Clara

I agree with you there, especially the “seems.” But if such an engine worked so well (and it does), one wonders why it would evolve in one place and not another. What could be more useful or important to a cell than a power supply? And yet the supposedly all-creative and all-powerful Darwinian evolutionary theory has not actually created anything other than mitochondria. And even then, it was simply eaten.

Here we reach the paradox of Darwinian Evolutionary Theory. All examples fit the theory. If there are many features (such as five-fingered hands) appearing among various species who do no otherwise seem related, it a result of necessity, of the creative power of evolution reaching the same design. You might expect this too regarding various cellular power sources, including mitochondria (whether acquired from without or otherwise).

The constant explanation for a feature of a creature is that it “evolved” to fulfill some necessity or useful function. And yet why are humans the only ones with such complex brains? (Yes, dolphins and whales may be included in that.) If they are so bleedin’ useful (and they are), why don’t more animals have them?

If echolocation for seeing in the night is so useful, why don’t humans have that as well? Goodness, think of the distinct advantage any tribe would have with de facto night vision against their enemies (or the dangers of predatory animals in the darkness).

When there are common features (such as the five-fingered hand in monkeys and apes), it is said to be due to a common ancestor. And yet humans have human eyes and insects have a compound eye. In this case, the differences are also supposedly due to evolution. (Different branches on the tree, don’t you know.) But, again, to the best of my knowledge, this “tree of life” motif is hopelessly outdated given the strange and conflicting results that actual analysis of DNA gives. You can, in fact, construct many different trees but no single unambiguous “tree of life” Darwinian evolutionary tree.

This would, of course, fit the Kungian rule: Life is complex. So whatever has created the various species, we might expect a fair amount of complexity involved. And the real world does appear to be far more interesting and complex than the rather stale and outdated Darwinian evolutionary theory — a theory that is still useful on the micro level but seemingly nowhere else.

And “engulfment” is also cited as a means of evolution. Fine. That might have happened as well. So at the end of the day, “evolution” as a scientific theory is so ad hoc and open-ended, it says nothing because it covers everything. Nothing found in nature (including the disjointed fossil record) can falsify Darwinian evolutionary theory.

But I’ll grant you that if one is released from the shackles of this theory then one is free to observe what is actually in nature and perhaps even come up with some reasonable theories. Indeed, mitochondria could have been swallowed by cells long ago and found themselves a good power factory. But as soon as the voodoo phrase “evolved” enters the picture, then you know someone is talking out of his butt. He’s stating assumptions, not facts. He's forwarding ideology, not science.