impossibility of plant cells' having evolved from a bacterial
cell has not prevented evolutionary biologists from producing
speculative hypotheses. But experiments disprove these.331
The most popular of these is the "endosymbiosis" hypothesis.
This hypothesis was put forward by Lynn Margulis
in 1970 in her book The Origin of Eukaryotic Cells.
In this book, Margulis claimed that as a result of their communal
and parasitic lives, bacterial cells turned into plant and
animal cells. According to this theory, plant cells emerged
when a photosynthetic bacterium was swallowed by another bacterial
cell. The photosynthetic bacterium evolved inside the parent
cell into a chloroplast. Lastly, organelles with highly complex
structures such as the nucleus, the Golgi apparatus, the endoplasmic
reticulum, and ribosomes evolved, in some way or other. Thus,
the plant cell was born.
As we have
seen, this thesis of the evolutionists is nothing but a work
of fantasy. Unsurprisingly, it was criticized by scientists
who carried out very important research into the subject on
a number of grounds: We can cite D. Lloyd332,
M. Gray and W. Doolittle333, and R. Raff
and H. Mahler as examples of these.
The endosymbiosis hypothesis is based on the
fact that the mitochondria of animal cells and the chloroplasts
of plant cells contain their own DNA, separate from the DNA
in the nucleus of the parent cell. So, on this basis, it is
suggested that mitochondria and chloroplasts were once independent,
free-living cells. However, when chloroplasts are studied
in detail, it can be seen that this claim is inconsistent.
A number of points invalidate the endosymbiosis
1- If chloroplasts, in particular, were once
independent cells, then there could only have been one outcome
if one were swallowed by a larger cell: namely, it would have
been digested by the parent cell and used as food. This must
be so, because even if we assume that the parent cell in question
took such a cell into itself from the outside by mistake,
instead of intentionally ingesting it as food, nevertheless,
the digestive enzymes in the parent cell would have destroyed
it. Of course, some evolutionists have gotten around this
obstacle by saying, "The digestive enzymes had disappeared."
But this is a clear contradiction, because if the cell's digestive
enzymes had disappeared, then the cell would have died from
lack of nutrition.
2- Again, let us assume that all the impossible
happened and that the cell which is claimed to have been the
ancestor of the chloroplast was swallowed by the parent cell.
In this case we are faced with another problem: The blueprints
of all the organelles inside the cell are encoded in the DNA.
If the parent cell were going to use other cells it swallowed
as organelles, then it would be necessary for all of the information
about them to be already present and encoded in its DNA. The
DNA of the swallowed cells would have to possess information
belonging to the parent cell. Not only is such a situation
impossible, the two complements of DNA belonging to the parent
cell and the swallowed cell would also have to become compatible
with each other afterwards, which is also clearly impossible.
3- There is great harmony within the cell which
random mutations cannot account for. There are more than just
one chloroplast and one mitochondrion in a cell. Their number
rises or falls according to the activity level of the cell,
just like with other organelles. The existence of DNA in the
bodies of these organelles is also of use in reproduction.
As the cell divides, all of the numerous chloroplasts divide
too, and the cell division happens in a shorter time and more
4- Chloroplasts are energy
generators of absolutely vital importance to the plant cell.
If these organelles did not produce energy, many of the cell's
functions would not work, which would mean that the cell could
not live. These functions, which are so important to the cell,
take place with proteins synthesized in the chloroplasts.
But the chloroplasts' own DNA is not enough to synthesize
these proteins. The greater part of the proteins are synthesized
using the parent DNA in the cell nucleus.334
While the situation envisioned by the endosymbiosis
hypothesis is occurring through a process of trial and error,
what effects would this have on the DNA of the parent cell?
As we have seen, any change in a DNA molecule definitely does
not result in a gain for that organism; on the contrary, any
such mutation would certainly be harmful. In his book The
Roots of Life, Mahlon B. Hoagland explains the situation:
You'll recall we learned
that almost always a change in an organism's DNA is detrimental
to it; that is, it leads to a reduced capacity to survive.
By way of analogy, random additions of sentences to the
plays of Shakespeare are not likely to improve them! …The
principle that DNA changes are harmful by virtue of reducing
survival chances applies whether a change in DNA is caused
by a mutation or by some foreign genes we deliberately add
The claims put forward by evolutionists are not
based on scientific experiments, because no such thing as
one bacterium swallowing another one has ever been observed.
In his review of a later book by Margulis, Symbiosis in
Cell Evolution, molecular biologist P. Whitfield describes
is the cellular mechanism on which the whole of S.E.T. (Serial
Endosymbiotic Theory) presumably rests. If one prokaryote
could not engulf another it is difficult to imagine how
endosymbioses could be set up. Unfortunately for Margulis
and S.E.T., no modern examples of prokaryotic endocytosis
or endosymbiosis exist…336
Review of Symbiosis in Cell Evolution," Biological Journal
of Linnean Society, vol. 18, 1982, pp. 77-79.
332 D. Lloyd, The Mitochondria of Microorganisms,
1974, p. 476.
333 Gray & Doolittle, "Has the Endosymbiant
Hypothesis Been Proven?," Microbilological Review,
vol. 30, 1982, p. 46.
334 Wallace-Sanders-Ferl, Biology: The
Science of Life, 4th edition, Harper Collins College
Publishers, p. 94.
335 Mahlon B. Hoagland, The Roots of
Life, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1978, p. 145.
336 Whitfield, Book Review of Symbiosis
in Cell Evolution, Biological Journal of Linnean Society,
1982, pp. 77-79.