``The most dangerous enemy to truth and freedom amoungst us is the compact
majority. . .The majority is never right. Never, I tell you!''
Henrik Ibsen, An Enemy of the People
``They laugh ?cos they know they?re untouchable, not because what I said was wrong''
--Sinead O?Conner (The Emperor?s New Clothes)
Within the theory of evolution there is an intentional blurring and combination of several ideas. These include among others: microevolution, or changes within a species, macroevolution or changes that turn one species to into another, and the theory of common descent, which states that all species originated from one. The reason for this can only be to add artificial support to the idea of common descent, which has little evidence to support it. Microevolution on the other hand is a proven fact, and is included within the other two to merely add evidence for them that they would not naturally have on their own. Particularly, it adds the only amount of experimental evidence for the entire theory. Science seems to combine these ideas to list a great amount of evidence, but they do not specify what the evidence points to. They then claim Evolution must be true due to this great amount of evidence, when most of it belongs solely to microevolution. Other scientists take the opposite approach. They define evolution by its simplest definition, that of change in trait occurrence, or gene frequency, within a population. This definition barely scratches the surface of even microevolution. Since trait changes are undeniable, they claim again that Evolution is proven true. However, this leaves all the other ideas commonly associated with evolution as unproven, and so is merely an annoying charade.
Both of these methods are mere tricks to show evolution, common descent, and its related ideas as being true, but without having to provide evidence for all these ideas. Rather what exists is a straw man with less and less evidence when moving up to the larger ideas. This produces, like the subject of the above quotation above, a case of the emperor's new clothes, something that does not exist but one that respected people are afraid to point out is not there. All these ideas held in common with the idea of evolution must then be explored in turn.
I. Microevolution
Microevolution is the process whereby a species turns into different races, or raciation. No mutations need happen as these changes occur from genetic material already available. Species become stressed either through inbreeding or geographic isolation to show recessive or rare traits already present within the genetic code. Any trait, already present within the species, can be made manifest by selective breeding of parents with the desired traits in breeds. The next generation that shows the desired traits is inbred to get more desired traits to appear. This process is called artificial selection. Hundreds of breeds of dogs have been created by selective breeding and can be shown in history by the breeding programs of canines and other domesticated animals. Darwin believed that this same process occurs in nature by allowing those animals with traits that help them survive reproduce and pass these traits on to the next generation. Those animals without these traits do not survive to reproduce as well, and so nature selects the animals that can best survive in the present environment. This explains why creatures seem perfectly suited to their environments. Darwin first described this process, named it natural selection, and claimed this drove evolution.
Although the claim is still made that it is the central force of evolution, there are far more significant forces at operation. Mere expression of repressed traits already within all species can produce the wide variety of changes particular to many breeds of different animals. Recognizing this though, a species then must be defined as all organisms that can interbreed to produce offspring, rather than one that merely looks different. Thus, it can be agreed upon that the common sense proposition: ``all the breeds of dogs are still dogs'' is true. This however raises the species question as to what defines a species. The broader sense of the word should be used in the sense to show a unity of races capable of interbreeding, rather than the evolution enhanced idea of expression of traits where a creature that looks significantly different is a different species. As example a race of birds is not a separate species because a small population inbred and looks different now from their parent race. Interbreeding should be the main criteria for unity in a species.
However, natural selection does not appear to be a great an influence as previously thought. As stated, organisms appear in the fossil record for extremely long periods of time without changing. Since inevitably these environments were prone to change over the course of millions of years, natural selection did not appear to have an impact on them. Furthermore, if natural selection were a strong force, then all organisms within a particular environment would begin to mimic the traits of each other within particular niches in that environment. Thus all predators in the environment would begin to resemble one another, all the plant eaters, etc.
Rather than a force of nature, random events seem to play a much larger role in evolution than any guiding forces such as natural selection. Mass extinctions and geographic isolation seem to be have a much greater effect. As far as why organisms seem to be suited to their environment, a simple mechanism might be the cause without natural selection or even evolution. Considering that an animal must travel to get to that environment, then the animal in question must have been more widespread. If they happen upon an environment that they are suited to, then they will naturally reproduce more in that environment. Take the three organisms listed below in a hypothetical scenario:
Artic Tundra Temperate Arid Jungle Hot Springs
Extinction event
Seals
Camels
Thermophilic
Bacteria
Seals are suited to do better in aquatic, colder conditions, camels in arid ones, and thermophilic bacteria in high temperature waters. They naturally would tend to migrate to these climates just as humans tend to migrate to warmer climates. If the environment changes, then extinction events can kill off the animals in the now inhospitable environments to them causing the bulk of their population occurs in these areas. Say the Earth grows colder. Then seals would flourish in a larger area, while camels would suffer. There seems to be much evidence of this. Seals are found in the Northern and Southern Artic regions. They must have traveled the region between in the past. Evidence of camels stretches from North America through Asia to South Africa. Thermophilic bacteria grow in abundance in widely separated areas with high temperature waters like deep sea vents and hot springs. Logically, they must be present between such environments and evidence has been found that they are present in limited quantities throughout the ocean.
This could easily account for why organisms seem suited to particular environments, they are drawn to and survive most easily there. Thus instead of evolution shaping particular animals to a particular environment, the animals could have a larger distribution and progressively move to environments that suite them. Seals and camels would progressively move to areas with temperatures that suited them. The same occurs now with thermophilic bacteria. Birds are also known to do this now, migrating to areas that suit them on a seasonal basis. When they arrived in the environment that suited them best, they flourished there. This explains why animals seem suited to their environments, they simply moved there.
Furthermore, chance events seem a much more important factor than natural selection. Natural selection operates on the assumption of slow geological changes. However, modern theory seems to place greater emphasis on catastrophic events. Their results have much greater impact on life and the changes in species afterwards. A prime example is the supposed meteor hit sixty-five million years ago that purports to have wiped out the dinosaurs. This supposedly allowed mammals to evolve. Such events seem to be the driving force of evolution with creatures remaining static for long periods between.
Furthermore, the most commonly recognized function of natural selection is called stabilizing selection which reduces genetic diversity for a trait to a norm. The extremes of a trait are selected against reducing them from the population. An example of this is that humans who are too small would have trouble competing with taller individuals and those who are too tall have circulation problems in keeping up blood pressure in a larger body. This is one of the forces that tend to keep populations uniform over long periods of time.
However, the process of forming races occurs according to the genetic laws discovered by Gregor Mendel over a hundred years ago. He found that traits both exist in pairs and that they are linked together. Within each of these linked traits, one trait is dominant and the other is recessive. This can exist in three forms in an orgasm: two recessive genes, two dominant genes, or a dominant and recessive gene. The dominant gene will always mask the recessive gene and so only the dominant gene will show in organism with the latter two forms. When organisms sexually reproduce, only half of their DNA is passed along to their progeny, and so only half of each parent's linked trait will go to any child. Passing along genes therefore becomes a process that can be following according to the field of probability. The following table shows all possible combinations of a linked trait. It can easily be seen from this chart why the recessive gene is named such. It shows up much less often than the dominant one.
Visible: 100% D 100% D 75% D 25% d 100% D 100% d 100% D
It is by these statistical laws that races form. Populations become split so that groups break off from the main population. This is called geographic isolation and causes inbreeding. Recessive traits then emerge. This is because of the mathematical laws stated above. If the offspring from a small group are forced to breed together and then their offspring are forced to breed together, then recessive traits can appear in fifty percent of the population. Further separation by geographic barriers or death can make the recessive trait the only one to appear in a population. Thus, a race forms showing many the recessive traits. This is equivalent to a breed of an animal.
This process of microevolution has been proven scientifically in the lab through the isolation of traits in quick breeding organisms, such as bacteria, flies, and mice. It is common in most biology classes to perform an experiment with fruit flies to isolate and breed members with recessive traits. Flies are artificially selected to get offspring with desired traits. It is therefore a scientific fact proved by experimental science. While new races can be produced with little difficulty given the time, new species are very difficult to produce in the lab, since this requires mutations to occur. Point mutations happen in about .5% of the time and mutations have to accumulate until the forming race can not interbreed with its parent species.
Bacterial microevolution can be found in the relatively quick way they develop resistance to antibiotics. If not enough antibiotics are applied, some bacteria with natural resistance to the antibiotic survive and multiply. This repeated process leads to bacteria that can survive stronger and stronger dosages of the antibiotic till over the course of decades, they become immune to the antibiotic. These one celled organisms reproduce by fission, producing copies of themselves, allowing any mutations to automatically transfer to the next generation. Yet macroevolution can be assumed to also occur on a large scale.
Yet microevolution is, as said before, a reductive process. Each race that forms has fewer genes and trait possibilities than the original population. The very fact that races are emerging by microevolutionary processes means that dominant genes are being lost. Some formerly dominant genes are not passed down to the members of the new race. This allows them to show the recessive traits. If the dominant genes were still present then the recessive trait would not show or if they rejoin the main population and interbreed, their recessive trait would once again be masked. This is why if a dog of a certain breed is bred with a dog from outside its breed; its offspring will lose some of the traits of its parent's breeds. If a German shepherd is bred with mutts, whose offspring are bred with mutts for a few generations, then their offspring will have all their recessive genes masked and become mutts once more.
Thus, raciation is a process of losing genes that were once present in the full population. This is again why it is reductive, and as shown before, this is why microevolution can not be a plausible process responsible for common descent, since it is the steady loss of traits.
II. Macroevolution
Macroevolution is, on the other hand, the process of speciation where one species divide to form a new species. If these species could interbreed, then they would not be separate species, but merely different races. It is in fact separate from microevolution as they have totally separate processes. Microevolution involves the expression of recessive genes in a population to form races, while macroevolution has to involve the expression of something new. The word ``probably'' will be used a lot to describe this process as we do not know much about it, and it has rarely been observed in nature. It requires not simply the expression of ``new'' traits, but a fundamental change in their genetic code so that they can not interbreed with the parent species. Along with microevolution, it too probably occurs in nature, but rarely at best. It probably involved geographic isolation or a catastrophic event to kill off a large portion of the population or to isolate a small one.
It is more likely that macroevolution could occur in small races rather than the popularly conceived notion during Darwin's time that races as a whole turned into another species. For that to happen, the entire species would change over time until it could no longer have bred with its ancestors. First, this change would have to affect the entire group, as if it happened to any particular member, then they would not be able to interbreed with the rest and that strain would die out. This is the major problem of macroevolution that any significant change to an individual so that it could not breed with the species as a whole would also insure that it would be unable to reproduce and continue its line. It, therefore, could not pass along its differing traits. Its death would be the death of the new species. The higher animals that sexually reproduce would have a serious problem in that an individual that mutated to form a new species would not be able to find anyone to breed with, unless the impossible occurred and a second individual was born at the same time able to breed with the other individual and of the opposite gender. This does not effect the lowest species that reproduce by fission or by vegetative reproduction or reproduction of the organism from fragments of the individual. An organism of this rank could produce a new species from mutations, yet these same organisms are also much less likely to have any such evolutionary jumps occur, since their genome is much more compact which causes mutations to be far more harmful than in higher species. This virtually makes this type of individual mutation unlikely.
Macroevolution of even the simplest lifeforms, such as bacteria, would seemingly be easier due to their rapid reproduction and small time period that many generations can form. However, any macroevolutionary processes are retarded by the fact that their main method of reproduction is one of direct copying, rather than sexual reproduction. Although mutations due not prevent reproduction as it can in more advanced organisms, they lack the sexual regroupings these organisms have also. Moreover, their DNA is also much more compact than higher animals making mutations much more likely to interfere with their production of useful proteins. Mutations therefore are far more damaging to these creatures and more likely to impair their functioning as a cell. Many lower organisms use direct copying by fission of cells or breaking off of body parts to regrow the individual, which means both micro and macroevolution would be hindered.
This is evidenced by the fact that there are distinct lines and types of bacteria present today that are spread over the Earth. These organisms are believed to have lived over a billion years, yet strains can be easily identified in large areas. If they had even a slow evolution, it would presumably be hard to find commonality among bacteria except on the broadest characteristics. There should be no common bacteria except in vary limited geographies, and classification of these creatures should be all but impossible. This however is not found. While bacteria is as diverse as many species, they are not infinitely diverse as they should be. All of this means macroevolutionary processes seem to be avoided by life in general.
There are, however, three possible processes for macroevolution to occur. The first type of process would affect a change in the organism to make it incompatible sexually with their parent race. They may develop into different sizes or develop different arrangement or sizes of genitalia that make reproduction difficult or impossible. This would cause a species divergence. The second type of process would affect the mating process. This could be a change in a mating ritual, location or a change in timing. Any of these processes would lead to reproductive isolation. An example of these changes might be lions and tigers. They can reproduce to form ligers, but do not do so in nature.
The third type of process and seemingly least likely process would be a genetic mutation. A geographically isolated race mutates so that it is genetically dissimilar. This generally seems to occur when a mutation either duplicates or deletes a chromosome. Thus the daughter species contains a different number of chromosomes than its parent species has. They either can not reproduce at all, or when the two races interbreed, they produce progeny that have reduced chances to produce offspring of their own. The offspring of any members from both parent and daughter species is usually, though not always, infertile and can not produce their own offspring. They are called hybrids.
The cases of this apparently happening appear in nature although it seems to happen rarely among macroscopic species. The reason for this is that the same mutation would have to occur to a number of the species at the same time to allow it to reproduce. One example of could be the horse and Asian donkey. They reproduce to form the usually infertile, hybrid mule. Horses and donkeys must have evolved from a single species. Horses have 64 chromosomes and donkeys have 62. When they mate, they form a hybrid mule with 31 donkey chromosomes and 32 horse chromosomes, which gives them 63. Since these can not divide equally, it is rare that a mule is fertile. This is evidence of macroevolution, and there are potentially many other species that have divided into two or more species.
However, this process also seems to be rare among species. It also does not create anything new. The duplicated chromosome does not add any new information, but only repeats what it already present. The only additive process of macroevolution is further mutation. Moreover, mutations are generally a harmful process as noted before. This creates the second problem of macroevolution, the harmfulness of mutations. Even Francis Crick, the discoverer of DNA, acknowledged this:
``Yet universality (of DNA) seemed inevitable for an obvious reason: since a mutation that changed even one word or letter of the code would alter most of a creature's proteins, it looked sure to be lethal.''
While retaining an extra pair of chromosomes seems to be a viable way for creation of a new species, it also presents problems. The genetic code has to be mutated in an organism to at best allow only hybrids to be born when mating with its original species. However, the central problem of macroevolution again arises. Where would this creature then find a mate? How would it happen to an entire group during the same time period and in proximity to one another to allow viable offspring with the new mutation? At least, one male and female must have the similar mutations occur that allow them to successfully interbreed. However, it must also occur in a number of creatures to allow enough genetic diversity to allow the health of that new species. This would seem to be an unlikely event and rare at best.
The second problem also comes into play. There are four types of mutation: monogenic or single gene; polygenic or multifactorial; and chromosomal. Single gene mutations occur in humans in 1 out of every 200 births and have caused over 6000 genetic disorders. Polygenic mutations affect genes that act together to produce different structures. This is thought to cause heart disease, high blood pressure, Alzheimer's disease, arthritis, diabetes, cancer, and obesity in humans. Chromosomal mutations are problems in the replicating of chromosomes or splitting the copies apart to cause extra chromosomes, lack of them, or break in chromosomes. One such disorder caused by this type of mutation is Down syndrome by a tripling of a chromosome in humans. Mutations are overwhelmingly harmful, which is why the public consciousness has associated mutations in the most negative connotations.
On the contrary, beneficial mutations are rather rare. One of the few mutations commonly held up as a positive mutation is sickle cell anemia. This mutation causes the hemoglobin in red blood cells to fold incorrectly, which causes the altered hemoglobin to not carry oxygen as well and distorts the shape of the red blood cells making it more likely to block the circulation of blood. In people with both recessive genes for this disease, this can cause damage to organs, painful episodes, and infections. Death was a certainly between the ages of twenty and forty from organ failure or infection. Before modern medicine, the twenty five percent of people who inherit both recessive genes would be a death sentence. The fifty percent of people who only inherit one of the sickle cell genes will suffer from smaller blood cells and reduced capacity to carry oxygen. They can expect to be fatigued more easily. The death rate of malaria is around 6% at highest and usually around 2% historically. Exposure means increased resistance naturally to the disease. So this beneficial mutation causes a 25% death rate to avoid a 2-6% death rate. The cure is obviously worse than the disease.
Because of direct evidence of these processes, some species can be directly linked to each other, by their ability to produce hybrids. This is direct evidence. However, the combined theory of evolution pushes these processes back beyond direct evidence to the belief that all species are related by common descent. This idea, its evidence, and its failures will be explored next.
III. The Relatedness of Life
It is a fact that all life and all species are related. All of life has the same processes that define it: reproduction, metabolism, growth and response to stimuli. All life uses chemical chains called polymers in three types for structure, metabolism, and information transfer. These are polynucleotides, which form DNA and RNA; polypeptides, which form proteins; and polysaccharides, which form sugars and carbohydrates. There are sixteen possible orientations for RNA, but only one is used. The majority of reactions use proteins as enzymes and rarely RNA. There are over 390 naturally occurring amino acids, but only 22 are used by life.
Moreover, there are two types of amino acid. This originates from a property of molecules called chirality, which was discovered by Louis Pasteur. He discovered that the same chemical appeared in two different arrangements. One caused polarized light to bend either clockwise and the other counterclockwise. The explanation for this was that the molecules are mirror images of each other. In nature, they frequently occur in equal proportions, which are called a racemic mixture. In organic chemistry this is called left-handed, or laevorotatory, and right-handed, dextrorotary, molecules. The following illustrations are the two types of an amino acid, alanine:
H O O H
H H
N C C C C N
H H
C O O C
H H H H H H H H
If either molecule is rotated it faces the wrong way, just as your hands are mirror images of each other. If you rotated your right hand it would not face the same was as your left. In all of life on earth, left-handed amino acids are overwhelmingly dominant. Right-handed amino acids are only used in certain exotic sea life and in the cell walls of some bacteria, which afford them some protection from their environments. This further shows the relatedness of life.
