In their honest moments evolutionists say all kinds of interesting things. How about this 1998 paper in which the evolutionists admit that “One of the most important omissions in recent evolutionary theory concerns how eukaryotes could emerge and evolve.” Evolution omitted how eukaryotes could emerge and evolve? That would be like physics omitting gravity, politics omitting elections or baseball omitting homeruns. Yet this paper came more than a century after evolutionists began insisting that it is beyond all reasonable doubt that the species, and that would be all the species, arose spontaneously. Read more
3 Replies to “Oops, Evolution Forgot About the Eukaryotes”
Did DNA replication evolve twice independently? – Koonin
Excerpt: However, several core components of the bacterial (DNA) replication machinery are unrelated or only distantly related to the functionally equivalent components of the archaeal/eukaryotic (DNA) replication apparatus.
Problems of the RNA World – Did DNA Evolve Twice? – Dr. Fazale Rana – video
There simply is no smooth ‘gradual transition’ to be found between these most ancient of life forms as this following articles and videos clearly point out:
Was our oldest ancestor a proton-powered rock?
Excerpt: In particular, the detailed mechanics of DNA replication would have been quite different. It looks as if DNA replication evolved independently in bacteria and archaea,… Even more baffling, says Martin, neither the cell membranes nor the cell walls have any details in common (between the bacteria and the archaea).
An enormous gap exists between prokaryote cells and eukaryote cells. A crucial difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is the means they use to produce ATP (energy).
The ATP Synthase Enzyme – exquisite motor necessary for first life – video
Mitochondria – Molecular Machine – Powerhouse Of The Cell – video
On The Non-Evidence For The Endosymbiotic Origin Of The Mitochondria – March 2011
On the Origin of Mitochondria: Reasons for Skepticism on the Endosymbiotic Story
Jonathan M. – January 10, 2012
Excerpt: While we find examples of similarity between eukaryotic mitochondria and bacterial cells, other cases also reveal stark differences. In addition, the sheer lack of a mechanistic basis for mitochondrial endosymbiotic assimilation ought to — at the very least — give us reason for caution and the expectation of some fairly spectacular evidence for the claim being made. At present, however, such evidence does not exist — and justifiably gives one cause for skepticism.
Bacteria Too Complex To Be Primitive Eukaryote Ancestors – July 2010
Excerpt: “Bacteria have long been considered simple relatives of eukaryotes,” wrote Alan Wolfe for his colleagues at Loyola. “Obviously, this misperception must be modified…. There is a whole process going on that we have been blind to.”,,, For one thing, Forterre and Gribaldo revealed serious shortcomings with the popular “endosymbiosis” model – the idea that a prokaryote engulfed an archaea and gave rise to a symbiotic relationship that produced a eukaryote.
Bacterial Protein Acetylation: The Dawning of a New Age – July 2012
Excerpt: Bacteria have long been considered simple relatives of eukaryotes. Obviously, this misperception must be modified. From the presence of a cytoskeleton to the packaging of DNA to the existence of multiple post-translational modifications, bacteria clearly implement highly sophisticated mechanisms to regulate diverse cellular processes precisely.
Materialism simply has no credible answer for how this extreme level of complexity ‘accidentally’ arose in the first living cell, nor how this extreme integrated complexity found in life randomly evolved to the next ‘simple’ step of life.
Even more problematic for evolutionists, than the unexplained gap between prokaryote and eukaryote cells, is that even within the ‘bacterial world’ there are found to be enormous unexplained gaps of completely unique genes within each different type of bacteria which has had its DNA sequenced:
ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video with references
Even the Cell’s (RNA) Shredder Looks Designed – February 14, 2013
Excerpt: They have established that this machine is irreducibly complex in eukaryotes. Does it have any evolutionary precursors?
Quote: “The RNA-binding and threading mechanism used by the exosome in eukaryotes is very similar to that of the exosome in bacteria and archaebacteria that the researchers had structurally characterized in earlier studies. “Although the chemistry of the shredding reaction in eukaryotes is very different from that used in bacteria and archaebacteria, the channeling mechanism of the exosome is conserved, and conceptually similar to the channeling mechanism used by the proteasome, a complex for shredding proteins,” says Elena Conti.,,,
With this description in mind, several problems become apparent for evolutionary explanations of these machines. First of all, they are already present in bacteria and archaebacteria, presumably the simplest living things. Moreover, the bacterial exosome is chemically different but structurally similar. This means the design is “conserved” but not the ancestry. Then there is another chemically different but structurally similar machine in eukaryotes: the proteasome.
These machines all appear to be irreducibly complex. They are composed of multiple parts, each essential for function. They are also essential for life: the article says that “unwanted accumulation of RNAs can be damaging to the cell” and that these complex machines have multiple functions. In addition to shredding excess RNAs, the exosome “processes certain RNA molecules into their mature form.” Since all living things rely on DNA translation via RNA molecules (messenger RNAs and transfer RNAs), it is difficult to imagine any putative ancestor getting by without functional exosomes from the very beginning. Maybe that’s why the article did not even mention evolution.
And here I thought some big cells swallowed some little cells and voila’ – eukaryotes.