Mitochondria

If there is no origin of mitochondria, then evolution cannot logically be possible.

Mitochondria are structures inside cells that are called the ‘powerhouses’ of the cell because this is where all the chemical reactions happen that give us the energy we need for life. Without mitochondria there is no life. So how do evolutionists tell us mitochondria came to be? Well, evolutionists do not know and do not agree. There are two main theories, each of them would make the other one not true and there is no agreement. This (again) is not the creationists disagreeing with the evolutionists; this is the evolutionists not agreeing with each other.

The article, “The origin of mitochondria” published in the journal Nature Education has tried to explain this. The main difference in the two theories is the controversy whether the first life form to have mitochondria was a prokaryote or a eukaryote. Let’s look at the theory that it was a eukaryote first. Eukaryotes are able to engulf other life forms in a process called phagocytosis. Here it is presented that the first life form to have mitochondria essentially ‘ate’ another life form and then the two of them lived together forever more. This is exactly the same process of ENDOSYMBIOSIS that will be discussed as controversy number 30, and describes how an algea could have eaten a cyanobacteria and then that algea could do photosynthesis. Here a eukaryotic cell eats another cell and now the new life form has the life it ate, which becomes the mitochondria as part of this new life form. This seems more than odd, but that is exactly what must have happened if this theory is true.

Other evolutionists (and creationists agree) that there are major problems that make this not possible and not true. The biggest of these is the “ROS problem”. ROS’s are reactive oxygen species that are made in the mitochondria when oxygen is used to create the molecules that we use as energy. The problem is that these ROS’s are toxic and would kill the cell. So, the same event that would create a new energy source would kill the life that it started in. It is an unsolvable problem. In life now there are processes that protect the cell from ROS’s, but these never would have been present before there was a need to be protected from ROS’s. Without protection from ROS’s, the cell cannot live when there are ROS’s, because they are so toxic that the cell would die.

The other theory for the origin of mitochondria was that it began in the simpler prokaryote forms of life. This tries to solve the ROS problem because many prokaryotes can live without oxygen, and then the types of mitochondria that do not use oxygen could have been the first mitochondria. This solves the ROS problem because if this life can make energy without oxygen there are no ROS’s, so there are no toxic effects. Then they say the other types of mitochondria that do use oxygen and make ROS’s could later have evolved from these. The problem with this theory is that there is no way that a prokaryote could have another life come to live in it, which would then become mitochondria. The article in Nature Education summarizes this as “The mechanism by which the endosymbiont came to reside within the host is unspecified in this view”. The word “unspecified” means there is absolutely no idea or proposal how this could have happened.

Here are the problems for both theories. Every form of life that uses oxygen for energy must have mitochondria. Mitochondria are in every eukaryote on earth, and also in many prokaryotes. The only life forms that do not have mitochondria are the prokaryotes that do not need oxygen, and these are called anaerobic. Mitochondria logically must have started either in eukaryotes or in prokaryotes. Both of these theories have mitochondria as a separate life form that then gets incorporated into another life form and then the two life forms become one new life form with mitochondria. Some evolutionists think it was in eukaryotes first because only eukaryotes can do phagocytosis and this is the only way to get one life form into another. The problems with eukaryotes first are many and include the ROS problem and the toxicity from the use of oxygen would kill the cell. There are many other problems as well. One of these contradictions is explaining how prokaryotes now have mitochondria if eukaryotes were the first to have mitochondria, but they came after prokaryotes. So that could not be it.

However, the prokaryotes first theory has even bigger problems than the eukaryotes first theory. This is because prokaryotes are so simple that they cannot get another life inside the existing life to become the mitochondria of a new life form. This process of getting one life form inside another life is called phagocytosis and only eukaryotes can do phagocytosis. This is the important point, without phagocytosis another life could never get into the cell to become mitochondria, and prokaryotes do not do phagocytosis. This problem has no explanation. It is “unspecified”. The prokaryotes first theory is only considered because the only other option of eukaryotes first has so many problems that it cannot be solved. Basically, they both seem unreasonable even to evolutionists, so each side tries to figure out the problems of their theory, only because each side is convinced the other theory could not be true. There are only these two theories. It must have been either eukaryotes first or prokaryotes first, and neither can be explained.

One problem both theories have is that even if you get one life form inside another life form, how this could make a new life form with some of the features of both. Evolutionists are claiming that the older life form did not just ‘eat’ the younger life form, the life that was ‘eaten’ became an essential part of the older life that is the source of energy for this new life. The molecular details of how this could have possibly happened have never been explained. Common sense tells us this seems impossible, and we have no details to tell us how it could be possible. It is part of evolution because it must have happened, or evolution could not possibly be true. So if you are already convinced that evolution is true, you just accept that someday this, along with all the other controversies will be explained, but it is an undisputed fact that currently it is not explained.

Another problem both theories have is the DNA of the mitochondria. Many people do not know that mitochondria have their own DNA! This DNA is separate from the DNA of the cell. That is why evolutionists think mitochondria were initially another life that then became part of a new life, living within the new life, but now not as its own life but rather as mitochondria inside the other life. One of many problems with mitochondrial DNA is that each mitochondrion has up to a thousand proteins, and each of these is coded for by DNA. The surprising fact is that the vast majority of these proteins are coded for in the DNA of the cell and not from the DNA of mitochondria. So even though mitochondria have their own DNA, most of the DNA that makes the proteins that allow the mitochondria to work is not from the DNA of the mitochondria at all. This doesn’t make any sense! It has been explained that the DNA was transferred from the DNA of mitochondria to the DNA of the cell inside the cell nucleus, after the mitochondria became part of the new life. There is no reasonable explanation how or why this would be, but it must have happened since it is a fact that most of the DNA for mitochondria are not in the mitochondria.

The problems with the origin of mitochondria are too numerous. Prokaryotes could not get another life into them to become mitochondria because they cannot do phagocytosis, and eukaryotes could never have all of the systems needed to be able to use oxygen as an energy source by mitochondria, even if they could survive the ROS problem. For the eukaryotes first theory to be true the endosymbiotic theory must also be true to get a life inside a life, and this alone is unexplained as controversy number 30. The prokaryote first theory is even worse, with no explanation of how this can happen and is described as “unspecified”. Both of them also have the HUGE mitochondrial DNA problem. Evolutionists cannot agree, and the origin of mitochondria cannot be explained. There are too many problems that cannot be solved. Life cannot exist without energy, and energy comes from the powerhouses which are the mitochondria.

You do not need to be an intellectual powerhouse making a power point presentation to be prepared to say:

If there is no origin of mitochondrial power, then evolution cannot logically be possible.

FURTHER STUDY

There are a multitude of problems with the eukaryotes first theory of the origin of mitochondria. Many of these are discussed in the journal Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews in the article, “Origin and Evolution of the Mitochondrial Proteome” which concludes “The endosymbiotic theory for the origin of mitochondria requires substantial modification” because there are so many problems about how this could have happened that have never been explained. Some of these are scientific details about the lack of other proteins needed for this to happen which are called ATP transfer proteins. Another problem is the existence of other types of mitochondria. There are four types of mitochondria in all, and some of these do not use oxygen. Evolutionists are stumped trying to explain how mitochondria that do not use oxygen came from mitochondria that do use oxygen. These problems, and others, are so big and so insolvable that this theory is not accepted by evolutionists in general. These evolutionists say it just is not true, could not have happened, and have searched for another explanation.

Evolution cannot be true if there is no origin of the mitochondria because it is a necessary condition. Even though it is necessary, it is a published fact in peer reviewed scientific journals that the origin of mitochondria cannot be explained.