In addition, all life uses the same chemical processes. The same chemical pathways are used for energy creation. All cells take sugar molecules, glucose, and turn it into two pyruvic acid molecules and two net adenosine triphosphate (ATP) molecules. This process is called glycolysis. It is performed in the same ten steps with the same ten enzymes in the overwhelmingly majority of species. The pyruvic acid is then used in complex cells by their mitochondria to form other chemicals in a process called the citric acid or Krebs cycle. Another chemical pathway, oxidative phosphorylation, then uses these chemicals to create more ATP. One glucose molecule can create up to thirty eight ATP through these pathways. All of life uses these ATP molecules to store and transport energy. These pathways can be summarized as follows:
FAD+ & NAD+ back to previous reactions; H brought forward:
ADP +H+ +P ATP +H2O
Net result:
Sugar + Oxygen Carbon Dioxide + Energy
ATP is then used to store and transport this stored energy around the cell. This shows a rather complex pathway for producing, storing, and transporting energy from basic food. Thus all life is related by very specific chemical processes when other equivalent chemical processes are available.
Furthermore, the evidence shows that species that appear related in anatomy can be closely related chemically also. Closely related anatomical species have closer matches to DNA and thereby their proteins, enzymes, and general chemistry. The chemistry of apes is close to that of man; the chemistry of canines is close to that of felines; and so on. Therefore phylogeny corresponds to similar DNA and chemistry.
Science explains this common relationship of all species by claiming that they are commonly descended through the process of evolution. It explains this as follows. All species share common life chemical processes because the original species that all others descend from originated these processes. That original life incorporated those four nucleotides and twenty two amino acids out of all the others. This life evolved into all other forms of life and that explains the common chemistry and why anatomically similar species are more alike chemically than anatomically dissimilar species.
However like most evidence for evolution, this causes a problem also. As stated before, there are many optional chemically equivalent amino acids and nucleotides. Yet only one distinct chemical set shows up in life on earth. If common descent is correct, then this would imply all life originated in only one place on earth, at one time, in one single, solitary cell. Any other life that formed other than that one cell would almost certainly have had differing chemical properties since the chemistry is interchangeable. However, any life not descended from this one cell could not have survived or passed beyond the cellular stage. If it did, then there would be species alive today that used alternate series of amino acids and nucleotides as well as different chemical pathways. This is not found to be true. Thus if common descent is true, all life must have originated from that one cell. Common descent proposes the belief that life and cells could have been easily formed and survived in the early earth's environment. Yet the evidence states that only one single, solitary cell survived to populate the earth and produce all known life. All other life must have not been viable, not survived their birth processes, or been overwhelmed by the progeny of that one great ancestor cell of us all. This seems unlikely that one and only one cell is our ancestor, while no others cells formed and survived. Not only that, but the simple, primitive genome from that one original cell changed and mutated to form the genomes of all life on earth including those that are many thousands of times more complex.
This fact just begins to illuminate some of the many problems with common descent. There are four additional major stumbling blocks that the theory of common descent must explain and fails to. These are the formation of life, the formation of complex cells, the formation of multicellular organisms, and the formation of organs. There are problems with each of these jumps that evolution and science can not answer. These problems will now be addressed in turn.
IV. The Formation of Organic Chemicals
The theory of common descent states that all species are descended from common ancestors which are in turn are descended from single celled animals. These in turn arose from lifeless chemicals. The change from an inorganic to an organic state is problematic at best. Evolutionary theory has described in wondrous detail a primeval, molten earth that slowly cools, but this presumes first of all an earth that is in agreement with both an evolutionary theory of planetary formation that was first formulated by Immanuel Kant way back in the eighteenth century with minor adaptations since then. If the theories of planetary evolution are not true, then any assumptions as to the composition of the early earth must also be incorrect. There are several large problems with these theories that will be discussed later. However, assuming they are true, as the theory currently does, there are still large problems.
Yet knowing this, evolutionists seek to divide the issue, claiming that the origin of life and evolution of life are two distinct theories. Evolution it is claimed is only a process that deals with living things and their descent. Creation of life deals with separate processes, which can no longer occur and left no evidence. In the same passages, such scientists often claim the same processes of natural selection are assumed to guide the random processes that created life in order to preserve the believed error-correction toward usefulness they believe evolution used to produce life. However to separate these issues is to accept that life formed from mechanical means on the basis of faith alone. If this faith-based theory is accepted then non-mechanical means could also have equally caused the creation of life and also caused or guided evolution. Science must explain these problems together or evolutionary theory becomes no more than a religion couched in scientific terms. Moreover, these same evolutionists refuse to separate the mere process of species changing from the larger idea of common descent. Again the reason for this is the preservation of evidence. Common descent must therefore explain the origin of life or experience a significant failure. These theories then must be examined.
Haeckel formed one of the first theories of the formation of life. He worked backwards from his theories on embryology and believed earliest life would be a recapitulated form of embryo. Little at the time was known of cells, being nondescript blobs of matter, and Haeckel theorized that life must begin with single cells formed by spontaneous generation and predicted this was still occurring in the slimes of the ocean to preserve the formation of new life to continue his belief in the chain of life. These theories were disproved individually with the fall of ideas of the chain of life, spontaneous generation, and even a search of the ocean floor finding no primitive forming cells in the nineteenth century.
Aleksandr Oparin later created the first modern theory of the origin of life in 1924, but did not receive wide recognition. He supposed that random interactions in the early atmosphere produced simple organic compounds. These formed into larger macromolecules such as proteins. Membranes formed to hold these chemicals. Chemical organizers developed to maintain functions and then controlled reproduction formed. Each of these illustrates the presumed basic steps that evolutionists must explain: the creation of organic chemicals, the formation of polymers, the formation of membrane-bound structures, and the development of reproduction.
J.B.S Haldane came up with a similar scheme independently and was first to popularize the idea of life originating in the carbon dioxide-rich oceans in 1929. He envisioned shallow pools of water filled with ammonia and diluted carbon dioxide. Ultraviolet light or lightning then provided the energy to produce organic chemicals turning the water into an organic soup. He also proposed that the atmosphere was reducing, which meant that it contained no oxygen. The reason for this is that oxygen breaks down organic chemicals and is toxic to cells. It therefore assumes a different atmosphere than is currently present, which is a violation of the early principles of geology. The uniformatarian theory, which states that all current geology can be explained through the slow action of present processes, is abandoned in order for life to begin. Instead, it presumes what the atmosphere would need to be, rather than finding evidence as to what the early atmosphere and earth was like. It therefore departs again from its usual methods. This is despite a few finds that oxygen existed in the atmosphere at least as long ago as 3.5 billion years ago. This exists in the presence of minerals that could only form in an oxygen rich atmosphere. This would only give a few hundred million years for life to form, rather than the billions of years previously thought.
It is further assumed that the primordial atmosphere was similar to the composition of the sun, of which oxygen is the third most plentiful gas. It is furthermore the most abundant element in the crust of the Earth. However, this atmosphere of hydrogen and helium is quickly lost due to earth not having enough gravity to hold onto the low mass gasses. It is predicted hydrogen would be lost within a few tens of thousands of years and helium would be lost to space in tens of millions of years.
This atmosphere is then theorized to be replaced by gasses from volcanic activity. Water vapor is usually listed as a component of primordial volcanic gases, because it is the major portion of modern volcanic gases. However, the source of this water is not from within the earth, but rather from pre-existent sources of ground and ocean water. Water is a driving force in the subduction of global plates, which is where one plate is forced under another into the mantle of the Earth. The water that lubricates this process and accompanies the plate is fed into the earth and later is released through volcanoes. This is shown by the volcanoes near converging plates having the highest concentration of released water vapor, being close to 100%, while volcanoes near hotspots away from plates have less than 40% of that output. Much of the water vapor from these interior volcanoes can be assumed to come from ground water seeping into volcanic chambers. A hotspot volcano would therefore be closer to primordial volcano gases. Discounting water vapor, these admit about eighty to sixty percent carbon dioxide, twenty to forty percent Sulfur dioxide and trace amounts of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, helium, hydrogen fluoride, argon, and hydrogen chloride. This is a bit different from the textbook gases required for life, which include methane and ammonia. Methane however is produced around present day volcanoes when lava covers and burns already existing organic matter. It can also tap methane deposits in the ground or methane ices in the ocean, both of which have organic origins. Thus both water formation and methane creation from early volcanoes is doubtful. The elimination of oxygen from primordial gases is also unexplained. Again, it shall be assumed that the evolutionary version of the primordial atmosphere is correct.
Assuming this to be true also though, it means that the theory must come up with another means to block ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun from reaching the earth. This is because one-celled organisms and organic chemicals exposed to UV light break down, which is why UV light is used in modern times used to sterilize water. Most of the harmful UV radiation from the sun is now blocked by oxygen and ozone in the atmosphere. The ozone layer of gas is created by radiation hitting oxygen molecules in the upper atmosphere and turning them from the normal two atoms of oxygen that make up gaseous oxygen to an unstable compound of three atoms of oxygen called ozone. UV light hits the ozone molecule and breaks it down to a normal oxygen molecule. This cycle repeats blocking out much of the harmful radiation. However, if there were no oxygen in the atmosphere, there would be no means of blocking this radiation. UV light would therefore be raining down on the earth and destroying any organic chemicals. Yet, this problem too will be ignored for now.
The theory then states that oceans formed from liquid water that arrived on meteorites and comets. This water slowly accumulated over million of years to form the oceans. However as with most of these theories, there are problems. The isotopes of water on comets are skewed to hydrogen having an extra proton, called deuterium. This means that comets, which contain far more water than asteroids, could only account for ten percent of the earth's water. It is also calculated that earth could only receive twenty percent of its water from asteroids, which also arrived very early in its formation. This leaves seventy percent of water unaccounted for. Moreover, there is evidence that shows that liquid water was probably abundant on the earth at least 160 million years after the supposed formation of the Earth. Rock that was recently dated at 4.4 billion years old was proved to be formed within water, which means not only that liquid water was present then, but that the earth was cool enough to allow such water to exist. Thus, there are no adequate explanations for the presence of water, yet it appears.
Ignoring this for the moment also, the theory then holds that lightning in the reducing atmosphere produced streams of organic chemicals in the atmosphere that collected on the earth's surface in pools. This also causes problems since all theorized explanations for lightning require the presence of water vapor in the atmosphere. This is supposedly supported by the famous experiments done by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey in 1953. Hydrogen, methane and ammonia gases were injected into a flask where a wire produced sparks that simulated a supposed early atmosphere with lightning. The products of this were cooled in a condenser and then separated into a trap. The second time the experiment was run after being adjusted to get better results and over a period of two weeks, it produced a brown substance in the trap. This was composed of eighty five percent tar, thirteen percent carboxlic acid and 1.9% amino acids, composed of 1.05% glycine and .85% alanine. One-tenth of a percent was trace materials. If oxygen was added to this experiment, none of these products formed.
In addition as most artificial reactions, the chirality of the amino acids formed is racemic. They are not divided into solely left-handed molecules as appears in all living organisms, but have equal amounts of both kinds. There have been attempts to explain this away in that amino acids found an excess of left-handed molecules on meteorites by Michael Engel and Stephen Macko in 1982 and 1997. However, these samples were previously studied by Keith Kvenvolden in 1971. He found only a slight preference for left-handed amino acids and determined this was due to contamination from earthly sources and handling. Engel and Macko found that this contamination not surprisingly had increased over the years. However, a slight excess of left-handed amino acids does not support why or how right-handed all but disappeared from life.
However, this and all such experiment designed to produce organic chemicals seem fixed. Besides the lack of oxygen and the choice of chemicals in the supposed atmosphere, most reactions have known outcomes. As anyone who has taken a chemistry class knows, a given amount of chemicals at the right proportions and energy states whether heat, an ionizing UV light, or electric spark, will always produce known results. This is why such reactions are fixed. If carbon dioxide or monoxide and water are ionized, then depending on their proportions they will give a certain amount of organic chemicals. Adding hydrogen, ammonia, or methane can accelerate these results.
Chemists knowing how these ions will recombine can fix such experiments to produce chemicals they want since they know the pathways these reactions will take. The fact that a condenser was added to cool the gases flowing out of the reaction chamber seems to further fix the experiment above, since such a cooling mechanism can not be explained in nature. The fact that only less than two percent of amino acids were formed show only the incompetence of the chemists. Moreover, methane and ammonia react to form nitrogen and carbon dioxide. Most damaging is the fact that if left alone, the chemicals start to decompose on their own. However, this too will be ignored, and it shall be assumed that a hypothetical primordial atmosphere or ocean reactions did in fact produce organic chemicals in abundance, which gathered in concentration without being destroyed by ultraviolet light or oxygen.
It is also now believed that the primordial atmosphere was more like Mars and Venus and contained mostly carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Again, water vapor is added for the sake of the reaction although it is not in any significant amounts on our neighboring two planets. That atmosphere only produces trace amounts of amino acids unless hydrogen gas is present in twice the quantity of carbon dioxide. Again quantities of substances are important to fix the results.
There have been several other artificial reactions found to form amino acids. Formaldyhyde (H2CO) can form ribose sugars with heat and a clay catalyst. Hydrogen cyanide (HCN) can form adenine. Cyanoacetylene (HC3N) and urea (CON2H4) can produce the amino acid cytosine. However, these are all artificial reactions in controlled conditions. The latter experiments are made with blatantly organic chemicals to begin with. Nowhere is there an experiment that produces quantities of amino acids and allows them to survive to react without artificial means like the above experiment's separation and cooling from an atmosphere similar to those found in nature.
V. The Origin of Polymers and Cells
Evolutionary theory then says that these chemicals combined to form cells. In Darwin's day this was not a problem, as they presupposed the spontaneous generation of cells from raw materials. As stated before, Haeckel even engineered a search for these generated organisms on the ocean floor. Spontaneous generation of cells is still the preferred mechanism, but in the far past in much different circumstances. The difficulties of this are shrouded by the typical excuses that they happened in unknown circumstances, hypothesized environments, over millions of years of trial and error. Scientists then attempt to show how easy it is for cells to form by creating enclosed membrane-like structures in experiments.
Membranes are important since they are one of the necessities of cell-life in keeping the contents of the cells inside, regulating the chemical contents of the cell, and transporting chemicals and food from the outside. Thus experiments have been devised to create things that simulate cell membranes. The early experiments concentrated on proteins as DNA was not linked to hereditary until 1944. Earlier than that, proteins were assumed to carry the information of hereditary due to their complexity.
Many of these experiments involve putting organic chemicals into water, because of its unique properties. Atoms within molecules do not always have the same force pulling the electrons that orbit the nucleus and bind them together. The electrons which hold a negative charge are pulled more closely to one nucleus and away from the other one. This causes electric forces to unbalance and forms one or more positive and negative poles. The oxygen in water attracts the two hydrogen's electrons strongly so that the oxygen side shows a strong negative pole and the hydrogen ends show two positive poles. It is thereby called dipolar. Atoms in molecules that have nearly equal attraction to each others electrons are called non-polar, which include fats and oils. As the chemistry truism holds, like dissolves like. Non-polar chemicals thereby tend to dissolve other non-polar substances and polar chemicals dissolve polar substances. A hydrophilic substance wants to dissolve in water and is therefore polar. A hydrophobic substance will not dissolve in water and is therefore non-polar.
One of the effects of water is called the hydrophobic effect. This effect causes non-polar molecules to associate together. This can be seen when oil is poured into water. It does not dissolve, but tends to gather into roughly spherical droplets. These droplets tend to merge together forming bigger droplets upon contact. If enough oil is added, the oil will separate and form an entire layer. On the surface, oil droplets can simulate cells in a simple way since they are roughly spherical and ``eat'' other droplets. However, these are both purely mechanical effects.
The hydrophobic effect can also form detergents into structures called micelles. Detergent molecules have a hydrophobic end and a hydrophilic end. Their hydrophobic ends cluster together leaving the hydrophilic ends outward, again forms a spherical structure. This can also form bilayer structures such as soap bubbles. A layer of water is trapped between two layers of detergent with hydrophobic ends outward and hydrophilic ends in toward the water layer. The production of micelles forms the action of detergents. It allows hydrophobic substances, like oil, to dissolve into the interior of the micelle. These effects can also act on proteins. Proteins when created spontaneous fold into specific shapes from which they derive their functions. The hydrophobic ends of the protein fold in to the center and the hydrophilic end fold outward. Like detergents, proteins can form a spherical protein with a skin of hydrophilic parts and a core of hydrophobic parts.
Aleksandr Oparin used this effect to produce what he supposed was pre-cellular life in 1924 with his general theory on the origin of life. He added gum Arabic, a polysaccharide-protein mixture, with protein in the right temperature and concentrated quantities to produce spherical droplets in a viscous mixture. He called these droplets coacervates. As they form, they can trap enzymes and other chemicals if added to the mixture. These structures can absorb other chemicals from the solution they are in, which can react with the enzymes within them. This is theorized to simulate early cells.
Another possibility was raised by the experiments of Sydney Fox. After the Miller-Urey experiment, such experiments seemed to produce a majority of tar. Fox sought to form more concrete results and so placed specific quantities of amino acids together and heated them without water to high temperatures. He noticed high concentrations of the amino acids aspartic and glutamic acid in organisms. Therefore, he added greater quantities of these substances with pure amino acids and heated these up to a temperature of 180?C in 1956. At that temperature, glutamic acid becomes a liquid to facilitate these reactions. After a few hours, the amino acids combined to form polymers like proteins. Fox called these polymers proteinoids.
