influenced by the way you counted, and not produce the definitive result desired. Bacteria would skew the picture considerably.

    Also not at all what J-Mac is imagining.

    Ignore

  41. Allan Miller: I would define ‘selection’ and ‘drift’ differently. You seem to be reserving drift for the neutral case.

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

    I agree that deciding what predominance in number of events over the whole of nature means is a difficult matter. Averaged over all species? All individuals? All sites? All species, weighted by number of sites per genome? Definite problems. But the sheer numbers of species and sites isn’t the problem. It’s how to sample randomly, and what “randomly” means.

  42. Mung: I believe that evolutionists confidently claim as known far more than what is actually known. Ignorance posing as knowledge. I believe that much of what passes for “reasoning” by evolutionists is actually fallacious. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

    Does that help?

    No, not even remotely. You’ve once again avoided answering what you actually believe about evolution and common descent.

  43. dazz: You believe that evolution is about individuals becoming something else when thrown into a different niche… should I be as offended as you were when I (metaphorically) portraited Jesus as a gay stripper?

    This is at least the second time you wrote this comment…Do yo have something against gays?

  44. J-Mac: Then strippers?

    OK, I’ve just been informed that Jesus was no gay stripper.. What about the claims that he was a part time clerk at Walmart? Can you explain that?

  45. 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….

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.