Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Wednesday, March 2, 2016

Evolutionists Misuse Endosymbiosis

Perhaps it's a mite unfair to say that Darwinists misuse their own piece of fiction, but when it's passed off as something seriously scientific, then we can throw down. Since the origin of life and the origin of mitochodria cannot be explained, the concept of endosymbiosis was dreamed up. Of course, when you point out that they don't really know what they're doing, evolutionists get on the prod.

To cover up from evolutionary problems, scientists came up with endosymbiosis. It's reaching a crisis point, and even evolutionists are questioning this long-held unscientific belief.

Endosymbiosis cannot be tested, and obviously, it has not been observed, but that hasn't stopped particles-to-pirate evolutionists from using it as a convenient "explanation" anyway. But even people from their own camp are pointing out that it's full of glaring problems. They sure do put a lot of effort into denying the fact of creation, don't they?
The theory that early cells engulfed microbes that became mitochondria is often presented overconfidently.

Most evolutionists accept without question the decades-old theory that mitochondria and chloroplasts are the remnants of free-living organisms that took to living inside a host. For instance, a paper in Current Biology (2012) states, “It is beyond doubt that mitochondria and plastids (chloroplasts) evolved from free-living organisms enslaved by other cells.” Whether through parasitism or predation, these microbes became accepted as endosymbionts (partners living inside) of other microbes; that’s part of the common story of the origin of eukaryotes. The endosymbionts changed over evolutionary time, sending some of their genomes into the nucleus but retaining some of their own DNA inside the organelles they were destined to become.

How solid is this theory? An article in Science (Ball, Battacharya and Weber, “Pathogen to Powerhouse”) makes it look less confident than often presented. Some excerpts:
To see the excerpts and read the rest of the article, click on "How Well Do Evolutionists Understand Endosymbiosis?"



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Labels