Water could not be present as a hydrolysis reaction would occur that would break up the polymer faster than it could form. They also had to be removed from the heat, because the products would be destroyed if heated for more than several hours. Fox later determined that phosphoric acid acted as a catalyst and the temperature could be reduced to 70?C. These structures always combine the same way depending on the mixture of chemicals added, which is no big surprise for chemists. These substances were then put in cool saline solution. Not surprisingly, the proteins formed membranes in round configurations as soon as they hit the water solution again due to the hydrophobic effect. They could again take in chemicals and swell in size. They could even split by budding. Fox called these structures protocells.
Fox imagined a scenario to account for these steps in which the amino acids formed by Miller's experiment were washed up on volcanic rock where the water evaporated and heated the amino acids. Rainwater then washed the chemicals back into the ocean before the heat could destroy them. His proteinoids were later given the name thermal proteins, and until 1979, scientists believed that these were entirely artificial structures. In that year, Klaus Dose noted that very simple molecules called flavins were produced. However, again the entire structure of these experiments is artificial and contrived.
Thus the creation of the proteinoids in no way simulates a real cell membrane, but only vaguely resembles one in basic structure and shape devoid of regulating mechanisms. This is like comparing a featureless cube with a house that has windows, doors, and electrical, phone, and cable inputs, and calling them the same things. Cellular membranes are extremely complex things. They literally have chemical passageways that allow in certain chemicals and assist in ridding the cell of others. They regulate the chemistry of the cell itself. If they did not regulate just one chemical such as salt within the cell, the cell could either explode or collapse when it naturally tried to equalize itself with the outside environment. The bottom line is that these structures have no internal mechanisms necessary for cell life. However, there is much more to a cell than a simple membrane.
Even the simplest cells are extremely complex. They have a cell membrane consisting of a lipid bilayer, as well as a cell wall surrounding it. In most cells this consists of peptidoglycan, a sugar-protein polymer, and this gives the cells form and shape. In Archea cells, they possess a plasmid membrane with substitutes for peptidoglycan, such as sugar polymers or other sugar-protein structures that allow them to exist in hostile environments. In fungi cells, this cell wall is made of chitin, like insect shells. In plant cells, the cell wall is made of cellulose. Animals have only a cell membrane.
In addition to an external cell wall, there are many internal structures and an extremely complex method of metabolizing energy and producing proteins. Within the cell wall and membrane, a mixture of saline water and organic chemicals exists called a colloid. This is called cytoplasm, and it is the medium that all transport takes place in. Nucleic acids are strung together in one large, circular, double chain of nucleic acids of DNA. In simple cells, this chain exists in a spherical pattern in the center of the cell. The DNA macromolecule is responsible for all information storage in the cell. It contains the codes for the creation of ribosomes and proteins.
DNA creates three special stretches of nucleic acids for prokaryotes and four for eukaryotes in making a ribosome. These are called ribosomal ribonucleic acid (rRNA). These are then attached to certain proteins to form two pieces, which join to form a structure called a ribosome. DNA is also organized into meaningful chains of three nucleic acids called codons. A group of these codons encode a short chain of nucleic acids called the messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA). The mRNA carries this information out into the cell to ribosomes that create an enzymatic structure for protein synthesis. Transcipt RNA (tRNA) one codon long then brings one amino acid each from the cytoplasm individually to the aforementioned ribosome to be joined together into meaningful chains of proteins as coded onto the mRNA for cell use. The end process produces the desired protein needed by the cell. The protein then spontaneously folds by the hydrophobic effect to form its completed molecule. This smooth and useful transfer of information from the central DNA encodes and forms useful proteins needed by the cell for processing chemicals for growth and survival.
The idea that this complex, multistage process originated by chance seems absurd. Again science tries to take a few fumbling steps to explain how this could originate by chance, but it falls short. It is thought that the proteins themselves coded the RNA, but they would have to be unfolded to do this. This could only be accomplished by a large amount of heat or extremes in Ph, both of which would tend to destroy forming RNA. Furthermore, all proteins would have coded RNA and not just useful ones. How this information was gathered into one single DNA chain for future use is inexplicable since RNA can not accurately copy other RNA strands. Only DNA appears to be able to code RNA strands. The DNA responsible for the creation of ribosomes and the original ribosomes themselves is also a mystery.
Also, there are a large number of enzymatic processes that occur within even the simplest cells. Proteins are created that act as enzymes in reactions that facilitate the conversion of chemicals into energy and components for building the cell. That these processes originated by chance must also be explained and is not. In fact, it seems very. This is because these changes would have to be incremental. Cells would have to have hundreds of non-useful processes going on to develop just the enzymatic processes, much like the idea of vestigial organs. These processes are nowhere to be found today. Cells do not code hundreds of non-useful proteins and waste its energy and resources. It is found that the cells produce useful proteins and structures with little waste. The mere efficiency of its processes is evidence against evolution. However once again, it shall be assumed that somehow the first cell formed with a working DNA molecule that was properly coded for rDNA and mDNA to properly make ribosomes and proteins so that the cell could use these as enzymes to process its food and necessary chemicals to grow. Furthermore, simple cells have an extremely efficient DNA molecule. There does not appear to be much if any non-useful DNA coding within the molecule. All of it is used for coding useful proteins and cell processes. If this molecule originated by chance, then there would probably be much non-useful DNA to code for proteins that were never used, and much vestigial DNA from this birth process. This is not the case.
Until the last few decades, organisms were classified into two groups: Prokaryotes or Monera, those with simple cells, and eukaryotes, those with complex cells. The former five kingdoms of life fit into these groups. Eukaryotes were divided into four groups: protista, one-celled organisms; plants, which created food by photosynthesis; fungi, which absorbed their food; and animals, which digested their food. Since the 1977, the work of Carl Woese in studying DNA formed the basis for a larger classification of one-celled organisms. He divided them into three domains: archaea, bacteria, and eukaryotes, based on their DNA. Prokaryotes were thus divided into latter of these two groups, and each of these will be looked at in turn.
Archaea are one-celled organisms that were found to multiply in very hostile environments. There are three groups of Archaea: the korarchaeota, the crenarchaeota, and the euryarchaeota. The korarchaeota is a small group that is thought to contain the oldest organisms. It is a hypothetical group known only from samples of their rRNA. The crenarchaeota are thermophiles that thrive in temperatures of 80? to 120?C. The euryarchaeota occupy several extreme environments. The largest group with 44.5% of species is the methanogens that produce methane gas. They occupy swamps, landfills, hydrothermal vents, and digestive tracts of animals. The halophiles inhabit extremely saline environments like salt lakes. The small group of thermoplasmatales inhabits extremely acidic environments. The last small group of hyperthermophiles again inhabits very hot waters around hydrothermal vents above 80?C. Since they were first known from these extreme environments and these organisms either die or do not grow well outside of these environments, it was thought they only existed in them. This is not logically correct for how would they colonize these geographically removed environments to begin with. It is now known that they are present throughout the oceans and in the soil as well.
Like other prokaryotes, they are composed of unbound DNA, a surrounding membrane and cell wall. Yet, their cell wall and membranes are unique to their group. The cell wall does not contain a chemical called peptidoglycan like most organisms do, but are composed of chains of isoprene. Their membranes are composed of phospholipids, which are glycerol with phosphate added to the end. However, archaea use left-handed or L-glycerol with interiors of branched isoprene chains. Prokaryotes and eukaryotes, on the other hand, use right-handed or D-glycerol with interiors of unbranched fatty acids. The branching of the isoprene chains allows them to connect with other branches or even structures outside the membrane. This gives them the stability to exist in their hostile environments.
Their chemistry is closer to eukaryotes than the other prokaryotes in their tRNA, the presence of histones in some species, and ribosomes. Yet, science sometimes places these organisms earlier than prokaryotes as they could survive the preconceived notions of what the early earth was like. This is in contradiction to the chemical evidence, which places bacteria earlier, solely due to preconceived notions of evolution. However, evidence now shows that the amount of time the Earth was between 110?C and 60?C lasted less than a few million years and probably much shorter period of time. This would hardly be enough time for Archaea to evolve. Furthermore, there seems to be traits in archaea and bacteria that make them similar to eukaryotes that the first two groups do not share. This would seem to be impossible if eukaryotes arose from either group.
The other group of prokaryotes is bacteria. They are also simple cells with one main strand of DNA, which usually forms into a circle. They are contained by a cell membrane and cell wall. They reproduce mainly by fission, but can share genetic material. This means that they make exact copies of themselves, which hinders any evolution of their species. Bacteria contain small pieces of independent DNA called plasmids that may aid in gaining resistance. Bacteria prosper in numerous environments like archaea such as: soil, fresh water, salt water, and host organisms. Many species have developed unique structures to aid in their survival, such as vacuoles to store nutrients, carboxysomes to facilitate processing of carbon dioxide, and magnetosomes that allow a directional sense.
These organisms supposedly all formed in low concentrations of oxygen. Oxygen as said before is damaging to organic molecules. Its reactive nature is damaging to any cells that do not have protective enzymes within them. Even humans must take in antioxidant vitamins C and E to help protect against the free radicals that oxygen produces in our bodies. Cyanobacteria is thought to have produced the oxygen in our atmosphere from photosynthesis, however another problem arises in how cyanobacteria could produce all this oxygen without poisoning themselves. They would have to develop means to produce antioxidant enzymes before oxygen was a problem. It was very fortuitous for them.
VI. Reproduction of Prokaryotes
Even if all these things are again assumed, then the cell is still not technically alive unless it can reproduce itself. This again is an extremely complex process. To begin with the cell must determine when to divide and must do so when it has accumulated enough energy and materials. To do so prematurely would mean it would run out before the reproduction was complete and killed the cell. In ``simple'' cells, this process is initiated when the cell gains enough chemicals and energy from its environment. It generally has grown to double its size. The DNA strand replicates first. It separates, and then free amino acids join with their chemical partners to form two separate DNA strands. This replicates the original strands into a second copy. The cell then pinches in on itself and new cell wall is created separating the two halves. These then separate to opposite sides of the cell. The cell then folds in on itself and cuts in two. This entire process occurs in a few minutes forming two functionally equivalent cells.
That this process called binary fission came about by chance also seems unlikely. Without it, the cell would continue to grow. Its surface area would become insufficient to take in necessary materials from the outside for the bulk of the cell and it would die. It is however conceivable that upon reaching a certain size, that the cell could split in two, but if the DNA does not replicate then only one set can be shared between the two. One of the two cells would have no DNA and therefore no map to produce proteins, enzymes, and so on. The other cell would die. So by chance, the cell formed the process of DNA replication and cell division at the same time, and then forms mechanisms to do this all in a synchronized fashion.
This becomes a major problem for after all the difficult and chance reactions that would need to form a working cell, it would merely live out its life and die. It would disappear from the earth. Somehow this one magic cell not only formed DNA, the ability to form ribosomes, the ability to create enzymes to facilitate internal reactions, the coding for proteins in short codons in its DNA, the ability to transfer information from its DNA to form those proteins, but also had to form the ability to replicate its DNA strand and the ability to coordinate this at the same time with the cell splitting as well as mechanisms to put a copy of its DNA into each cell. Again, it shall be assumed that this developed also somehow in that single, magical cell that was the single ancestor of all life.
Normally, the idea of this magic cell with all its processes and ability to reproduce would bring to mind the words irreducibly complex. This is the concept that a mechanism could not be reduced to less complex forms. However, this idea has been severely attacked by evolutionists for the simple reason that any mechanism or structure can be reduced to simpler forms. One could calculate the number of hammer blows to turn the Empire State Building into the Sears Tower; however this is the basic idea of irreducibly complexity. The Empire State Building would certainly not be usable in the process and probably would not survive such a change. It is something that can not be reduced without it still functioning.
To avoid confusion over that term, the term overwhelmingly complexity will be used instead. This denotes in essence how overwhelmingly complex these structures are. Unfortunately science tries to take simple views of these already reduced to simple forms by comparison across a group, which in itself is artificial. Such a simplistic example would be found in any biology textbook representation of a cell. This is a simplified version narrowed down to the broadest commonalities. It does not show the many specialized structures various cells possess but only the common ones, even then it is incredibly complex. Overwhelming complexity is just that, complexity so overwhelming that it could not have arisen by chance even though there are reducible chemical parts of it. It is the idea that there are no way these parts could come together by chance without precedent to act in concert to form a living structure. The simple bacterial cell, the magic cell from which evolution says all evolution of life comes from, is such an example.
VII. Cellular Life
Thus, we have fully functional cells that can replicate themselves. Life is formed, but it is only simple cells. However, the eukaryotes are vastly more complex than bacteria. Their defining feature is a membrane surrounding the DNA forming a structure called the nucleus, yet the most striking changes are the general increase in complexity and compartmentalizing of functions by separation of internal membranes. The eukaryotic cells range from ten to one-hundred micrometers while prokaryotic cells are one to five micrometers with approximately 1000 times the DNA. These are divided into separate strands of chromosomes instead of one strand and compacted by chemicals known as histones. Their replication process also is more complex.
Each of the compartments in eukaryote cells are called organelles. The mitochondria take over the oxidation or respiratory reactions and lysomes take over the hydrolytic or digestive reactions both previously done by the cell membrane. Chloroplasts, which exist only in some cells like plants, take over the photosynthesis reactions from the cell membrane. An internal membrane structure called the endoplasmic reticulum is present which metabolizes fat and produces steroids. It also assists in the production and transport of proteins and chemicals and now holds the ribosomes. Eukaryote ribosomes have also increased in size from the prokaryote ribosomes. Also, nucleoli form in the now bound nucleus. These are small pockets of DNA material specifically dedicated toward producing ribosomes. Small bounded pockets called vacuoles exist in the cytoplasm for the direct digestion of foreign matter. Animal cells sometimes have small vacuoles while plant cells have a large, single vacuole. Centrosomes exist in the cytoplasm also. They are not true organelles as they are not bound by membranes, but contain structures called centrioles. Centrosomes form and maintain microtubules within the cells. In all cells, it is vital to cell division in eukaryotes. In animal cells, these microtubules form the cytoskeleton that maintains cell form since animal cells don't possess a cell wall for that purpose. The centrosome also creates specialized microtubules that protrude to the exterior of the cell called cilia and flagella. Much as a skeleton does in vertebrates, all three of these are important in the allowing the animal cell to move and maintain shape. The golgi apparatus is a series of stacked membranes that serve to package chemicals in membranes. These include lysosomes in animal cells that take chemicals to the vacuole to aid in digestion, peroxisomes that break down hydrogen peroxide, and secretory vesicles that transport cell secretions to the exterior of the cell.
The only theory currently as to how all these structures came about is called endosymbiosis. This was first proposed by B. Keller in 1932. It was brought up in the 1960's by Lynn Margulis and published in 1970 as the serial endosymbiosis theory (SET). This theory proposes on the extreme that all eukaryotic structures are the result of absorption of external prokaryotes that through successive generations evolved in symbiosis between the many organisms that turned into a permanent situation. The lesser extreme claims that only mitochondria and chloroplasts developed this way. Margulis' theory claims that a anaerobic prokaryote absorbed a swimming bacteria and incorporated its tail or flagellum and its cell body as a nucleus. Next, it developed the ability to capture food in a vacuole to digest. It began capturing aerobic bacteria, which evolved to provide energy for the cell eating them. The cell eating them evolved to take longer to eat the bacteria. This process lengthened with successive generations till the devouring cell absorbed the bacteria and no longer digested them. They entered into symbiosis and the bacteria became mitochondria. In time, the bacteria took food from the host cell and delivered energy to it, and the bacteria atrophied till this was its sole function. These formed the ancestors of all animal and fungi. Once this had been achieved, some of these new cells with mitochondria absorbed cyanobacteria. These cyanobacteria engage in photosynthesis, and it is believed that they eventually evolved into chloroplasts in the same way that mitochondria were formed.
While most of this theory is not commonly accepted, this origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts is accepted. Supposedly, the DNA of these organelles shows them to be similar to bacteria DNA. Further evidence is presented by one-celled organisms in symbiotic relationships. Most notably among these is Kwang Jeon's discovery of the amoeba that were being invaded and killed off by bacteria in 1987. Those that survived became dependent on the bacteria inside them.
It is a good story; however, there are distinct problems. Again the similarities between bacteria and mitochondria are enhanced, while the differences are ignored. Bacteria are a living organism that has a number of processes necessary to continue its life. Mitochondria seem entirely dedicated to its one purpose of producing energy for the cell. Bacteria have a bi-layered membrane. Mitochondria also have two layers, but its internal layer instead of adhering to its outer layer, distends into its interior in structures called cristae. This increases the surface area of the inner membrane to allow a greater surface for the reaction to take place on. It also allows a space for hydrogen to accumulate to enhance this process, which does not exist in bacteria. Where are the cristae and hydrogen storage in bacteria? It also has a complex process unique to
Bacteria Membranes Mitochondria Membranes
it to intake proteins from the cell. Chaperone proteins and sites on the mitochondria exterior unravel the incoming protein so they can enter a transport site through the mitochondria's membranes. The end of the protein is given a positive charge which the negative hydrogen between the membrane's pulls inside. Other proteins refold the protein once inside so it can be useful again. Where is this process in any bacteria? Also, what became of the bacteria cell wall?
Ignoring all of this, the most likely candidate that has been the chosen candidate bacterium to be the ancestor of mitochondria is called rickettsia, a parasite to eurykarote cells that causes typhus and rocky mountain spotted fever. Interesting, it is a very small bacteria that can only grow within its host cells, which would seem to imply it did not evolve until after complex hosts had already appeared. It is perhaps chosen because it has a small genome. It only has 1,111,523 base pairs and 834 genes for proteins. Mitochondria, on the other hand, have a very similar 16,569 base pairs and 37 genes. That is a reduction of 98.5% percent, yet mitochondrial DNA is said to be similar to that of bacteria. Rickettsia also codes proteins for cycles of energy production that mitochondria do not have like the tricarboxylic cycle and respiratory-chain complex. Lastly, many of the necessary proteins that go through that complex process just to enter the mitochondria are coded within the nucleus of the cell rather than in the mitochondria. Science explains this by hypothesizing that the DNA instructions and processes y migrated to the cell nucleus, somehow escaping through two impermeable membranes and joining the chromosomes in the ``host'' cell. How likely is this, as well as the development of the complex system to allow these proteins to enter the mitochondria at the same time?
