Intelligent Design

Rewrite the Textbooks (Again), Origin of Mitochondria Blown Up

Spread the love

Why are evolutionists always wrong? And why are they always so sure of themselves? With the inexorable march of science, the predictions of evolution, which evolutionists were certain of, just keep on turning out false. This week’s failure is the much celebrated notion that the eukaryote’s power plant—the mitochondria—shares a common ancestor with the alphaproteobacteria. A long time ago, as the story goes, that bacterial common ancestor merged with an early eukaryote cell. And these two entities, as luck would have it, just happened to need each other. Evolution had just happened to create that early bacterium, and that early eukaryote, in such a way that they needed, and greatly benefited from, each other. And, as luck would have it again, these two entities worked together. The bacterium would just happen to produce the chemical energy needed by the eukaryote, and the eukaryote would just happen to provide needed supplies. It paved the way for multicellular life with all of its fantastic designs. There was only one problem: the story turned out to be false.  Read more

2 Replies to “Rewrite the Textbooks (Again), Origin of Mitochondria Blown Up

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    As to:

    Fortunately this new claim cannot be tested (and therefore cannot be falsified), because the “proteobacterial lineage” is nothing more than an evolutionary construct. Evolutionists can search for possible extant species for hints of a common ancestor with the mitochondria, but failure to find anything can always be ascribed to extinction of the common ancestor.

    This is where evolutionary theory often ends up: failures ultimately lead to unfalsifiable truth claims. Because heaven forbid we should question the theory itself.
    – Cornelius Hunter

    And Stanford Professor Paul Ehrlich stated that the Theory of Evolution ‘cannot be refuted by any possible observations’ and is thus “outside empirical science.”

    “Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus “outside empirical science” but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.”
    Ehrlich, Paul and L.C. Birch (1967), “Evolutionary History and Population Biology,” Nature, 214:349-352, April 22, p. 352

    Fortunately, despite how much as Darwinists would like their theory to be above empirical reproach, science simply does not work that way:

    “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”
    Karl Popper – The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge

    And although Darwinists and/or Atheistic Materialists themselves may refuse to ever accept falsification of their favored theory, science has a way of not caring what any particular group of people may think, and will falsify a philosophically popular theory anyway:

    Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – video

    Much like the rest of biology, mitochondria is now being found to belong to the world of quantum mechanics instead of to the world of reductive materialism, (mitochondria is now, like the bacterial flagellum, shown to be, in essence, a “quantum machine”)

    Quantum magic inside the human body – Nov. 2016
    Protons tunnel along “wires” composed of water and amino acids across the mitochondrial membrane, but because of the complex dynamics of the tunneling distances, they aren’t able to tunnel back. This leaves protons searching for another route back to equilibrium, which channels them into the machinery by which they’re turned into adenosine triphosphate, the body’s energy currency.

    More specifically, Quantum Biology has now shown that Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, are not even on the correct theoretical foundation to start with in order to properly understand molecular biology. ,,, As Jim Al-Khalili states in the following video

    Jim Al-Khalili, at the 2:30 minute mark of the following video states,
    “,, Physicists and Chemists have had a long time to try and get use to it (Quantum Mechanics). Biologists, on the other hand have got off lightly in my view. They are very happy with their balls and sticks models of molecules. The balls are the atoms. The sticks are the bonds between the atoms. And when they can’t build them physically in the lab nowadays they have very powerful computers that will simulate a huge molecule.,, It doesn’t really require much in the way of quantum mechanics in the way to explain it.”
    At the 6:52 minute mark of the video, Jim Al-Khalili goes on to state:
    “To paraphrase, (Erwin Schrödinger in his book “What Is Life”), he says at the molecular level living organisms have a certain order. A structure to them that’s very different from the random thermodynamic jostling of atoms and molecules in inanimate matter of the same complexity. In fact, living matter seems to behave in its order and its structure just like inanimate cooled down to near absolute zero. Where quantum effects play a very important role. There is something special about the structure, about the order, inside a living cell. So Schrodinger speculated that maybe quantum mechanics plays a role in life”.
    Jim Al-Khalili – Quantum biology – video

    In the following video, how quantum biology refutes the reductive materialism undergirding Darwinian thought, is gone over in a bit more detail

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – video

  2. 2
    polistra says:

    The diagram in the article reminded me of old paintings of Adam and Eve and the Tree, with mitochondrion = fruit.

    The one big coupling that led to all the other couplings.

    Collective unconscious?

Leave a Reply