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
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,” Nature 426 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