A similar theory proposes the origin of chloroplasts. These are also large organelles, from five to ten micrometers long, in plant cells. They are likewise said to arise from the same process arising of endosymbiosis with absorbed cyanobacteria. However, they have a dividing membrane inside them, which separates into disks called thylakoids that stack together into granum. The area inside the thylakoid space is called the lumen. This has led some to an extrapolation on SET to insist that they arose from an organism already incorporating a photosynthetic organism, which then was incorporated into a eukaryotic cell. The host cell swallowed a cell that was already swallowing another cell. The chloroplast is filled with an enzyme rich fluid called stroma. Evidence of endosymbiosis is that the inner layer of the chloroplast is composed of forty percent lipids and no protein like bacteria. Their outer layer however is seventy percent lipids and thirty percent proteins, unlike bacteria. They again have similar circular DNA and simpler ribosomes like bacteria.
The same problems with mitochondrial theories of endosymbiosis arise with chloroplasts. The reduction in genome again occurs. Cyanobacteria have between 1.66 and twelve million base pairs and 1700 to 10,000 genes. Chloroplasts only have 120,000 to 160,000 base pairs and approximately 120 genes. This decrease is actually greater as cyanobacteria have only two percent repeated sequences of DNA, while chloroplasts have ten to thirty-five percent repeated sequences. They also contain introns, which are sequences of code between those that code for RNA. Green algae chloroplast DNA contains fifty introns alone while bacteria contain none. They can only encode one-third of the proteins necessary to produce their own ribosomes. Again, this is at best over a ninety percent decrease in size.
Like mitochondria, proteins must be transported across both the chloroplast and the thylakoids membranes through transport sites importing a large percent of these proteins from the cell. Unlike bacteria, photosynthesis occurs on the membranes of the thylakoids rather than the membranes of the chloroplasts. They are so dependent on their cell that they can not survive on their own or even if transferred to a similar plant, and they also do not reproduce outside the cell
Further, chloroplasts originate as much smaller proplastids of one-half to one micrometer, but these structures can develop into any of a few organelles used by plant cells. They can develop into chloroplasts to perform photosynthesis. They can develop into chromoplasts that lack chlorophyll but contain pigments that give flowers, fruits, and vegetables their colors. They can also develop into leucoplasts, which are non-pigmented, but store and process starches, lipids or proteins. This ability to specialize to form different types of organelles would seem to confirm it as a part of the cell, rather than as a specialized symbiont.
Also in line with SET, Thomas Cavalier-Smith, who was studying the evolution of bacteria, defined a group of bacteria called archezoa in 1983. This group consisted of cells with a nucleus, but lacked mitochondria and sometimes other organelles like the Golgi apparatus. He believed they made a good candidate for a transitional form between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. RNA evidence also supported this claim as being mid-way between prokaryote and eukaryote complexity. However, chemical evidence has disbanded this group by showing that these creatures contained genetic residue particular to the presence of mitochondria. They were therefore degenerate forms of eukaryotes that had lost their mitochondria. Moreover, some of these organisms may be descendent from recent instead of early eukaryotes. Microsporidia the smallest member with the simplest DNA of this group is a parasitic organism now believed to be a very recent form of fungus. It has an extremely complex method of injecting other cells with a harpoon-like tube. This leaves no clear ancestor of eukaryotes. There have even been theories supposing fusion of archaea and bacteria to form eukaryotes or even more muddling of evolution by transfer of genetic material between major groups to explain similarities. It also appears that mitochondria, the nuclear membrane, and the microtubules arose simultaneously, rather in separate events.
Both the mitochondria and chloroplast only very superficially resemble bacteria and only if overemphasizing the similarities. Their actual genome, while round like a bacteria, is intensely smaller to perform only their function with further similarities to the cell they reside in the repetitions of their DNA which bacteria do not share. They could not survive without their cell having the majority of their proteins produced by the cell. They are what their name implies, organelles, highly specialized structures devoted solely toward performing functions for the cell. They have specialized transport developed to allow proteins entrance. They are entirely dependent on their cell. While symbiosis makes a good story, it seems improbable.
Thus the explanations for mitochondria and chloroplast origins fall short. There are no good explanations for the formation of nuclear and endoplasmic membranes. There are no good explanations for the increased complexity of cell division, digestion, and locomotion. There are no explanations for the apparently sudden compartmentalization for cell functions. Yet again, this shall be ignored and all these structures will be assumed to arise from evolutionary means or by symbiosis.
VIII. Reproduction of Eukaryotes
With the increasing complexity of the eukaryote or protist cells, the reproduction process again becomes much more complex than bacteria's replication. There are a variety of reproductive pathways that unicellular eukaryotes use to reproduce. Many go through life cycles in which they change form. Instead of binary fission, protists generally engage in a new process called mitosis. This is necessary due to the increased size of the nuclear material and the general complexity of the cell. Mitosis is the process that this division generally takes.
Mitosis occurs in distinct phases of growth and separation. The nucleolus and chromosomes divide first. They do this differently from prokaryotes which divides their DNA in one long chain. Protist DNA separate and forms distinct chromosomes in pairs called chromatids. These then replicate from several areas at once, as there is often one thousand times the DNA material to replicate than in prokaryote DNA. The nucleolus disappears as it too replicates and the nuclear membrane disappears. Proteins attach to the centromere on the chromosome to form a structure called the kinetochore. The centrosome's microtubules dissolve, disassembling the cytoskeleton in animal cells. New microtubules form in a structure called a spindle that permeates the nuclear material. These attach to the kinetochores on the replicated chromosomes, center them along a line in the middle of the cell, and pull them apart. The spindle pulls the nuclear material toward opposite sides of the cell. The nuclear membranes reform, the chromosomes disperse, and the spindle disassembles. In animal cells, a fiber ring around the cell contracts pinching it in two. In plant cells, a wall grows between the two parts of the cell. The cell then divides with half of the nuclear material and organelles in each new cell. The nuclear membrane, nucleolus, and cytoskeleton then reform. Two equivalent cells are formed at the end of this process.
Some of the simplest protists are the Alveolates, which include three general classes of animal-like organisms: dinoflagellates, apicomplexa, and ciliophora. Dinoflagellates are a component of plankton best known for producing red tides. Apicomplexa is an animal parasite known for producing malaria and toxoplasmosis. Ciliophora is a large group of animals covered with hair-like cilia. Each has a distinct life-cycle with interesting modes of reproduction.
The action of mitosis allows protist cells to reproduce asexually by budding or splitting by binary fission. Many protists reproduce mainly by this process. The ciliphora are one such class of protist. The paramecium is probably the most famous of the ciliphora. They are funnel like cells covered with hair-like cilia, a permanent mouth and anus. They contain two nuclei, a macronucleus and a micronucleus. The larger macronucleus regulates cell function and production of proteins. The macronucleus divides the cell by fission; however this tends to degrade over time. The micronucleus acts as a reserve for nuclear material. They generally undergo mitosis and reproduce asexually to make copies of themselves.
However after many generations are produced, it is thought that the macronucleus begins to degrade with so many copies. It then reproduces sexually to continue living. Otherwise, the cell would die out, unable to continue reproducing. Its micronucleus divides by meiosis within the cell producing four copies of itself with a double or haploid number of chromosomes. This process of meiosis follows the same steps as mitosis, but the kintochores form on the chromosomes, rather than the pairs of chromatids. When they separate, they separate into the chromosomes. The cells divide producing haploid cells. Three of these dissolve and the remaining one duplicates again by mitosis to form two micronuclei. The cell then attaches to another cell and exchanges macronuclei so that each protist has one of its own copies and one from the other cell. This process is called conjugation. The micronuclei then fuse together and replicate again by mitosis to form eight micronuclei with a half or diploid number of chromosomes. The macronucleus then disintegrates, and four of the micronuclei become macronuclei. This cell then divides to form four cells each with a diploid micronucleus and
Conjugation of Cilipora
meiosis
x x xx
x x xx
xx
x x micronuclei xx xx
x x dissolve xx
transfer of xx
micronuclei xx
x x
x x x mitosis separation xx
x xx
x x x x x mitosis xx
x x x x x x x x xxxx xx
cell division x x x x x
macronucleus fusion of micronuclei
dissolves
macronucleus like the original cell. Conjugation is the simplest form of sexual reproduction among protists.
The second group of alveolates, the dinoflagellates, are among the simplest eukaryotes now that archezoa has been disbanded, but are still very complex. Half of the species are photosynthetic containing chloroplasts with Chlorophyll A and C, which is interesting as chlorophyll-C is not present in plants. Its chromosomes lack histones and are attached to the nuclear membrane. Dinoflagellates reproduce in a simple cycle in which they reproduce by mitosis to divide into two cells. These cells can then become gametes by fusing to produce a planozygote with double or diploid number of chromosomes. The planozygote can insure the survival of the organism in harsh condition by forming a reduced cyst till more favorable conditions arise. The planozygote divides to form two new cells with half its number of chromosomes or a haploid number, which is how these organisms spend most of their lives.
Apicomplexa are animal parasites who share organelles made of microtubules called an apical complex. These enable the cell to penetrate its host's cells. They have an even more complex life-cycle. Being parasites, their cycle revolves around different interactions with the host. The haploid and diploid phases also are more distinct. They begin as cysts which are ingested by the host. The cysts form sporozoites, which invade the host's cells. They use the cell to reproduce and grow. The cell eventually bursts releases the mature sporozoites, called merozoites. These either infect other cells or can form gametes outside the host's cells. These gametes again fuse inside the host cell to form sexual reproduction of a new cyst. The cell divides by meiosis in the cyst to produce several sporozoites, which then reinfects the host or infects a new host.
Apicomplexa life-cycle
releases infect host cell HAPLOID STAGE
sporozoites
CYSTS reinfect
cells
ZYGOTE (OR) releases
merozoites
gametes
differentiation
The production of gametes and zygotes in the first two classes introduce sexual reproduction. This allows a recombination of genes and more variability in the organism. Gametes are fused by a process called karyogamy. The cells produce haploid cells again by the process of meiosis.
Protists tend to either exist primarily as haploid or diploid organisms. The haploid organisms, like dinoflagellates and apicomplexa, experience meiosis in their zygote form. Their haploid stage reproduces by mitosis asexually. They produce gametes, which unite to form a zygote. It tends to undergo meiosis to produce more haploid cells quickly. Dinoflagellates change to the diploid stage when conditions are unfavorable, such as when their own red tides build up enough toxins to kill themselves. They change to cysts to enable their continued existence. Apicomplexa form gametes or zygotes to travel outside its host and enable their spread to other organisms. This cycle is shown in the following illustration:
HAPLOID-DOMINANT PROTIST REPRODUCTION
ZYGOTIC MEIOSIS
HAPLOID PHASE
x Mitosis/differention
x
x x x x Gametes
x
meiosis xx Sexual fusion/karyogamy
zygote
DIPLOID PHASE
Other protists exist in a diploid state primarily. One of these is the water molds or mildews, the oomycetes that are part of the chromista kingdom, and another are the slime molds, the myxomycetes that are part of the ameobozoa group. Both categories are flagellates with cellulose cell walls. Oomycetes is known best for causing the potato blights of the nineteenth century. They act as decomposers like fungus and were originally included in that group. They feed by secreting enzymes and absorbing the nutrients. During the feeding stage of the slime molds, they form long filaments like fungus with multiple diploid nuclei that move slowly. This structure is called a plasmodium. They form sporangia or fruiting bodies where meiosis occurs and produces haploid spores. The spores turn into gametes that fuse to form a diploid zygote to form a new organism.
DIPLOID-DOMINANT PROTIST REPRODUCTION
GAMETIC MEIOSIS
xx Meiosis
haploid gametes
DIPLOID PHASE xx xx x x HAPLOID PHASE
mitosis xx Sexual fusion/karyogamy
zygote
Cellular slime molds or acrasiomycota are similar protists that exist as amoeba-like creatures in their feeding stage that do not possess flagella in any life stage. When food becomes scarce, they emit a chemical trail. Others pick up the trail, follow it, and strengthen it with their own trail. This causes them to gather together into a mass of cells that resembles a flat slug, called a pseudoplasmodium. It can move slowly by extending its cells and then forms a stalk from a mass of these cells, which generate a cellulose coat. The stalk forms a fruiting body where many cells undergo meiosis to produce haploid spores. The spores form either amoeba-like myxamoeba gamete or swarm cell with flagella. These then fuse with a like gamete to form a diploid cell that forms the plasmodium again.
Thus, two similar processes of reproduction arise producing two cycles of life within the protists. Again, even more so than prokaryotic reproduction, it seems very unlikely that these processes originated by chance. Mitosis completely takes into account the increased complexity of the organelles and increased size of the DNA. It is far too organized and synchronized a process to come about by chance. Not only does it arise by chance, but with no precedent. It is an entirely new process made more complicated from the multiple chromosomes and histones sometimes present. It would be as if a mammal reproduced by replicating all its organs at once, formed webs to pull half the organs into each dividing half, and then split in half to form two individuals. That process would also be unlikely to arise by chance.
Furthermore, the nuclear structure and its means of reproduction had to be achieved concurrently. If it did not, then the new cell would have died out with the first generation. It would not have been able to reproduce and so would have formed, lived and died, producing no new generation to continue the process. Then these cells jumped ahead, forming even more complex organelles and reproduction in one step. All these factors make the formation of both prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells from evolutionary processes unlikely if not impossible. As in the evolution of macro-organisms, giant steps are shown between species and even more giant leaps between classes of organisms.
The addition of cycling stages in these cells is also an unprecedented change with no correspondence in prokaryotes. The processes of forming gametes, karyogamy, and meiosis again arise suddenly within multiple forms of eukaryotes and without explanation. Since this is a secondary process that occurs sometimes when unfavorable conditions present themselves, it seems to be a process to survive in unfavorable environments. This includes the unfavorable environment between transfer to a new host for parasitic organisms.
However, how these processes arose is unexplained again. Again they must be concurrent to work together. This becomes impossible to believe that all three of these processes arose simultaneously in a mechanism which only exerts itself generally in occasionally or in unfavorable circumstances. How the creature developed an entirely different reproduction process that is triggered by hostile environment and the mechanism to realize it is in a hostile environment is unknown. It is an entirely new feedback relationship also developed concurrently. Again, this shall be ignored and it shall be assumed that this both mitosis and sexual reproduction originated by evolutionary means and allowed eukaryotes to reproduce.
Yet as eukaryotes arise, they seem to divide very quickly into several families that are quite dissimilar. Three of these go on to much greater complexity: fungi, plant, and animals. When eukaryotes arose, they did not do so once, but at least several times, producing similar structures in each one. Fungi cells form cell walls made of chitin, plant cells of cellulose, and animal cells lose their cell wall entirely. How this came about that cells lost or gained new cell walls is another mystery. This further increase in complexity will be looked at next.
IX. The Explosion of the Kingdoms
In previous times, there was a much more likely evolutionary scheme for classification. However, as science discovers more about life on earth, particularly unicellular life, classification becomes more complex and difficult. This has especially become the case in the last few decades as science now bases classification on chemicals and DNA homology instead of mere appearance and structure. Even the highest level of classification is being re-written, the kingdoms.
In the beginning, Linnaeus created the modern classification system in 1735 and defined two kingdoms, animals and vegetables. Haeckel added a third kingdom 1866 for unicellular life, protista, to animalia and plantae. Protista gradually was separated into the prokaryotes, the monera, and the eukaryotes, the protista. It was not till 1969, that Robert Whittaker defined the kingdom fungi, making five kingdoms. In the 1980's, Carl Woese as said before divided life into three domains: archaea, bacteria, and eukaryotes. This effectively separated monera into two kingdoms bringing the total up to six kingdoms. Cavalier-Smith further refined eukaryotes to suggest that unicellular eukaryotes were further divided into alveolates, chromista, and amoebozoas based on their chemistry.
This was a large change from the previous methodology. Before, eukaryotes were classified according to their similarity to the major kingdoms of microorganisms: animal-like, the protozoa; plant-like, the algae; and fungi-like, slime and water molds. These microorganisms were placed in direct lines under those kingdoms. They were naturally thought to be the evolutionary links to these kingdoms. The eukaryotes differentiated into the three kingdoms and formed multicellular equivalents. The algae gave rise to the plants, the slime molds gave rise to the fungi, and the protozoan gave rise to the animals.
However in the new methodology, organisms were classed according to their DNA, the chemicals they used, and structural analysis. This entirely mixed up the previous classification of eukaryotes. Rather than being in distinct evolutionary groups, algae, protozoan, and slime molds found themselves coexisting in some of the same groupings. The new chromista kingdom is based on the presence of chlorophyll-C. This chemical is not found in plants. They also contain distinct pigments like the brown pigment fucoxanthin, and two distinct flagella, one of which generally has cilia projections on it. This large grouping pulls together fungi-like creatures, as well as algae. It even contains the multicellular brown algae, which consists of the kelps.
New Phylogenic Tree Old Phylogenic Tree
EXCAVATES Metamonada Ameobozoa
Euglenozoa Oomycota
RHIZARIA Radiolaria FUNGI Cercozoa
UNIKONTS Amoebozoa
FUNGI Euglenozoa
ANIMALS Dinoflagellates
RED ALGAE
Ciliophora BROWN ALGAE
ALVEOLATES Apicomplexa GREEN ALGAE
Dinoflagellates LAND PLANTS
Oomycota
CHROMISTA Diatoms ANIMALS
Golden algae Flagellates
Brown algae Apicomplexa
RED ALGAE Ciliophora
GREEN ALGAE
LAND PLANTS
One of the largest dividing factors is attempts to classify organisms by the type of cristae within their mitochondria. There are three basic types of cristae: flattened or lamellar, sac-like or vesicular, and tubular. Lamellar cristae can come in ribbons, sheets, bundles, and rounded forms (discoidal and plate-like), and vesicular cristae come in bubble, ampule, and sac forms. Lamellar is the dominant form of mitochondria, however the various forms that cristae can take are distributed throughout various classifications down to the species level at points. Some species have different forms within different tissues and some change forms during changes in their life cycles and because of changes in the environment. Despite this, attempts are made to classify organisms based on their cristae forms primarily on the tubular, plate-like and discoidal forms. The former kingdoms are thus rearranged and divided, increasing the number by some estimation over nine kingdoms. These are being subdivided presently to form even more kingdoms.
