The following excerpts come from a page on Giardia from an anti-darwinism site and give some more background about the Giardia story. Some comments by Bill Martin as well, all based on his assumption that the endosymbiotic theory is true. Again, the finding of mitochondrial proteins in mitosomes is more evidence for a eukaryotic origin of mitochondria. Somehow, the finding which contradicts the endosymbiotic theory is twisted so that they are remnant mitochondria.
Here, a summary of the endosymbiotic claim. Indeed, it is an imaginary process with no direct fitness drive, no intermediates or even putative intermediates:
Evolutionists assume that the origin of these structures that separate eukaryotes from prokaryotes lies in the common and parasitic life of the early prokaryotes. This is a violation of all kinds of biological, physical and chemical laws. According to the claim, an early bacterium-like cell swallowed another, and a common life then began with no digestion taking place. As a result of this imaginary process it is claimed that the guest cell gradually underwent a change such as to develop a nucleus and organelles of the eukaryotic cell.
Now, however, an article published in the 20 May 2004 edition of the journal Nature (1), has revealed that Giardia does in fact possess mitochondria, albeit highly reduced in dimension, and that it is an error to ascribe the organism the status of a “missing link.” The article, written by Jonathan Knight, deals not only with findings that remove this “missing link” status from Giardia, but also the resistance mounted by evolutionary biologists in the face of the way these findings totally invalidated their imaginary trees of life. According to this, molecular parasitologist Jorge Tovar of Royal Holloway, a college of the University of London in Egham, Surrey, and his team encountered proteins known to be associated with mitochondria in other eukaryotes, and furthermore determined that these proteins were clustered together in specific locations within the organism’s cells. The researchers investigated these spots under electron microscopy and encountered tiny sacs with two membranes like mitochondria, although smaller in size. In addition, iron-sulphur accumulations known to be linked to the mitochondria’s energy producing activities within the sacs were also encountered. All this reveals the invalidity of the evolutionist claim to the effect that Giardia lacks a mitochondrion. These words from William Martin, a researcher into molecular evolution at Heinrich Heine University in Düsseldorf, Germany express this fact: “Giardia’s place as intermediate stage in standard schemes of eukaryotic evolutionary history is no longer tenable.”
The following is a nice way to treat criticism in science, you ridicule your opponents.
However, some evolutionists still insist on not accepting Tover’s conclusions. It appears, however, that this resistance is based not on the existence of any scientific evidence but on the internal distress they feel. Martin states that these people refuse to accept the conclusions since they have spent long years working on entirely contrary assumptions. He than adds, “They don’t want it [Giardia] to have mitochondria because it spoils their soup… This thinking is deeply ingrained” (3)
Not everyone just agrees with this, as the writer from Darwinsm watch rightly observes. Devoid of any scientific justification and just-so stories, characterizing for( contemporary) evolutionary science:
It matters little whether certain evolutionists refuse to accept the findings concerning Giardia; this deeply ingrained thinking, the evolutionist claims about the origin of the eukaryote cell in other words, has no scientific justifications and consists merely of a dogmatic myth. The claims made by evolutionists in this field have not been shaped by scientific experiments and the results of those experiments. Such a phenomenon as one bacterium swallowing another has never been observed. The molecular biologist Whitfield describes the situation thus:
Prokaryotic endocytosis 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… (4)
As we have seen, this thesis lacks any scientific justification and is also impossible to test. Lewin and Lenski admit that this thesis, devoid of any scientific value, is merely one of the evolutionists’ “Just-So” stories:
We have made a number of general and specific statements about the Nature and direction of coevolution in bacteria and their viruses and plasmids…. Most of these statements about how things came to be are no more than microbial Just So Stories. As is the case with other evolutionary phenomena, there is no way to formally emonstrate that the suggested pathways are indeed the actual ways things came to be.(5)