““Humans have always been interested in trying to find an answer to the question, ‘Where do we come from?’” Ettema says. “Well, now we know from what type of microbial ancestor we descend. . . . Essentially, Lokiarchaeota represent a missing piece of the puzzle of the evolution from simple cells—bacteria and archaea, prokaryotes—to complex cells—eukaryotes, which includes us humans.”11 ““Humans have always been interested in trying to find an answer to the question, ‘Where do we come from?’” Ettema says. “Well, now we know from what type of microbial ancestor we descend. . . . Essentially, Lokiarchaeota represent a missing piece of the puzzle of the evolution from simple cells—bacteria and archaea, prokaryotes—to complex cells—eukaryotes, which includes us humans.”11
“Even though, as University College London’s Nick Lane explains, Lokiarchaeota “lack the large genome and energy-producing mitochondria of true eukaryotic cells” and are only “a thousandth of the way towards the complexity of a eukaryote,”12 evolutionary scientists contend Loki’s phylum represents a missing link, one small step in the evolution of increasingly complex life-forms, illustrating a mechanism by which such evolution could occur. “Even though, as University College London’s Nick Lane explains, Lokiarchaeota “lack the large genome and energy-producing mitochondria of true eukaryotic cells” and are only “a thousandth of the way towards the complexity of a eukaryote,”12 evolutionary scientists contend Loki’s phylum represents a missing link, one small step in the evolution of increasingly complex life-forms, illustrating a mechanism by which such evolution could occur.
“Testable Toolkit? “Testable Toolkit?The evolutionary authors of “Evolution: Steps on the Road to Eukaryotes,” a news-and-views article in Nature, agree that Lokiarchaeota have the toolkit that could enable ancient archaea to evolve into a more eukaryotic-like organism. They also assert that the methodology used to compare Lokiarchaeota to eukaryotes “provides a powerful toolkit for testing ideas about the origins of the component parts of eukaryotic cells,” adding that “the investigation of eukaryotic origins can now enter the realm of testable science.”13
“But how can that be? Can any scientist ever perform a test to objectively show the evolutionary origin of a life-form that supposedly sprang into being 2 billion years ago? No. Claims that life evolved from non-living matter through natural processes 4 billion years ago and later into more complex eukaryotes are riddled with worldview-based assumptions and are completely untestable and unobservable. Such vast ages are themselves presumptions grounded in circular reasoning, as is the unverifiable notion that organisms can acquire new information to evolve into more complex organisms. Such a process has never been observed in the laboratory. Eukaryotes do not even process information in the same way as prokaryotes, and evolution of one from the other would demand a complete and virtually simultaneous re-working of the entire organism and its numerous complex, interdependent systems. “But how can that be? Can any scientist ever perform a test to objectively show the evolutionary origin of a life-form that supposedly sprang into being 2 billion years ago? No. Claims that life evolved from non-living matter through natural processes 4 billion years ago and later into more complex eukaryotes are riddled with worldview-based assumptions and are completely untestable and unobservable. Such vast ages are themselves presumptions grounded in circular reasoning, as is the unverifiable notion that organisms can acquire new information to evolve into more complex organisms. Such a process has never been observed in the laboratory. Eukaryotes do not even process information in the same way as prokaryotes, and evolution of one from the other would demand a complete and virtually simultaneous re-working of the entire organism and its numerous complex, interdependent systems.
“Common Designer, Our Creator Jesus Christ“So what should we make of a few similarities amidst a sea of differences, such as those eukaryotic-like genes in a prokaryotic organism? A few genetic similarities between very different kinds of organisms is not proof of common ancestry but rather is an example of common design such as we would expect from a Common Designer, the Creator God to whom all living things, even microbes, owe their origins. Neither archaea nor bacteria are the ancestors of eukaryotic cells or the many organisms, including human beings, composed of them. If Lokiarchaeota are eventually observed to have the ability to engulf material, that in no way demonstrates that an ancestral prokaryote evolved into a eukaryote by engulfing bacteria. Such an ability would not get around the many problems with evolutionary endosymbiotic claims. It would instead simply be an example of the biodiversity we find in the world God created. God supplied the information needed for the complex features found in each created kind of organism, be it microbe or man.
“Ettema says humans want to know where we come from. But we will never discover our origins in the genomes of prokaryotes. The speculative claims of evolutionary origins remain not only unverifiable but outside the realm of plausibility based on experimental biology. Despite evolutionary claims, living things only come from living things, and living things—whether plants, animals, or microorganisms—reproduce and vary only within their created kinds. Microorganisms fulfill many important roles in our world, and some even live inside other organisms and interact with them. (Read about a great example of this in “Just Endosymbiosis”!) But this does not mean they are on the road to becoming a new kind of organism or reveal any way to overcome the difficulties inherent in the endosymbiotic theory of eukaryotic evolution.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham:
|