These changes in classification have tremendous impact on the theory of evolution. Instead of clear lines of descent leading up to multicellular forms, it becomes much more muddled. No longer does the algae lead up to plants, the slime molds lead to fungi, or the
protozoa lead directly to the animals. Many of these are shunted off to side groups that have no relation to their former descendents. The lines of descent become wider. Instead of a slowly branching tree, seventy-one groups had formed by the end of 1999 with no close relationships between them. Science has managed to group the eukaryote into five large supergroups, but the smaller ones each branch deeply away from each other.
Thus instead of being a process of slow evolution with accumulated changes that have transitional forms between them, the major groups of eukaryotes seem to have divided far back in history and yet have no linking groups or organisms between them. They seem on the surface to have arisen separately with only major traits to connect them. The tree of life changes from being a well defined structure of slowly developing organisms with clear ancestral groups making a tree from which it gets its name to a bush-like structure - no roots, no branches, only the twigs and leaves left. However, this too shall be ignored for now and this question of the origin of multicellular organisms shall be looked at next.
X. The Formation of Metazoans
The formation of living things composed of more than one cell is almost as problematic as the formation of the first cells. For this to occur, the unicellular organisms, or protozoan, must give up their individuality for the good of an organism that does not exist yet, such as occurs on a small scale impossibly in endosymbiosis. Furthermore as in that mythical process, these cells must also give up their independence relying on the organism to feed it and remove its wastes. More impossibly and unlike endosymbiosis, these cells must do this in a synchronized manner, rather than the random process that would be expected. This process would be the formation of tissues. All of these make the synchronized and orderly accumulation of cells into a multicellular organism, or metazoan, seemingly impossible. There are no explanations for this event and no evidence for it either.
Further complicating this is that metazoans appeared in a majority of differing forms over a relatively short geological time, supposedly around 550 million years ago. The majority of major classifications appeared suddenly. Approximately fifty phyla or their supposed ancestors appear, each of which represents a major body type. Those that do not appear generally do not have skeletons that can fossilize easily and do not appear until the present era. Every type of body plan from simple sponges to organisms with exoskeletons to those organisms with backbones appears in the fossil record during this one period. It is believed that all major groups originated during a few million years and never again does this occur.
During this era, called the Cambrian explosion, metazoans arose in a number of forms and structures that has never been exceeded. Evolutionists insists that there must be a hidden evolutionary past prior to this that must go back over 400 million years before the Cambrian and have searched desperately for fossils before this period for over a hundred and fifty years. Even trace fossils, fossils of the traces of organisms such as footprints and burrows, are desperately searched for. These have been few and far between, and even those found are non-conclusive. The fact of the Cambrian explosion and the sudden appearance of all the major body plans remains to this day.
Lacking direct evidence of fossils, scientists take another route. The differences in specific genes are plotted and then assumptions are made as to how long these genes would take to change. This time is plotted into the past before the Cambrian and it is assumed that a common ancestor must have existed previously to this time. With yet more circular reasoning, they offer this as proof that their scenario is plausible since millions of years are allocated for the change of single genes. Assumptions of hypothetical organisms with assumptions of gene changes over hypothetical lengths of time are not evidence, but merely assumptions. Any two organisms could be linked in such a way. The mechanisms that evolution proposes to explain the formation of metazoan so quickly must therefore be looked at.
To begin with, the closest thing to metazoans there is among the protists are colonies, but there is a large jump from colonies of cells to metazoans. Colonies of cells are formed by cells dividing to form larger and larger collections of similar cells. These pile up to form the colony. An example of this is cyanobacteria, which builds up layered rocks on which the colony sits called stromatolites. These colonies are composed of individual cells that if separated can exist on their own.
There are two theories as to how metazoans arose: the syncytial theory and the colonial theory. The syncytial theory believes metazoan arose from creatures with multiple nuclei like ciliophora and mycetozoa. These formed cell walls between their nuclei. This would automatically make a larger organism, but it would not necessarily be acting together as an organism. It favors the original state of metazoans as having bilateral symmetry. This theory is not in favor as it does not explain radial oriented organisms or the presence of flagella by many cells of metazoans. There is also no such formation of cells evident in modern metazoans or multinucleate cells in primitive metazoans.
The colonial theory was first proposed by Haeckel in 1874 with his theory of recapitulation and has been modified by others. He thought that metazoans arose from colonies of flagellates. These cells then differentiated in function and formed the metazoans. This is a form of his theory of recapitulation. Much as animal embryos form from flagellated sperm to form a mass of cells that then differentiate to form an organism, so he thought the metazoan must have evolved. Despite the discrediting of recapitulation, this theory is one currently in favor. It is supported by the colonial nature of flagellates and the presence of flagella within many metazoan cells. It favors an original radial symmetry of metazoans with bilateral symmetry arising from it.
The theory is further supported by the fact that colonial flagellates appear to communication via chemical signals. In order for an amoeba to divide, another amoeba must intercede and nudge the dividing cell apart. Many other one-celled organisms or protozoan have similar chemical signals and cooperation. The plasmodial slime molds send signals out for others to gather to form their fruiting body. Ciliphora can find a similar creature to perform conjugation with. Thus there is ample evidence that protists can communication and cooperate together. Yet, the jump from cooperation to forming a metazoan involves not only cooperation, but also the submersion of the individual cells into the whole and specialization of cell type. Colonies of cells do not exhibit these behaviors.
As mentioned earlier, cellular slime molds use chemical signals to form a colonial mass of cell called the pseudoplasmodium. This mass can move by individual movement, form a stalk, and a fruiting body where cells form spores. Yet, this is still a colonial group of cells where each cell is still individual and can survive on its own.
Volvox is green algae with two flagella that form cytoplasmic strands between them to form a hollow sphere. They produce a mucilage coat around the sphere, which is moved by the flagella. The colony specializes into one side with increased light sensitivity, the anterior, and one side specializing in reproduction, the posterior. The anterior cells form larger eye spots and the posterior develops gondia cells, which produce gametes. They also reproduce cells asexually to form daughter colonies on the inside of the sphere. These form with their flagella pointed toward the center of the sphere, the opposite of the parent colony. The daughter colony exits through a pore and turns inside out so their flagella point outwards. Volvox is a haploid-dominant species, which produces gametes from the gondia cells in the posterior of the colony. Male colonies form sperm packets from the gondia and female colonies form ova. The sperm packets leave via a pore in the colony wall. They enter another colony via its pore, and the packet disintegrates, releasing the sperm to find the other colonies eggs. This forms a zygote that again can survive harsh conditions.. This is the only organism that seems to form colonies with any specialization.
Thus, the most advanced colonies do not show any real degree of specialization when compared to more advanced organisms. Volvox only seems to show specialization probably derived from the presence of light. The eye spots on the sunny side of the colony grow larger. The cells on the opposite side have eyespots facing away from the light and do not develop, just as chloroplasts will not develop without light. The colony tends to move toward the light as the action of the individual cells moving toward the light and then the gametes develop away from the direction of movement. The colony cells remain individuals and will not die if removed from the colony. Their cells remain independent and the mechanisms for forming metazoans are not shown within these colonies.
Moreover, there is no dedicated form of reproduction in any of these colonial species. When they reproduce, they reproduce individual cells, rather than a growing organism. All metazoans when they reproduce produce spores or gametes that grow into a new organism. The individual cells grow from each other and remain part of the metazoan. In all colonies, they grow separately and then must reform a new colony. They also do not show the increased complexity in these reproductive processes that will be shown next. However, it shall again be assumed that metazoans somehow formed from colonies.
XI. Formation of Plant Metazoan
Unfortunately, the classification of plants has been marred by a preference for land plants. These are viewed as more advanced because of the presence of vascular tissue. While, this would be necessary in a land plant, it would not be necessary for support or diffusion of nutrients in a water plant. This prejudice persisted in the classification of all water plants as algae and further as protists even though many exist in multicellular forms.
ALTERNATION OF GENERATIONS
Sporic Meiosis
+ + Gametophytes
Sporophyte - -
germinating spores -
HAPLOID PHASE
DIPLOID PHASE
germinating zygote - gametes
zygote +
All of the multicellular plants regardless of classification go through a new life cycle called alternation of generations. Instead of the haploid-dominant or diploid-dominant life cycle of protists, these plants go through sporophyte and gametophyte phases. The sporophyte phase has a diploid chromosome number and produces haploid spores by meiosis. These grow or germinate to form male and female gametophytes. Each gametophyte will produce its gametes: sperm or ova. These fuse to produce a zygote that germinates into a new sporophyte.
One of the oldest fossils found is red algae. It forms a separate classification called rhodophyta, which is sometimes placed under the plants and more often under the protists. It is primarily a multicellular plant that grows by means of filaments into a branched structure. These branches, called thalli, form by cell division elongating the thallus. This can thicken and form filaments or blades at the end of the branches. Rhizoid structures anchor them to rock or other animals to make them stationary. The cell walls of the plant are made of cellulose combined with agar and carrageenans. They lack flagella at all stages of life and use a unique form of starch to store energy. They contain a unique pigment that makes them red, which is only shared by cyanobacteria. Coralline groups of red algae can deposit calcium carbonate on their cell walls making them resemble corals.
They also have a unique life cycle called triphasic. This consists of an alternation of generations where its diploid tetrasporophyte forms tetraspores by meiosis that forms the haploid gametophyte. These form an intermediate stage where branch structures form in male and female parts. The male structure releases spermatia which fuse with a female nodule called a carpogonium. The carpogonium turns into a diploid carposporophyte inside the plant. This releases carposporophytes that form a new tetrasporophyte.
This shows a well developed multicellular plant with no immediate predecessors. Its similarity to cyanobacteria would seem to indicate a direct relationship to bacteria. Again this would seem to show that it evolves directly from bacteria, jumping to both eukaryotic cells and multicellular forms at the same time. It has a unique reproductive cycle with specialization of tissues. These include the root-like rhizoids, stem-like thalli, and often flat blades to enhance surface area for photosynthesis. Transport of materials occurs through the water through direct diffusion.
Other multicellular algae are the brown algae or the kelps. This is classified as phaeophyta among the chromatists because of its synthesis of chlorophyll-C and the pigments unique to chromatids. Its spores and gametes also have two flagella like the chromatids. However, unlike the other chromatids, it is multicellular and it has a life cycle of alternation of generations. It has a cellulose cell wall with an outer gelatinous cell wall of pectin. Like red algae, it forms by growing a thallus as a central spine with leaf-like blades around it. These branch out to form the kelp, which can grow to enourmous lengths.
Green algae also produce a few classes of metozoans. The simplest is sea lettuce or ulvophycae. It forms two sheets of cells attached together in a flat blade. It also goes through an alternation of generations in its life cycle with similar looking sporophyte and gametophyte generations. Another green algae group is the charophyta which has a few metazoan members. It is haploid dominant and composed of filaments. Rhizoids anchor anchor it to a surface. Filaments may be branched or unbranched. It reproduces asexually by fragementation and sexually by conjugation. Coleochaetales grow as a branched form or in a disk with sheathed hairs. These are considered to be the closest algae to land plants. Their zygote forms internally and grows within to release spores which swim away.
It is at this point, that water plants made the transition to land. Bryophytes are one of the simplest forms of land plants and the closest plant chemically to coleochaetales. These are the mosses and liverworts. They grow filaments with a spiral of leaves around a multicellular stem. Rhizoids grow downwards to anchor the plant. These are multicellular in mosses and unicellular filaments in liverworts.
The bryophytes exist in a haploid gametophyte that forms from a spore. The spore grows into a mass of filaments called a protonema that grows into male and female gametophytes. The male forms a structure called the antheridia, and female forms the archgonia on the top of their plants. The antheridia produce spermatozoids which are washed by rain into the cup-like archgonia. The sporophyte grows out of the archgonia and forms a stalk called the seta. This forms a capsule on its end called the sporangia where new spores grow. Spores can be explosively discharged or the capsule can split open, releasing new spores.
However, there is a large transition between the algae and these simple land plants. Diffusion can no longer be used to transport nutrients and water can no longer be absorbed from the exterior. Thicker, multicellular leaves and stems are produced. Vascular tissues occur in the stem with a central strand of water conducting cells, called a hydroid, and surrounding cells that conduct food, called leptroids. The sporophyte is modified to take advantage of being in the air. Even chemically, their mitochondrial DNA share only one intron with coleochaetales.
Yet, there are serious breaks in the continuity of evolution within the formation of plant metazoans. Three different types of algae from different lineages to develop similar structures whose complexity is far above anything appearing within colonies. Structures become specialized forming root systems as well as more complex reproductive cycles. The standard features of plants can be found in the algae of root, stem and leaves.
This specialization however, is dwarfed by the changes made in the jump to land plants. Specialized vascular tissues are formed to transport food and water in the stem. Incredibly more complex reproductive tissues are formed that resemble those of red algae closer than anything within the green algae. Since red algae are not related to these plants, then how did these structures come about?
The entire idea of colonies forming metazoa is based from Haeckel's theory of recapitulation, which is a failed theory. Furthermore, it is based on his belief in Lamarckism. Cells gather together and even form some small degree of specialization due to environmental influences and then pass these inherited traits on to their descendents. This does not occur. Any change in the organization or structure of an organism and its descendents must occur in its DNA. That the metazoan originated by chance alteration of DNA is absurd. Each cell's function is dependent on its location within the metazoan. Furthermore, its DNA would determine the specialization of the cell. Thus the DNA in metazoan takes on the new function of determination of cell function. Since the information stored within DNA is a direct transfer of information to and from the chemicals it creates, it seems inconceivable that DNA could be coded from the top down, or in other words, from the cell diversification down. The idea that metazoan formed from cell colonies slowly diversifying their function and becoming an individual organism must therefore be relegated to a past before knowledge of genetics was available. It seems far more likely that the changes must come from DNA bottom up.
This means that for metazoans to form their DNA suddenly would have to gain the capability to cause the cell to divide, to form all the cells within the metazoan, tell which cells to specialize into which function, and then properly give these cells the chemical properties to carry out their determined function. This would be an incredible jump for a single cell's DNA to acquire all at once. Not only this, but the DNA somehow acquires the ability to cause some cells to specialize to reproduce the entire organism in an entirely new processes. It is for these very reasons that colonies are not observed to be forming metazoa. It requires a remarkable change in DNA and not simply a change in behavior. It is a basic speciation event and would be presumed to be rare at best.
Yet in one simple step unicellular organisms suddenly leaped forward and gained the ability to both produce an entire organism out of cell division and also sexually reproduce the entire organism in an entirely new process. This again staggers the imagination as to how this could occur, but no more so than the formation of complex cells out of simple organic molecules or the jump from prokaryotic cells to eurykarotic. Each of these massive jumps involves the formation of new processes and abilities supposedly arising through chance. Science would protest that these took millions of years to develop through random occurrences, yet impossible things can not happen no matter how long one allows for them to happen. Moreover, they occur within the small realm of time that the Cambrian explosion would allow. Yet evolution theory would have us believe that a series of impossible things happened one after another. Even when they stack the deck as with a fortuitous early atmosphere and an evolutionary theory of planet development, these things still stagger the imagination when they are broken down to actually processes that must occur and change and develop. Yet again, these exceptions will be ignored and it shall be assumed that evolution did produce metazoan water plants, and that the land plants somehow evolved from green algae with very few analogous structures.
XII. Formation of Fungi Metazoa
Fungi are composed of cells with chitin in their cell walls. They tend to feed on dead plants and animals, but can be parasitic on living creatures. They are generally haploid-dominant organisms, and they tend to grow their cells into long tubes called hyphae, which then excrete digestive enzymes to break down the chemicals around them. The hyphae then absorb the nutrients through their cell walls. They are some of the only organisms to break down and absorb nutrients through cell wall.
The hyphae tend to grow and divide into a mass of tendrils, so it is hard to define the fungi as metazoan. Even when the hyphae form cell walls in these tendrils, they are generally perforated to allow cell contents to continue to move within the one great cell of each tendril. The only specialized tissues they form are generally sex cells at the end of the hyphae to form sporangia to form spores. The hyphae grow together in mass to form large sometimes macroscopic structure for sexual reproduction.
The evolution of fungi seems sketchy at best. Only vast generalizations are made with huge jumps forming massive sub-classes of many organisms. Chytrids account for about 1000 species which is about one percent. They are lowest on the scale because they are unicellular fungi whose spores and gametes possess flagella. They are mainly aquatic molds growing on dead matter, which explains their flagella for transport. They tend to produce rhizoids rather than hyphae, which anchor them.
Zygomycota accounts for another one percent of species and form the next so-called stage in evolution by losing their flagella. This is no surprise since they are primarily terrestrial molds that prefer damp environments. They only produce multiple cells only in their reproductive organs. They asexually produce spores by mitosis in branch-like structures called sporangia on the tips of specialized hyphae. In harsh conditions, they produce gametangium whose gametes combine to form zygospores.
Ascomycota, the sac fungi, and Basidiomycota, the club fungi, form the next jump in evolution by forming hyphae that divide by septa into separate cells. This makes them the closest to a metazoan among the fungi. The septa divide the hyphae at regular intervals which contain one nucleus in general. Both of these classes grow in dryer areas and the divided hyphae protect them from drying out if the cell wall is damaged.
