An article published in Frontiers of Microbiology highlights the “the chasm in design between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells.”
The Dominant Biological Paradigms of Life and Evolution
Three paradigms established in the 19th century, combined with advances in quantitative genetics in the 20th century, led to the dominant ‘textbook’ paradigm of biology where all life is cellular and descends from a common ancestor via the neo-Darwinian process of natural selection (e.g., Keeton and Gould, 1986).
Although the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis and the universal Tree of Life are very powerful paradigms, they are under challenge as several major tenets of the synthesis are being questioned (e.g., Doolittle, 1999; Dagan and Martin, 2006; Koonin, 2009; Koonin and Wolf, 2012). One challenge is their incompatibility with endosymbiotic processes operating at the origin of the eukaryotic domain (Koonin, 2009). Since the mitochondrion initially evolved separately from the ancestor of the eukaryotic cytoplasm, it arose via a symbiotic event (i.e., saltation) rather than an autogenous incremental process expected under the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis paradigm.
The “Grand Chasm” Between Eukaryotes and Prokaryotes
The eukaryotic cell is extraordinarily distinct from the much simpler bacterial and archaeal cells of the prokaryotic domains. It possesses not only a nucleus and a mitochondrion, but also a sophisticated endomembrane system, a complex cytoskeleton and a unique sexual cycle, leaving the gap between cells of prokaryotic and eukaryotic design as the greatest chasm in biology.
Finally, a notorious ‘queen of evolutionary problems’ related to the origin of the nucleus is the unresolved paradox of the origin of the eukaryotic sexual cycle (Bell, 1982). For the sexual cycle to function, two highly complex integrated but temporally and mechanistically unrelated processes must occur. Firstly, meiosis must occur to convert a diploid cell into four haploid daughter cells. This complex process is achieved by a single cycle of chromosomal replication generating a nucleus with 4 N ploidy and is followed by two mitosis-like cell divisions reducing the ploidy of the four daughter cells to 1 N.
The origin of this process is a paradox that has defied any generally accepted explanation for over 50 years and in part revolves around the challenge of determining which came first, meiosis that allows haploid gametes to be formed from a diploid or syngamy that allows 1 N haploid gametes to mate and create a 2 N diploid in the first place.
According to the modern evolutionary synthesis, incremental changes leading to the complex, unique and interrelated eukaryotic systems associated with the nucleus must have each provided an immediate selective advantage to an archaeal cell. Arguing these innovations were beneficial because they allowed the future evolution of complexity in the eukaryotic domain is clearly a teleological argument. It is particularly thought-provoking to explain these discontinuities in terms of incremental benefit when it appears that the eukaryotic system evolved only once in over 3.7 billion years and left no currently recognised intermediates, while the prokaryotic system remained highly efficient and conserved by the bacterial and archaeal domains for over 3.7 billion years.
In his lengthy article, Bell draws attention to evolutionary hurdles to the origin of eukaryotic cells. The “chasm” between eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells is causing a re-think of the universal common ancestor notion. Separate origins, however, of these types of cells would introduce further strain to the unguided evolution theory. Can we surmise that the evidence is more suitably consistent with intelligent design of these types of organisms?
Science against fantasy. How much longer will the “evolution” fantasy be assumed true until (and even after) proven false?
Along that line,
I can imagine :))))) Darwinists believe in miracles …
and this is brutal:
Darwinism is a scam …. no doubts …
PS: i was wondering, how Darwinists will ever be able to replicate such processes by heating and cooling down some flasks … this is crazy …. i said it before, but the one who created the cell did not use a common chemistry. That is for sure. Obviously, there have to be some undiscovered means of how to work with molecules … obviously, you can’t work like that … you can’t create sophisticated chemical systems where billions of molecules work together for a purpose by mixing some chemicals in flasks then cooling it down or heating it up … we are missing something …
Yes, eukaryotes are much more than a prokaryote with a new organelle. Evolutionists love to pretend otherwise. From 2006- can evolution make things less complicated:
There’s no “generally accepted” exxplanation.
They not only cannot explain the origin – but they don’t explain why there’s this chasm of design between the two.
What was the supposed selection pressure that caused this “gap”? Bacteria couldn’t find enough food so they had to evolve a nuculeus and new logic-based processes?
Reprogramming.
Then more reprogramming. Then a factory is built and the virus does a great job supporting the factory to make sure that the program is working correctly. Otherwise there would be big problems and nobody wants that to happen.
The factory increases control over all the elements, because otherwise it would be messy in there. Then, it got rid of some things and evolved a nucleus. There was probably some excellent reprogramming here also.
It left a gap that is not explained.
Really? You mean evolutionists just fantasized about the existence of proto-eukaryotes and called that “science”?
Well the great thing about evolution is that everybody has their opinion. That’s what makes it more certain than gravity and proves there are no weaknesses in evolutionary theory. The fact that everybody has different false ideas about it just proves how strong the theory really is.
What they mean by “unanswered puzzle” is that we don’t have 100% certainty – but of course, nothing in science is 100% certain so what’s the big problem here? Puzzles are good. Otherwise, evolution would be boring. As for all of those questions that indicate the illogic and absurdity of evolutionary claims, evolutionists certainly already have answers to all of that. We can be sure of it since they never admitted that there are any open questions at that most fundamental level which would put the entire evolutionary enterprise at risk. They made sure, under force of law, nobody could question evolutionary theory. So, certainly, a nuclear membrane evolved and was functional before the complex logic of membrane pores existed. The membrane just worked very nicely without the pores which allowed nutrients into the cell, blocked toxins and expelled waste. But then one day, the cell membrane needed pores – so they evolved.
There are no weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Sure there are unresolved paradoxes that are inexplicable and contradictory, but there’s nothing wrong with that. “Highly complex integrated but unrelated processes” were created by blind unintelligent causes. That happens so often there’s no need to even demonstrate how it’s possible. Who could question it?
As for “the queen of evolutionary problems” – that just means “on the top of the stack of all of them”. Taking the effort to actually compile the entire list of evolutionary problems is far too much work for any Darwinian researchers to actually produce. Instead, it’s a lot easier to first deny that there are any problems at all, and then when one might be able to become a little famous by coming up with a novel solution, then proclaim that there’s actually a “queen” of problems and whole ranks of problems under that.
The origin of this process by Darwinian mechanisms is a “paradox” which has “defied” explanation.
These guys are strangely honest and transparent.
Well, yes – but come on. What would evolution be without teleological assumptions and claims?
Haven’t we all learned that evolution does things because it can foresee beneficial effects in the future? It just creates some things – useless at the time – and then holds on to them for when they’re going to be needed later.
ID theorists should step in and propose their explanation.
ID gives evidence of intelligent design in nature. We know what intelligence can produce.
This particular article undercuts claims that we know that natural causes did produce it.