Recent research into the intestinal parasite Giardia
intestinalis has refuted the "missing link" role previously ascribed to
the myth of the evolution of this organism's eukaryotic cell. In contrast to
what had previously been supposed, it has been revealed that there are mitochondrial
genes and mitochondria-like sacs in Giardia.
Evolutionists maintain that the eukaryotic cell evolved from the
prokaryotic cell. (Eukaryotic cells give rise to plants and animals, whereas
prokaryotic cells are restricted to single-cell bacteria.) The eukaryotic cell
possesses a nucleus and membrane-covered complex organelles absent from the
prokaryotic cell. Evolutionists assume that the origin of these structures that
separate eukaryotes from prokaryotes lies in the common and parasitic life of
the early prokaryotes. This is a violation of all kinds of biological, physical
and chemical laws. According to the claim, an early bacterium-like cell swallowed
another, and a common life then began with no digestion taking place. As a result
of this imaginary process it is claimed that the guest cell gradually underwent
a change such as to develop a nucleus and organelles of the eukaryotic cell.
Giardia has a symbolic status with regard to this thesis. The organism,
known to possess a nucleus but thought until recently to lack the mitochondria
found in eukaryotic cells, was regarded and interpreted as shedding light on
this illusory process in which eukaryotes gradually came into possession of
organelles. In this way, it assumed that position of a "missing link" in evolutionists'
eyes and was for years depicted in text books as evidence for the evolution
of the eukaryotic cell.
Now, however, an article published in the 20 May 2004 edition of
the journal Nature (1), has revealed that Giardia does in fact
possess mitochondria, albeit highly reduced in dimension, and that it is an
error to ascribe the organism the status of a "missing link." The article, written
by Jonathan Knight, deals not only with findings that remove this "missing link"
status from Giardia, but also the resistance mounted by evolutionary
biologists in the face of the way these findings totally invalidated their imaginary
trees of life. According to this, molecular parasitologist Jorge Tovar of Royal
Holloway, a college of the University of London in Egham, Surrey, and his team
encountered proteins known to be associated with mitochondria in other eukaryotes,
and furthermore determined that these proteins were clustered together in specific
locations within the organism's cells. The researchers investigated these spots
under electron microscopy and encountered tiny sacs with two membranes like
mitochondria, although smaller in size. In addition, iron-sulphur accumulations
known to be linked to the mitochondria's energy producing activities within
the sacs were also encountered. All this reveals the invalidity of the evolutionist
claim to the effect that Giardia lacks a mitochondrion. These words from
William Martin, a researcher into molecular evolution at Heinrich Heine University
in Düsseldorf, Germany express this fact: "Giardia's place as intermediate
stage in standard schemes of eukaryotic evolutionary history is no longer tenable."
(2)
However, some evolutionists still insist on not accepting Tover's
conclusions. It appears, however, that this resistance is based not on the existence
of any scientific evidence but on the internal distress they feel. Martin states
that these people refuse to accept the conclusions since they have spent long
years working on entirely contrary assumptions. He than adds, "They don't want
it [Giardia] to have mitochondria because it spoils their soup… This thinking
is deeply ingrained" (3)
It matters little whether certain evolutionists refuse to accept
the findings concerning Giardia; this deeply ingrained thinking, the evolutionist
claims about the origin of the eukaryote cell in other words, has no scientific
justifications and consists merely of a dogmatic myth. The claims made by evolutionists
in this field have not been shaped by scientific experiments and the results
of those experiments. Such a phenomenon as one bacterium swallowing another
has never been observed. The molecular biologist Whitfield describes the situation
thus:
Prokaryotic endocytosis is the cellular mechanism on which the
whole of S.E.T. (Serial Endosymbiotic Theory) presumably rests. If one prokaryote
could not engulf another it is difficult to imagine how endosymbioses could
be set up. Unfortunately for Margulis and S.E.T., no modern examples of prokaryotic
endocytosis or endosymbiosis exist… (4)
As we have seen, this thesis lacks any scientific justification
and is also impossible to test. Lewin and Lenski admit that this thesis, devoid
of any scientific value, is merely one of the evolutionists' "Just-So" stories:
We have made a number of general and specific statements about
the Nature and direction of coevolution in bacteria and their viruses
and plasmids.... Most of these statements about how things came to be are
no more than microbial Just So Stories. As is the case with other evolutionary
phenomena, there is no way to formally emonstrate that the suggested pathways
are indeed the actual ways things came to be.(5)
As we have seen, the evolutionary scenario regarding eukaryotes
lacks the slightest scientific foundations and is merely an illusory myth. The
following question may well come to mind at this point: Since it is not
science, what is the basis of the way that scientists so blindly support such
an evolutionary scenario? The answer to that question lies in the relationship
between the theory of evolution and scientists' philosophical assumptions. As
the thinker Michael Corey writes:
It is no accident that the majority of evolutionists working
today seem to be either atheistic or agnostic in their fundamental orientation
towards a Creator. The very Nature of science itself seems to exert
a strong selective effect on the type of people who ultimately decide to become
scientists. While it may be true that the modern scientific movement was originally
founded upon a strong theistic foundation, many modern-day scientists have
nevertheless lost touch with the religious roots of their profession, and
a significant proportion of these individuals can even be described as being
openly anti-theistic. Indeed, many atheists seem to be drawn to scientific
careers precisely *because* of the non-theistic Nature of the hard
sciences. (6)
Darwin's theory of evolution afforded materialists and atheists
the opportunity to come up with their own, albeit incorrect, "story of creation"
to explain their existence in this world, and there is an attempt by atheist/materialist
scientists to impose that vision, under an allegedly scientific mask and despite
its total invalidity in the face of the true scientific facts, on society. (For
more detail, see The Evolution
Deceit by Harun Yahya.) That is the true reason behind the blind defence
of the alleged evolution of the eukaryotic cell and the blind insistence on
imaginary transitional forms and family trees in text books. Atheist/materialist
researchers have imposed on science the mission of keeping a materialist account
alive, by turning it away from its true function of revealing the truth. Their
maintenance of the idea that the eukaryotic cell emerged through naturalist
evolution is merely the product of dogma.
1. Jonathan Knight, “Giardia: Not
so special, after all?” Nature 429, 20 May 2004,
pp. 236 - 237
2. Katrin Henze and William Martin, “Evolutionary biology: Essence of
mitochondria,” Nature426 13 November 2003,
pp. 127 - 128
3. Jonathan Knight, ibid.
4. Whitfield, "Book Review of Symbiosis in Cell Evolution", Biological
Journal of Linnean Society, 77-79 (1982) p. 18
5. B. R. Levin, & R. E. Lenski, "Coevolution in bacteria and their
viruses and plasmids, in Coevolution" 99, pp. 126-127, D. Futuyma
& M. Slatkin Editors, Coevolution, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland,
Mass.,1983
6. M.A. Corey, "Back to Darwin: The Scientific Case for Deistic Evolution"
University Press of America: Lanham MD, 1994, p. 403