Ascomycota form sack-like fruiting bodies named ascocarps for which they are named. Truffles are the ascocarps of one species. Ascomycota account for 75% of fungi species and are the most widespread. Forty two percent of these species form also symbiotic relationships with plants in lichens. Ascomycota also includes unicellular yeasts as well as hyphae-producing organisms. In the hyphae producing lines, they form masses of hyphae in which the inner layers form a structure called a hymenium where mitosis and then meiosis forms multiples of eight membrane bound, haploid ascospores. Their hyphae grow into a mass called a mycelium. Their septa are perforated to allow cellular contents to flow between cells.
Their sister group, basidiomycota, are the club fungi, which includes mushrooms, jelly, rust, and smut fungi. The hyphae contain two nuclei which divide when the cells divide. These are exchanged between cells by an outgrowth of the hyphae that clamps the two cells together. Their fruiting body is the basidium, where sexual reproduction takes form. This forms the mushroom in many species. Their spores are forcibly discharged into the air, and their reproductive methods are diverse.
The fungi are a diverse and complex class of organisms, with complicated reproduction processes. Rather than their evolution being a branching structure, it seems as if they are related organisms with specializations for three different environments. The water fungi, the chytrids, specialize to live in water with short rhizoids only to anchor them and flagellated spores to move. The damp fungi, the zygomycota, specialize with short undivided hyphae and use air to transport their spores. The dry fungi, the ascomycota and basidiomycota, divide their hyphae to prevent drying out and diversified over dry land. Since the later two categories only comprise 2% of the species of fungi, could they be offshoots of the larger groups rather than their ancestors who apparently never diversified much? Again this lack of a clear evolutionary line of descent will be ignored and it shall be assumed that these organisms evolved somehow and apparently are closest to animals chemically, even though they share no similar structures. This leads us to the animal metazoa.
XIII. Formation of Animal Metazoa
The simplest animal metazoans are soft-bodied, sac-like organisms with an opening on one end. These are called porifera or sponges, and they are diploid-dominant like most animals. They are simple because do not possess bodily tissues, which are interconnected cells that perform a particular function. Even in these simple organisms, cells become specialized for complex functions. Porocyte cells form pores, or ostia, to allow water to enter the overall structure. Mytocytes control the size of the pores to regulate the flow of water. Pinacocytes form a leathery exterior to form the ``skin'' of the organism. Choanocyte or collar cells have the tail-like flagella similar to protoza, but used for an entirely new purpose. They beat their flagella to create the current of water through the pores and out the mouth of the sponge. They also have a collar of microvilli that filter particles out of the water. The archaeocyte cells then digest this food within their cells. There are generally many pores to intake water and only one opening, called the oscula, where water exits.
In the interior wall of the sponge called the mesohyl, a gelatinous protein mix holds the cells together. Archaeocytes are amoeboid cells that exist in the mesohyl. They can move about in the mesohyl by streaming their cytoplasm and are responsible for digestion and reproduction of the organism. They also can differentiate into cells that create a skeletal structure for the sponge: the sclerocytes, collencytes, and spongocytes. They also envelope and digest the food caught by the choanocyte. Sclerocytes form spicules made of silicon, collencytes secrete collagen, and spongocytes secrete sponging fibers. These cells grow structures inside the sponge out of the materials they secrete to give the sponge shape and offer some protection from predators.
The sponge is a remarkably durable organism thanks in part to it not being composed of definite tissues. It can however distinguish between its own cells and those of other sponges, even in the same species. If dissembled, the sponge will reassemble itself. It can also reproduce itself as a whole. The archaeocytes are also responsible for asexual and sexual reproduction.
Sponges generally reproduce asexually by fragmentation. Many freshwater sponges, which account for about two percent of sponges, and some saltwater sponges can engage in asexual reproduction. Some archaeocytes begin to eat other cells to gather nutrients and congregate together. The exterior cells secrete a thick covering made of spicules to make a capsule. These cells are called a gemmule, which is highly resistant to negative environmental conditions and freezing. When conditions become favorable, the gemmule sprouts and forms a new sponge by mitosis. Like the spores of protozoan, this is undoubtedly a mechanism to survive harsh conditions and especially freezing in fresh water.
Sponges mainly form from sexual reproduction. Sponges are hermaphroditic, both male and female; however, they only act as one sex at a time. Archaeocytes undergo meiosis to form either flagellated sperm or egg cells. The sperm is collected and released during specific times, so that the sponge appears to be smoking. Some sperm enters the pores of female sponges and is captured by the choanocytes. These go back into an amoeboid form and take the sperm cells to the egg. This is fertilized by the sperm to make a diploid larva. The larva grows into a multicellular mass within the sponge until it is released. It then swims away carried by currents. It soon attaches to a surface and grows into a new sponge.
Choanoflagellates have been studied heavily since the mid-1990's. They are similar to the choanocyte cells within sponges and so are thought to be ancestors of sponges. A small amount of chemical evidence also links this organism to animals, but they have been poorly studied so far. These cells have the collar of cilia for which they are named and some also have a silicon basket formed at the base of the collar.
Originally, it was thought that sponges were merely colonies of protozoa, until Haeckel redefined them as metazoan. William Saville-Kent then proposed that sponges were descendent from colonies of choanoflagellates in his 1880 work, A Manual on Infusoria. This is despite the fact that the archaeocyte cells would seem to be the origin of any precursor to the sponge, since it is this cell that forms all the others including the choanocytes. Coincidently, he then discovered two species that that he termed as missing links between choanoflagellates and sponges. These have not been verified since then. Drawings of the first of these species, sphaeroeca, have a cluster of choanoflagellates attached to a single stalk. Drawings of the second, proterospongia, have clusters of choanoflagellates on the exterior of a gelatinous body that contains other cells in the interior. This would be similar to what one would imagine a primordial sponge would look like. However, since these species are not found in those forms presently, it would not be very scientific to continue using these drawings as evidence without modern findings supporting it. Yet these drawings continually are used for the mere existence of these species and support of the theory on the origin of sponges.
The first animal metazoa with tissues are the Cnidarians. This class includes jellyfish, corals, and sea anemones. These are carnivorous, cup like organisms, which contain cnidocyte or stinging cells. These cells contain organelles called nematocysts that contain a coiled filament. This ejects when touched usually injecting poison into the intruder. They have radial symmetry, which means that their symmetry repeats in radial segments around its center. Bilateral symmetry on the other hand is symmetry across a line down its center. They consist of
RADIAL SYMMETRY BILATERAL SYMMETRY
two layers of cells, the epidermis on outside and gastrodermis on inside, with a jelly-like layer between them called the mesoglea. The center of the ``cup'' is called the gastrovascular cavity where food is drawn in by tentacles around the opening, which serves as both mouth and anus. Their body plan has radial symmetry in the form of polyps or medusa. They contain simple nerve tissue within their bodies. Polyps are stationary forms with tentacles upward and a thin mesoglea like corals. Corals encase themselves in limestone and build up a reef structure from their remains with new corals building on top of the old. Medusa are free floating forms with tentacles pointing downward with a thick mesoglea like jellyfish. Polyps are the asexual stage that reproduces by budding, and medusa are the sexual stage. Medusa release eggs and sperm into water to form z zygote that grows into a ciliated planula larva. This settles to bottom to form a new polyp. Hydras only exist as polyps; jellyfish have the medusa as the dominant stage; and corals and sea anemones have the polyp stage as dominant. A similar class of organisms, the ctenophora or comb jellies that move by eight rows of fused cilia. Lacking the stinging cells of cnidarians, they have sticky cells that hold prey and are hermoaphroditic.
Here there is another large jump that occurs here between the animals with radial and bilateral symmetry. This is generally explained as changes in homeobox genes, which were first discovered in 1983 when by a mutation in one of these genes, caused a leg to grow instead of an antenna on the head of a fly. These are a very short stretch of genes of 180 base bairs to encode 60 proteins that bind DNA. They act as an enzyme to activate other genes by transcription in a cascade to define regions of a forming embryo.
A cluster of these homeobox genes occur in animals that control the formation of the anterior-posterior body axis of those creatures. This cluster is called the hox cluster and the genes within it, hox genes. They occur in a sequential order and their order corresponds to the spatial order of the structures they help form. Thus the genes for the head come first, the thorax next, and the abdomen last. The hox genes control the formation of the ectoderm and the mesoderm, and parahox genes determine the formation of the endoderm. It is assumed that mutations and duplication of these genes are an easy way to cause major alterations in the structure of the body of organisms.
The closest bilateral organisms to the cnidarian in both analysis of hox genes and rRNA studies are small flatworms called acoela. Cnidarians have two clusters to control anterior and posterior sections, acoela have four, and other flatworms possess these four and replications of them. Acoela are soft-bodied flatworms that do not possess an internal digestive cavity. They digest food in vacuoles in a cytoplasm filled area called a syncytium. They lack the bottom basement membrane beneath their epidermis of cnidarians and higher animals. They are hermaphroditic with biflagellate spermatozoa and reproduce by fertilizing each other internally.
However while chemically closest to the cnidarians, there are large differences between the two classes of organisms. The loss of radial symmetry in favor of bilateral is thought to be conserved from the zygote planula stage of cnidarian. However, it simply can not be a mere stalling of development, which again is a remnant of recapitulation theory. All such changes are changes in DNA, yet ignoring that there are large structural differences. The digestive cavity of cnidarians disappear in acoela in favor of a specialized digestive system and reappears later in later animals complete with flagellated cells. Their intercellular matrix of basement membrane beneath the epidermis also disappears to reappear in later animals. Their reproductive method of internal fertilization also forms while the external method of cnidarians reappears in later animals. It seems a poor intermediary.
Yet again, these are only the simplest form of metazoans and do not compare to the complexities that arise in higher forms of plant and animal life. Sponges arise with no distinct ancestor with sexual reproduction that recreates the entire organism. Radial symmetric creatures also arise in a multitude of forms with no distinct ancestor with many more complex forms and life cycle. Furthermore, they lose hox genes from sponges that bilateral organisms somehow regain. The bilateral organisms also seemingly arise with no distinct ancestor and the closest relative to cnidarians, acoela, is very dissimilar. Acoela also seems to lose many features that cnidarians possess only to have them regained by other animals that supposedly descended from it later. The impossibility of this will yet again be ignored and it will be accepted that the sponges evolved separately, flatworms evolved from cnidarians, and all animals evolved from these creatures. Yet evolution must also account for the diversity and origins of all these higher forms of animals. It must explain the mechanisms that formed all the creatures on the earth. This then will now be examined briefly.
XIV. Complexity of the Metazoans
Animals and plants exist in such a wide variety that it seems impossible to think that they could be even distantly related. It seems even more far-fetched that they are all related to these early metazoans. This is far too broad a subject to be encompassed here, so only the basics will be touched upon.
Fungi, plants, and animals all continue the diversification of their internal structures. Their cells form systems within the organism for the first time. Plants and animals do this more so than fungi, and they form the first organs according to evolution. Like organelles in the cell, functions of the organism are compartmentalized rather being performed by large undefined sections of previous organisms. Plants form roots to take in minerals and fluids. They form stems with vascular systems to transport these throughout the plant, and they form leaves to accomplish the majority of the respiration and photosynthesis of the plant. Later, leaves are specialized to form reproductive functions through the formation of flowers.
Animals similarly go through a specialization process. Organs are also formed but on a level much greater than that of plants. Since animals must ingest food in bulk from the outside rather than raw elements like plants do, animals develop more complex arrangements to enable them to interact and sense their environment better and thereby food. They form more complicated digestion forming a canal rather than a sac-like gut with a posterior opening for elimination of wastes. They develop a brain to interpret their sensory signals, and organs to handle the digestion of food and circulation of materials through their bodies. All of these grow specialized and exceedingly complex.
On top of this, organisms form complex relationships with each other. Plants take in the carbon dioxide that animals produce and produce food and oxygen that animals use. Animals produce carbon dioxide for plants and excrete wastes that provide materials for plant growth. Fungi unlock chemicals from plants and animals for use in the environment and some species are food for animals.
More than complex relationships, organisms are absolutely dependent on each other. From protists to plants, fungi, and animals, they are all dependent on each other. Life would be much harder without these relationships and probably could not occur. Symbiotic relationships seem to be the overriding factor of all life, yet how did these relationships occur when the organisms developed not only in different places, but often different eras.
Fungi are one such group of organisms, which have integral relationships with plants. More than a third of all fungi enter into symbiotic relationships with plants. Mycorrhizal fungi grows in and around the roots of plants. They increase the surface area of the roots of plants and some trees by hundreds of times. Their hyphae aid in the transfer of minerals to plants, being better at absorbing and transferring minerals due to their thin mycelium. These fungi also develop antibiotic properties that protect the plant against protists. This relationship is as old as plants, as the earliest known fossils of land plants have mycorrihizal associations.
A wide variety of endophyte fungi form a unique structure called lichens. They combine with a small number of species of algae and sometimes cyanobacteria. Lichens form a three layered organism of an outer fungal cortex of densely packed cells, a middle layer of the algae or cyanobacteria, and a bottom layer of fungal hyphae called the medulla. The fungal components provide support and protection from heat and the environment while absorbing minerals. The fungus also gives the lichen a heavy tolerance to water loss. The protist component provides food, and cyanobacteria also provide nitrogen fixation.
Nutrients passing between the two groups are achieved by the fungus growing hyphae into the area of the photosynthetic cells. These form branches that generally penetrate the cell walls of the algae but do not penetrate their membranes. Algae pass sugar alcohols to the fungi, and cyanobacteria produce glucose. During dry periods, the photosynthetic cells retain their sugars for their own use, and during wet periods they pass along more sugars to the fungi.
Lichens reproduce as a unit rather than individuals. They reproduce asexually by breaking off pieces, which can grow as a new lichen when wet. They can also reproduce sexually as the fungal component does, however the lichen's spores, called soredia, contain a few of the photosynthetic cells encapsulated by the fungus. Wind carries the soredia away to new locations where the lichen can grow again. The lichens show a combined lifeform that reproduces as a unit. Moreover there are no distinct lines of descent other than the component parts. If these organisms became symbiotic by evolution, then it did so numerous times separately achieving similar results.
Fungi are also cultivated by numerous types of insects. Bark beetles use fungus to eat holes in wood to live in and as food for larvae, transport fungus to new homes. Various species of ants also cultivate fungus for food and other uses. Many insects farm fungi for their own uses.
There is also a large category of animals that consume protists, but do not digest them. These protists continue to live and act as symbionts. Both corals and cnidarians are known to harvest a specific species of dinoflagellate, zooxanthellae. These grow inside the gastric sac of the animal providing nutrients for the animal, while the animal provides shelter and a safe place to grow. Many specific protists seem to colonize the digestive tract of many species of animals, and these animals are in fact dependent on these protists. Often, these protists break down the cellulose that the animals eat. Flagellates eat cellulose in the stomachs of their host termites. Spirochetes break down cellulose in the stomachs of their host cows. Even humans are host for protists that provide this function. While mutant E.Coli can be deadly, normal E.Coli in the human body also breaks down cellulose for us, as well as producing vitamin K and some B-complex vitamins and reducing the number of harmful bacteria.
This begs the general question of these complex relationships, how did these animals fare before these relationships developed. If evolution is true, then these relationships must have developed after the younger of the two species evolved. There must have been a time space before. Since the digestion of plant material is absolutely necessary for the survival of these animals, how then did they survive before these protists developed means to survive in the harsh environments of their stomachs and digestive tracts? How did they survive before this colonization even began? Many corals are slow-growing without cultivating protists, how could they survive well before gaining the ability to do this? These questions too shall be ignored for now and it shall be assumed that somehow these relationships evolved allowing the individual organisms to survive and prosper.
XV. Formation of Organs
The formation of organs again becomes problematic for the theory of evolution. They can only form from fortuitous mutations in DNA. These mutations then somehow create cells of a certain type, replicate these cells to form tissues of this particular type. They sometimes further mutate to form complex structures like glands that produce various fluids. These glands then are formed multiple times within the tissue. These glands must also form feedback relationships with their exterior and often in response to the organism as a whole, again by mutations to know when to produce their products, which do not benefit the individual cells directly.
The organs of plants and fungi are merely the separation of their various parts. Plants are separated into their parts: roots, stem, leaf and flower. Fungi are separated into theirs: rhizoids, hyphae, and reproductive parts. All of these parts again show the specialization and compartmentalizing of cell function. Rather than the individual cells performing certain tasks, only cells in particular organs perform them in the majority.
In plants, the roots store chemical energy of the plant in the form of sugars, anchor the plant in the ground, and absorbs nutrients and water from the ground. The leaf produces these sugars by photosynthesis and releases carbon dioxide into the air. The stem transports the materials between leaf and roots and gives the plant support. The reproductive part of the plant takes many forms from simple water and air driven mechanisms to fruit producing flowers that rely on animals to carry seeds.
In fungi, rhizoids anchor the plan, and most of the structure of the fungi occurs in the hyphae. The hyphae perform most of the daily functions of the fungi such as creating and releasing enzymes to digest external matter and transport of material through their cells. They mass to form reproductive organs again in various forms from sacs to mushrooms. These reproductive organs release spores to further the species.
In animals, organs tend to be more complex, being separate units within an animal rather than just their parts. All organ forming animals develop from three original sets of tissues in their embryonic form: an exterior layer of tissue, the ectoderm; a middle layer of tissue, the mesoderm; and the inner layer of tissue, the endoderm. The tissues form by cells migrating to general positions of exterior, middle, and interior. The ectoderm generally forms into the skin of the animal, its nerves, and the epithelium cells under the skin. The mesoderm forms the reproductive system, muscles, connective tissues of the gut, and in advanced animals the skeletal and circulatory systems. The endoderm forms the gut and in more advanced animals the digestive and respiratory systems. Evolutionists like to segregate sponges and cnidarians having no tissues and organs respectively, but this is not entirely true. Both organisms have the most basic organ in their skin with complex methods for taking in food.
Some classification schemes group organisms according to the presence of a coelom, which is the fluid filled cavity between the exterior skin and the organs. They are classified acoelomate, having no coelom; pseudocoelomates, having a coelom with no cellular linings; and coelomates, which have a lined coelom. The purpose of the coelom is to provide a shock-absorbing cushion to the organs. Evolutionists theorize naturally that acoelomate creatures evolved into pseudocoelomates, which further evolved into coelomates. However, again there appears to be evidence that pseudocoelomates do not arrive from a single ancestor and are evolved from coelomates through defective mutations.
The current classification scheme divides bilateral animals into protostomes and deuterostomes. They seem to originate at the same time during the Cambrian explosion and formed two great branches of creatures. Both begin life as a ball of cells called a blastula. It first enfolds to form a central cavity. This opening left by this enfolding is called the blastopore. In
Protostomes Blastula Deuterostomes
Gastrula Gastrula
Gastrulation
Ectoderm
Mesoderm
Endoderm
Mouth Blastopores Anus
Coelom Coelom
protostomes it becomes the mouth, and in deuterostomes it becomes the anus. The protostomes blastula cells also divide spirally specializing as they go. Their body cavity also forms from the mesoderm splitting to form this cavity. The deuterostomes blastula cells divide in a radial manner and do not specialize immediately. The protostomes form all the acoelomate and pseudocoelomate animals. Coelomate animals form in both categories. The protostomes encompass the mollusks, annelids, and arthropods, while deuterostomes encompass the echinoderms and chordates.
There are not many types of animals without a coelom, but one of the few acoelomate animals is the flatworm. This is considered to be among the most basal of bilateral organisms. It is also the one of the first organisms with commonly agreed distinct organs. Their main organs consist of nervous and reproductive organs. The nervous organs which connect interpret the sensory signals of eyespots and nerve cords the coordinate movement. The reproductive organs consist of separate male and female organs, which produce eggs and sperm.
Flatworm Anatomy
Genital Pore Testes Mouth Gut Ovary Nerve Cord Ganglia Eyespot
Pseudocoelomates like roundworms also form an even more complex organ system. Like the flatworm, it also has reproductive and nervous system, but adds a more complex digestive system. Essentially every system becomes more complex and more involved. The organs become more developed.
Roundworm Anatomy
Anus Spicules Uterus Ovary Intestine Nerve Ring Esophagus Mouth
Seminal vesicle Pseudocoelom Vagina Eggs Esophageal Glands Median Bulb Stylet
This follows a general trend toward more complexity as each already present system becomes more involved and complex in various creatures. Simple diffusion of nutrients and oxygen turns into a complex circulatory system. Waste removal generates it own systems, which grows to filter the different types of circulatory systems. Respiratory systems develop to exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide. The digestive system also becomes more complex as well the nervous and reproductive systems. The various functions of each system show a higher progression of organs with increasing compartmentalizing of functions.
Each of these organs and systems however are intricately connected, which forms another problem for evolutionary theory. There are no simple steps toward complexity, but every so-called step invokes other steps that must occur concurrently to be useful. This is because no organ exists independently within the organism. Every organ is involved in feedback systems with the rest of the body. Every organ is dependent on the rest of the body for nourishment, removal of wastes, and the necessary stimulus to start and stop working. The latter is almost always controlled by other parts of the body and may involve several other organs and systems. As an example, the human stomach begins working when the sight and smell of food is received by the nose and eyes. This stimulus is decoded by the brain and compared to memories of such stimulus received in the past to see if this stimulus is appetizing. If so, the brain sends nerve signals to the stomach glands to begin producing acid in anticipation of a meal. All of this occurs involuntary and shows the complex relationships that occur within the body.
Only one organ in particular will be examined in this book, which has been singled out by evolutionists for various reasons. This will be the eye. It is considered one of the most complex organs, not for its basic structure or form, but for its properties. Optics had just been explored in the previous century, and it was the intricacies of this science that made the eye so complex. Therefore Darwin paid particular emphasis on the eye in his work, being one of the few organs he cared to detail its proposed evolution. He believed that the eye formed as a few photosensitive cells in a patch, which would determine whether an area was dark or light. Incremental steps could then account for a slow evolution of the eye to its present form. The spot would then be depressed which would allow the organism to have a small sense of direction of that light. This would continue till only a spot remained allowing light access and direction of light would be absolute. This hole would then form a transparent barrier to protect the interior of the forming eye with a transparent liquid inside to stabilize pressure. A lens would then be added to focus light and make a clearer picture. Lastly a cornea would be added to protect the lens. These steps are illustrated as follows:
Light vs Dark Vague Direction Light Direction Exterior Protection Focused Picture Lens Protection
However, this view is simplistic at best. To begin with, the first eye appears not in an animal, but in a cellular form. The eyespots of various plant and animal cells direct them toward light. This is extremely important for cells that use light to produce food as photosynthetic cells do, whose chloroplasts will not even form correctly without light. These eyespots in the cell use the same chemical that photoreceptors do in animal metazoans. What is strange is that this ability apparently skips the sponges and cnidarians to be used again in the flatworms and more advanced organisms. The reason for this is rather simple, the mere chemical communication that these organisms use to exchange information are not complex enough to take advantage of any increase in sensory information.
To be able to use this new information, a nervous system must arise to acquire and process this information. As Curvier taught, there are no systems in the body that are independent. Any change in the eye must follow a corresponding change in the nervous system. Such as to see a direction of light, the photosensitive cells must spread over a wider area while the cup is deepening and the nervous system must also advance to interpret this new input. A rise in complexity of the eye must follow a correspondent rise in the complexity of the brain or else the advance becomes useless. There are therefore no simple changes within the eye. This changes the small advances in eye from ``simple'' steps to large jumps of brain, nerves and eye structure altogether. The addition of entirely new structures and tissue also seems an unlikely step. The addition of a humor must coincidentally form from a near transparent fluid that is also capable of transporting nutrients to the eye without affecting the light passing through it. The addition of a lens as this would have to again occur by an addition of DNA that produces such a lens in the correct position with accompanying tissues to control it.
In addition to the humor not affecting light passing through it, it must also form structures to equalize pressure with the exterior, especially underwater. Failure to do so would again distort the structure of the eye and make focusing impossible. Fish absorb water directly through their cornea and remove excess salt through their blood. Because of this, the salt level is lower inside the eye than the surrounding water and water should flow out of the eye. Science does not know why, but this does not occur and its eye is kept firm.
This inclusion of a lens adds additional problems to the scenario. The mere presence of a lens does not improve a system of eyesight, but is absolutely guaranteed to make it worse. This is assuming that the random lens generated is transparent as it generally is in all of life. Even so, anyone taking an eye exam can vouch for the complexity of this lens system with the myriad of lenses put before them that only a select combination can correct their eyesight, while the many other combinations will make it worse. A lens will only focus light at one set distance away, and anything farther or closer than that distance will be made blurrier than before. Thus only lenses at a specific refraction to concentrate light on the receptor cells will improve eyesight and then only at a within specific distances from the eye. All lens refractions and at all other distances will be made blurrier. The shape of the lens must also be perfected. Underwater light is increasingly diminished with depth. Ninety percent of light is gone ten meters from the surface and Ninety nine percent is gone within forty meters. To capture the most light in an already dark environment, underwater lenses must protrude from the interior of the eye as light is not refracted till it meets the lens. This is why fish seem to have bulging eyes.
A system must be included with the lens to distort it meaningfully to change the shape of the lens and therefore its focal length to adjust the picture depending on what distance the animal wants to view something at. This demands the development of a low level consciousness that can determine what it wants to look at and therefore can identify objects. It then must develop a reaction system that fluidly changes the shape of the lens to focus on that object. The lens can not be rigid, but flexible enough to change its shape and focal length. Muscles must be attached to the lens that can change the shape of the lens to be able to view the object in question. Faults in this complex system are easy to occur. Some of these faults are experienced daily by people with myopia and hyperopia in that their eyes are not shaped correctly for the lens to focus on. This is similar to a lens not being able to correctly focus. Without corrective lenses, their eyesight shows a lower amount of the problems a non-focusing lens creates. Their eyesight is blurry.
Another problem arises in that the lens typically will invert the image so the forming brain must also flip the image the image to right-side up. The brain must also put the image together correctly in a meaningful way from the now millions of cells each producing one ``pixel'' of the system. All this digital processing takes place fluidly and easily in organisms, which is why even eighteenth century scientists beheld the eye in wonder. For the present generation, they can understand the same problems as we try to get computers and cameras to do the same things as the eye and brain does effortlessly and the immense amount of processing power it takes to do this.
Actual Process of Eyesight in Air
Brain
Cornea
Humor Lens
Muscles
reverts inverted
Furthermore when nature is examined for this actually occurring, surprises are again in store. All of the forms of the eye apparently all form in the relatively short time span of the Cambrian Period. Moreover, it appears to evolve not just once, but several different times in several different forms. Mollusks alone show a range of these supposed steps of eyes including cup eyes, pin-hole eyes, and complex eyes with lenses. A smaller set of mollusks, the cephalopods which include octopi shows the same range. They arise corresponding to the creature's bilateral nature, with two eyes forming at its front end, but often they form with no correspondence to the creature's bilateralism. Clams form many eyes on the inside of their shells, and brittlestars form eyes over the length of their bodies that their brain condenses into one image, forming one large compound eye. Thus, eyes also independently arise in many other groups forming perhaps the largest analogous coincidence for evolution to overcome.
Interestingly, one of Darwin's proposed steps is not found in nature. The step of a contained eye with a humor and no lens is not found in nature. Evolutionists still propose it existed but no evidence was left and no creature presently exists with this structure. In science,
Overwhelming complexity: The Eye
Sensitive
Some Flatworms Spot
Unicellular Life
Parabolic Mirror Mollusks
Cornea
Cephalopods Vertebrates
Arthropods
Ganglia
Suppositional Appositional
Compound Eye Compound Eye
Humor Lens Humor Lens
Visual Cells Lens Brain Lens
Brain Crystalline Cones
this normally means it did not occur, yet they insist it did without evidence. However contrary to this view, there are good reasons why it could not have existed in nature. Any transparent or semi-transparent substance effects light passing through it to some degree. This especially occurs at the boundary of two materials that light travels at different speeds through. Light will bend at their boundary and a lens becomes necessary to correct this bending to allow the light to refocus a clearer image.
Also arthropods, which include insects and crustaceans, have a particularly interesting form of eye called a compound eye. This is essentially multiple eyes that work together to form an image. Each eye forms an image which is combined in the brain to see. There are also two main, distinct kinds of compound eyes that made for regular and low light situations. Supposition compound eyes have no interior walls and refract light from multiple lenses onto a single set of visual cells. Apposition compound eyes are made for regular light that shine light from one lens onto one set of visual cells. There are a multitude of varieties of arthropod eyes that seem to be very specialized for the particular use of their owners. Flying insects have many more sections in their eyes and often binocular vision to judge distance. Many arthropods can only judge short distances in limited dimensions
Additional problems arise in evolutionary theory at the supposed transition from water to air. Any creature making this transition would find its sight extremely blurred. Fish eyes possess a spherical lens to account for the lower refraction of light from water to eye. In air the transition from air to the eye is about four times greater. Their eyes would not be able to focus. Land animals have a flattened lens to compensate for this, but any transitional animal would have been at a serious disadvantage. Frogs have a severe myopia and are unable to focus farther than 6 inches at best. Turtles seem to have lenses based on their environment with sea turtles having a round lens, which would have had to revert to their earlier form, and land turtles having a flat lens. Further problems could develop from if the transitional animal were anything but surface aquatic creature as their eyes would be specialized to maintain pressure and would deform or burst in air.
This is of course ignoring the many protective devices that accompany the eye also. A constrictive iris that limits the amount of light when light becomes too intense, which develops as far back as amphibians. The inverted retina of vertebrates removes the heat from the eye by passing light to prevent overheating of the sensory cells. Even, the outer and inner eyelids of many creatures protect the eye from abrasion and damage.
Thus, eyes arise suddenly in a number of forms corresponding to the multitude of body plans that also arose suddenly.
XVI. Evolutionary reduction
However as stated before, evolution is a reductive process. It causes the overall reduction of genes available to future generations. It further causes the appearance of recessive mutations, which is why purebred animals have a plethora of diseases and inbred is such a derogatory term. This is the process that produces races within species and may divide species into smaller sub-units. However, this reductive process can also be taken to the extreme. As genes are lost, sometimes the reductive nature of evolution can be made manifest. Organisms lose important genes related to their body structures and progressively become degenerate. This process is particularly acute among parasitic species. Since they get their nourishment from their hosts, they develop primarily toward this end and often seem to lose any capabilities to function otherwise. There are several examples of this degeneracy within nature. However, because of this degeneracy from known forms to simpler organisms, evolutionary theory frequently tends to mistake these organisms as evolutionary links to even more simple species. Instead of being ancestors of known species, they are in fact they are merely degenerate descendents of these species. A few of these examples shall be examined.
Archezoa have already been mentioned, but are a good example of degenerate unicellular, parasitic animals. They have all lost their mitochondria, but genes associated with them remain proving their once higher complexity. Parabasalids have organelles called hydrogenosomes that seem to have transformed from mitochondria. Microsporidia have one of the smallest genomes of eukaryotes, but are now considered to be a degenerate form of fungus. Each of these was considered to be ancient forms of eukaryotes, but proved to be degenerate forms of more advanced organisms.
Myxozoa is another parasite in fish and bryozoans. They form valved spores that contain sporoblast cells and polar capsules to anchor it to the host. The sporoblast then enter the host's cells and form a multicellular plasmodium. Cells in the plasmodium then form new spores. Their early pattern of cell division resembles three layered metazoans, and their polar capsules resemble the stinging cells of cnidarians. DNA analysis places them close to bilateral creatures like flatworms, and there is one species that has myxozoan spores but is bilateral and contains longitudinal muscle cells. Are these then a degenerate form of flatworm or cnidarian?
Choanoflagellates are also thought by some scientists to be degenerate forms of sponges. This would explain their resemblance and chemical similarity to the collar cells of sponges. If they were a degenerate form of sponges, then it would also be a much better explanation of their similarities than being a ancestor of sponges. It would be far easier for these cells to lose their ability to adhere within a sponge or even remnants of sponge pieces rather than evolving to form all the many other cells within sponges.
Placazoa is also a simple metazoan with only four cell types, no tissues like sponges, and an indeterminate sexual cycle. They appear to be a small slug-like creatures that were first found on the walls of an aquarium. Their zygotes do not appear to be able to divide more than 64 cells and seem to reproduce solely by division of the organism. These again are considered to be ancestral forms of metazoan by some, but these creatures produce neurotransmitters and possess nerve related genes similar to cnidarians. It seems probable that these also are degenerate creatures.
Rhombozoa and orthonoctids are small wormlike, ciliated parasites that inhabit cephalopods and other invertebrates. They are composed of only twenty to thirty cells, consisting of only two layers of cells. They have remnants of a third layer and are thought to be descendent from organisms with three layers. They also have no internal organs except for a gonad. Both of these are considered by some to be degenerate forms of flatworms.
If all of these organisms are degenerate forms of higher organisms as strong cases have been made for with multiple lines of evidence, then this effectively removes many examples of intermediate links between protists and sponges, precursors to flatworms, and precursors to metazoans. This makes perfect sense with the dominant force of evolution being reductive. The end result of all reductive forces is degeneracy of more complex organisms, and appears particularly acute in parasitic forms as shown here. Moreover, it opens the door that many ``primitive'' organisms are in fact degenerate forms of higher organisms. With the increasing removal of these primitive organisms, the case for evolution is again weakened as their removal eliminates many of the intermediate and ancestral forms of many animals. This evidence and all the above evidence against evolution and the seemingly impossibility of the theory can not be ignored any longer.
XVII. Conclusions
As shown, the fact that many species of organisms seem adapted to their environments is probably not the result of evolution, but merely the progressive movement of organisms to environments that suit them better. The facts of creatures in geographically separate areas with seemingly suboptimal environments between them seem to infer that such migrations exist. Current seasonal migrations of creatures also support this. Natural selection then is no longer needed to explain these adaptations. Furthermore, mere chance and catastrophic events have been the most important forces in shaping organisms. Natural selection seems a minor force if present at all.
Evolution has taken the natural process of races forming and projected this idea and its evidence on the entirety of their theory of common descent. This process of microevolution is defined by the genetic laws of descent discovered by Mendel and shows that this process of forming races is reductive in that it is a process of losing genes.
The only additive process is that of mutation, which consists of random processes. This can equally delete more of the genome or add genes. However, it is far more likely to upset the genetic code and cause defects to appear. The production of useful genes is almost impossible. Also, the loss of genes by microevolution occurs far more rapidly than the formation of new genes by mutations. Thus, the overall effect of evolution is a reductive one.
This can progress to a process of degeneration as shown by several parasites, where evolution strips them of even basic organs to form organisms like the former archezoa, myxozoa, placazoa, and rhombozoa from more advanced organisms. These organisms become stripped of their bodily tissues, probably by mutation to form relatively simple creatures that do not show the more advanced structures of their ancestors. They lose entire cell layers and essentially specialize in merely being parasites and reproducing.
Macroevolution is the process of species dividing from existing species and extends the process of microevolution. This process is extremely rare event caused by changes in mating or mutations that do not allow individuals to mate with members of their parent species. This is rare and unlikely as changed individuals would have no one to mate with unless the same exact change occurs to other individuals at the same time and place and to the opposite gender. This must further occur to numerous individuals to allow enough individuals for enough genetic diversity to produce a healthy population. The second problem of species creation is that the main method for achieving this, mutation, overwhelmingly tends to be harmful to the organism. Both of these problems make macroevolution rare at best.
Evolution in general is further hindered in lower species by their methods of vegetative reproduction or reproduction by binary fission. The direct copying of these organisms makes mutations less likely and also microevolutionary changes from sexual recombination impossible. This is even more evident in bacteria as their small, precise genome makes mutations far more harmful.
Furthermore as microevolution is a reductive process in that it loses genes from populations, mutation can be either an additive or further reduce the genetic material of the individual. Mutation also occurs much less frequently than microevolutionary changes. Therefore, the reduction of genes far exceeds the additive processes over time and further emphasizes the fact that evolution is overall a reductive process over time. All of these facts makes macroevolution unlikely.
It is hard to believe that these improbable macroevolutionary events and generally harmful mutations turned apes into humans. It is harder to believe that a series of mutations turned flatworms into fish. Since all these animals are fully functioning creatures, any mutation to their genetic code usually produces undesirably results. Mutations to the hox genes produce even more aberrant results: organs develop in the wrong place and often results in miscarriage among vertebrates. Their ability to produce proteins and their structure and abilities may be compromised. That immense mutations occurred to turn these creatures into higher forms of life and ultimately humans boggles the mind. Yet to believe these creatures evolved through successive mutations to form human beings without said humans being riddled with undesirable mutations that do not cripple their ability to live is impossible to believe.
This is further supported by the evidence against theses changes in that organisms remain fairly static in the fossil record over immense periods of time. Natural selection also shows its overall weakness as a selecting force in the overall stability in the fossil record. It is a force to thin the herd of the weakest rather than enhance the strongest. Also according to the fossil record, catastrophes seem to be the overwhelming compelling force in evolution not natural selection, both of which are again negative forces cutting back on the overall gene populations.
The theory of common descent is further hampered by the lack of plausible theories of origins. However, this does not stop scientists from trying. Lab experiments using known properties of chemistry are used to fix the results of reactions to produce organic chemicals and simple membranes. Experiments with fortuitous chemicals to begin with are allowed to react, are separated, and cooled artificially to form an extremely small amount of basic organic chemicals like amino acids. Further experiments take pure amino acids in fixed amounts, separate them further from the majority of these products, separate them further from water, heat them at high temperatures, separate them again from the heat and add them to cold water to form simple membranes from the proteins that form. These experiments' products are then held up as an example of proof of creation of organic chemicals and early cells, which sounds good when removed of their intricate steps and unnatural methods. The latter experiment seems a good trick if one is unaware that it is only a simple hydrophobic effect.
These experiments assume the absence of oxygen as a gas despite the element being present in abundance in the ground and vast quantities of it are present in the oceans of water. These oceans are assumed to form by small accretions from space, despite the fact that water can break down into oxygen by lighting and ultraviolet light. This is because oxygen would destroy organic chemicals. Without oxygen, there would also be no ozone and there would be no means to block ultraviolet light from scouring the surface of the Earth. This ultraviolet light would also break down any organic chemicals and also turn water into oxygen gas. No experiments explain how these factors allowed any early cells or organic chemicals to form. Furthermore, the limited number of amino acids from the many possible that are generally used by life further adds to the difficulties to origins. The one-sided chirality of these molecules is also unexplained. No mechanism is offered for their overwhelming presence in life.
Yet even with the lackluster and contrived production of a small amount of amino acids and simple membranes, these are nothing like actual living cells. It would be like saying that bits and sections of drywall were created and this proves houses formed by themselves. Yet even simple cells are massively more complex than houses. Cells create their own enzymes to create a complex series of reactions to sustain themselves. They do so at structures called ribosomes, which they also create. The information for creating these proteins and the structure of the cell itself is contained within a strand of DNA. A complex process transfers this information to the ribosome to form proteins.
Add to these facts that the simplest cells have the most compact DNA that are almost entirely devoted to their life processes and protein replication, that it hard to believe it arose by chance with the lack of repetitions, errors, and useless sections that undoubtedly be present in piecemeal origin of any type. Cells are the primary example of overwhelming complexity. Evolution could not have formed them. Hence, the formation of organic chemicals is contrived and improbable even with both a fortuitous atmosphere and an unlikely evolutionary theory of planetary development.
Moreover, these great innovations would all have to occur in that first cell. It would not only have to form all these wonderful structures and chemical pathways, but would have to be able to reproduce. It would have to develop the mechanism to duplicate its DNA and synchronize this with the means of dividing the cell in two. This further defines the simple cell as a irreducibly complex structure. It could not have formed piecemeal or in small steps. All these structures have to be present to form a living cell capable of reproducing. It could not have formed by evolution.
Add to this that this first simple cell would have to possess the genome from which all the rest of life evolved. This simple, small, and compact genome containing only the information for the functions and proteins of this one cell supposedly evolved to the genome of all life in all its forms. This reductive process of evolution and catastrophes somehow managed to expand a thousand-fold and add the abilities to generate proteins for its future organelles, as well as expand to contain the code to form multicellular organisms and specialization of cells. This all occurs from a process that overwhelmingly reduces the number of genes. It seems rather amazing.
It makes the evolutionists continued justifications of evolutionary processes almost laughable. Again and again, evolutionary justifications are made for a particular change because it creates a benefit to the organism. However, hypothetical benefits do not create plausible events. If this were true, then every human being would have superpowers. If such justifications were in any sense plausible then all creatures would form the above benefits, yet they too do not. The
In any event, since simple cells produce by fission making direct copies of themselves, they are unlikely to evolve much due to their precise DNA and the only mode for evolutionary change is mutations caused by radiation or chemicals, which would cause damage to the cell as a whole. Complex cells seem to arise spontaneously with no evolutionary development. They appear with nucleus, microtubules and organelles with no precursors. The only theory to account for any of these structures, SET, fails to account for the intense differences between mitochondria, plastids, and bacteria in their membranes or amount of DNA. The utter dependence these organelles have on their cells for survival is also unexplained as well as the advanced transport mechanisms to receive the necessary proteins from their cells. No explanation is likely for the internal membranes of chloroplasts. Their evolution too seems unlikely. The sudden multiplication of size of the cell and DNA is also unexplained.
This complex, efficient, multistage and novel form of reproduction of mitosis is also unexplained. This process also could not have arisen from chance. The existence of chromosomes and their method of replication that takes into account their increased size and the means of separation by spindle is a further novel characteristic that is unexplained and must have arisen at the same time as the first protist cells. Also, the fact that this new means of reproduction also seems to accompany in all forms another multistage, efficient and complex form of reproduction in meiosis is also unexplained. The fact this quickly becomes associated with sexual reproduction lacks explanations for its origins also. The protists arise seemingly with all these novel characteristics and without any intermediate ancestors. The consensus is that all their organelles and traits arose quickly within the first protists. This sudden appearance of many differing abilities and structures does not agree with any mechanism of evolution and also forms another overwhelmingly complex problem for evolution.
Next these protists managed to gather together in groups to somehow form the multicellular creatures, the metazoans. The only likely hypothesis of how this happened is the colony theory of Haeckel based on recapitulation. It is further based on Lamarckian ideas of cooperation being passed down to the next generation. Any change to form metazoans must impossibly come from changes in the genetic code. These changes must not make the individual cells cooperate, but fuse their identity into the larger structure. They gain the ability to recognize the cells within the larger structure and cells become subordinate to the good of the whole. These cells quickly give up their ability to fend for themselves. Cells must depend on others to capture and create food, and they die if they fail. These cells also gain the ability to change their form depending on the location within the organism as it grows. These aid the metazoan by specializing in function and forming select tissues to perform these functions, such as protective structures, digestive structures, and even remarkably reproductive structures.
These new organisms immediately gain the ability to reproduce the structure as a whole through sexual means. One cell no longer divides into another daughter cell, but they form structures to form special cells that replicate the whole organism. This process also co-opts sexual reproduction in this reproduction of the entire organism. This also produces exterior responses that essentially form mating behavior that maximize reproductive behavior. Even the basic sponges somehow decided genetically to release sperm at distinct times and coordinate their behavior.
Surprisingly, these new metazoans form not just once with all these abilities, but several times in fungus, plant, chromista, and animals groups as well as possible subgroups. Not only have that but their first evidence all appeared within one grouping of strata during the Cambrian period. Many types of animal body types all appear within a few million years called the Cambrian explosion. This would mean macroevolution occurring on a scale never achieved again and at rates never seen. Excuses are made that this evolution occurred long before the evidence showed, but this is assumption without evidence. The evidence undeniably shows a massive appearance of many different kinds of metazoans in many almost all body plans that exist at the very beginning of life.
Thus metazoans arise suddenly in many forms in many groups all around the same period of time. They gain the ability to specialize cells to form tissues with distinct functions ignoring the individual good of the cell for the good of the whole. They also gain the ability to reproduce the entire organism through sexual means that are coordinated between members of the species. Like the original magic prokaryote that formed life and the magic protists that form compartmentalization of functions in organelles and more complex DNA and reproduction in many different forms, so now magic metazoans suddenly appear with no previous steps to further compartmentalize function in individual cells.
This compartmentalizing trend continues as metazoans become more complex. As creatures grow in size, tissues form organs in many different forms. These organs concentrate the former functions of cells on a macroscopic level by replicating and forming structures to form these organs. These organs operate in cooperative systems to function properly. Feedback mechanisms form between organs and systems making them operate more efficiently. These all arise suddenly also, with many systems and basic organ forms arising also in the Cambrian period. The magic metazoans thus also create more magic forming these organs and systems suddenly with again no precursors in multiple forms acquiring similar systems during an extremely short period of geological time.
The further rise in complexity beyond even the boundaries of organisms continues in the rise of symbiosis. All creatures are dependent on others for their survival, and many organisms develop mutually cooperative relations, which they would survive poorly without, such as corals farming cyanobacteria, fungi enhancing plant root system or insects feeding off of and pollinating flowers. The examples of such relationships are endless and the mutual survivability of each organism in these relationships is doubtful without one partner. This further complicates an evolutionary scheme since each partner must exist at the same time as the other, and science and logic shows evolution can not achieve this. Furthermore, there are no good explanations for how these relationships began or evolved together.
Evolutionary attempts are further hampered by the current and possible future removal of degenerate organisms. Many metazoan parasites have degenerated to extremely simple states and have been mistaken by ardent evolutionists to be ancestral forms. This has occurred on the cellular and metazoan levels. Further analysis could reveal the loss of still more contrived evidence of believed transitional forms. This continues the historical trend of evolution to continual lose organisms believed to be intermediate between classes. The loss of degenerate organisms and the loss of series organisms being removed to branches together weaken the case of evolution.
History further shows the continual push of organisms from the original tree structure of intermediates evolving into end forms to the bush structure of only end forms. This makes evolution impossible. Common ancestors slowly begin to disappear under the evidence of chemistry. It forms contradictions to the presumed evolutionary ancestry of many previous decades. More and more organisms are pushed to be entirely divergent from other lifeforms, yet evolutionists would have the world believe in the myth of common descent and common ancestors.
Yet is it any less impossible to believe than that cells formed from lifeless chemicals, or that eukaryotic cells formed from a massive leap from prokaryotic cells, or that these somehow gained the genetic material to form fully functioning metazoans. The final conclusion can only be that while evolution occurs and species do subdivide into races, there could be no way that life could initially form and then evolve into all species. The formation of pools of organic molecules is unlikely. The formation of complex prokaryotic cells from these molecules seems implausible. The development of this one bacterium into all bacteria is further impossible. The development of eurykarotic cells from endosymbiosis seems unlikely, and the spontaneous formation of metazoans and sexuality seems plain impossible. The specialization involved in the formation of organs and the diversity of species of animals, plants and fungi by mutation is just unbelievable. Since these processes can not seemingly have occurred, all life can not have descended from protozoan. The theory of common descent thereby fails.
In the next chapter, other theories of evolution linked by the desire for a grand theory on scales greater than the terrestrial will be examined. Yet the central reason for the theory of common descent remains unanswered. Why is there such a great similarity in all forms of life? A plausible answer to this will be looked at in the last chapter.
And nope. Now you're just spouting Creationist drivel. That's been debunked too often to bear repeating yet again to another ignorant twit who won't listen.
And nope. Now you're just spouting Creationist drivel. That's been debunked too often to bear repeat
I notice you don't point to any examples, all of which I documented in mine. Just dismissing something is total evolution religion sort of thing to do. Lolz
I notice you don't point to any examples, all of which I documented in mine. Just dismissing someth
And by your few minutes apart comments on nearly 500 pages, I find you incredibly dishonest. How is the part showing how bacteria in no way could EVER evolve in step by step progression to eukaryotes without dying? Is that creationist drivel you have EVER heard before anywhere? so you are being dishonest and I doubt you even read this.
Further that same step by step progression is challenged elsewhere in this work with the development of the eye. Most forms of eye were developed rather early in fossil history, most in first supposed million years during cambrian explosion. Here's a prediction of creation theory...the blood vessels in fish are behind the retina while all land vertebrates will be above the retina to absorb heat. I know this only in humans, but guessing it is in reptiles, but can't find anything on internet. The reason Darwin's progression of eyes from one form to another is one in the middle is optical implausible. The fluid filled vitrous with no lens. This is optically inferior to pin hole camera eye, and one with adjustable lens...and exists nowhere in nature, but a necessary step in this supposed progression, that exists no where in fossil record either. But you didn't actually read this did you, and think its creationist drivel, but you believe what people in ties told you, and thats somehow not drivel because??? You never bothered to think.
I am sure you think you are very intelligent. So far no evidence to back that up. I have 500 page book researched and cited which you claim is drivel probably because its over your head. Do you know what eukaryotes are without looking it up? Book explained differences :P
And by your few minutes apart comments on nearly 500 pages, I find you incredibly dishonest. How is
I read the whole mess before doing the comments. And yes, the 'can't go to eukaryote' is drivel I have seen before. You completely ignore the actual hypothesis of symbiotic bacteria combining in your supposed 'proof'.
I'll admit that I've never seen the idea that somehow visual receptors have to go through a nonexistent stage between pinhole camera and lensed camera. That bit of idiocy does seem to be unique to you. And you obviously didn't check; all vertebrates have vessel-first retinas, while mollusks have receptor-first ones. Common descent predicts that all descendants from the original developer of a complex structure will have the same form of said structure unless it can be gradually improved as it changes; since this is a fundamental structure, it can't be reversed easily and has persisted in spite of its disadvantages. Evolution does not predict that a lineage will always develop an optimum structure - merely that it will gradually improve, even if it's not on a path to an optimal result.
And yes, I have seen nearly all of this before, on various Creationist websites. Looking them up and rewriting them into one big pile of ignorance does not constitute 'research'.
I read the whole mess before doing the comments. And yes, the 'can't go to eukaryote' is drivel I ha
No actual I don't miss the theory of endosymbiosis, it's discussed in this chapter that you did not read. It is actually a theory only to explain the existence of mitochondria and not the eukaryote itself. Maybe you should actually read this before showing yourself a fool.
And actually wrong again, the humor filled stage with no lens was made up by Darwin in origin of species. So my idiocy right? You are a fool. Evolution does NOT predict that species will "improve" thats a quasi religious progressive evolution belief. Parasites generally devolve because they don't need a lot of their original structure. One questions whether this is genetic or morphological. A human will atropy all muscles that aren't used fairly quickly, while those raised in low oxygen conditions will develop larger lungs and more intensive blood vessels, neither of which is genetic.
Well considering a lot of this is novel ideas that I have never seen on a creationist site (I tend to look more at the evolutionist propaganda ones) I think you are lying. Find one site that details how transformation from bacteria to eukaryotes is impossible and gives citations to main stream science. The biggest objection is addition of x10 DNA, transformation from circular DNA to chromosomes, and the creation of 2 types of replication and all the many structures needed to accomplish that reproduction AND it did it in same way in several different kinds of eukaryotes with differing modifications, like a creator was making car models off same basic design, with differing cell membranes and addition of new organelles. I gather you are kinda dull on biology, since your only argument, is nah uh creationist propaganda rather than REAL SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIONS.
No actual I don't miss the theory of endosymbiosis, it's discussed in this chapter that you did not
Not quite sure how you read 'improvement' as 'more complex' - getting rid of unnecessary baggage is an improvement in biochemical terms, and parasites are masters of it.
I've seen nearly all of this on creationist sites/videos/talks, if not all in one humongous article. Your failure to do (or admit to doing) the research doesn't change that. Heck, a lot of the time you use the same pseudoscience terms. Macro- and micro-evolution, forex. No actual biologist uses that.
And yes, there are questions about some of the necessary transitions. This is research territory, not disproof. Your inability to come up with a solution (when you're biased against finding one in the first place) is not evidence that the overall theory is wrong.
Not quite sure how you read 'improvement' as 'more complex' - getting rid of unnecessary baggage is
see you dodged the eukaryote argument....lolz...any reason why? Mmmhmm also dodged the humor filled eye being proposed by Darwin and not a "fantasy" of mine. You are making yourself seem more and more like a fool. If youve seen this on other sites, how come you didnt have a good response other than to ignore because you had no response, because their is NONE.
You said improve, not me and then you lie and said I said it means more complex. I was correcting your use of language and GAVE the example of parasites as example against progressive evolution. So my example of your wrongthink is now used against me? LOL you are so disingenuous.
ALL OF THIS IS CITED from scientific sources in original document which you can download and see the citations, but thanks for another lie I have not done the research, or youve just too lazy to look. Well if I rewrote this, I would use morphological changes, microevolution and macroevolution. What problem do you have with someone making descriptive terms. *I* invented the morphological term to cover nongenetic changes in response to environment and physiological inputs, so tell me youve seen that term on creationist sites.
There ARE no necessary step by step transitions. Its not research territory, its UNKNOWN. Not even ideas, because its physically impossible, much like cells forming in first place. The chemistry does not work to allow it. This is not saying the idea could not be right (I think its impossible given biochemistry) but its NOT SCIENCE. You have to have testible ideas to be science, not we have a general idea...and you should accept it, even thought no explanations of steps....but WE WILL FIND THEM IN FUTURE...that's a cult talking.
see you dodged the eukaryote argument....lolz...any reason why? Mmmhmm also dodged the humor filled
