Evolutionists necessarily believe that the first living organism must have formed spontaneously from non-living chemicals, and that organism had to be very primitive, yet capable of reproducing without all the complicated cellular machinery found in today’s living organisms. But there’s the rub. Living organisms are extremely complex, all the way down to the molecular level, and there’s no evidence to suggest such a primitive organism ever existed, or that life could evolve in a step-by-step process from non-living material.

This article from Phys Org demonstrates some of the slight-of-hand used in evolutionary theory to promote evolution. You see, since there’s no real, observable evidence to support evolutionary theory, evolutionists must resort to speculation about the past, and that’s what we find here.

The headline states, “Bacteria found in hot springs may be closest to mitochondria precursor.”

Now if we think back to biology class we learn that mitochondria is an organelle within our cells that serves numerous functions, including the generation of energy through aerobic cellular respiration. That’s an extremely complicated process, which is why evolutionists need to find a precursor to mitochondria, and if they can’t find one, they’ll make one up, which is exactly what they did, naming it “protomitochondria”. Then they can speculate that marine bacteria found in hot springs may be the closest living ancestor of mitochondria.

It’s important to note the uncertainty of these claims because some evolutionists will take the opportunity to claim that scientists have, indeed, discovered the closest living relative of mitochondria, as if it’s a scientific fact, but that’s far from true.

What scientists really did was use their evolutionary assumptions to find something they can claim is progress in evolutionary theory… even though it’s not. Seriously. The article states they were “looking for those that most closely matched what are believed to be attributes of the genome of the mitochondria precursor.” Do you see it? Although there’s no evidence there was ever a precursor to mitochondria, they ‘believe’ there must have been one, and, therefore, certain attributes of what this hypothetical ancestor must have looked like may be freely speculated. Notice the belief system incorporated into evolutionary theory. Most atheists (and evolutionists) refuse to admit evolution involves any kind of faith because that would undermine their belief that evolution is an objective, scientific fact. But there it is.

The researchers even admit there’s no evidence for the existence of this hypothetical mitochondria, stating, “because they left no evidence of their existence behind, scientists must use other tools to approximate the genome of those early bacteria that took up residence in the cells of other marine life.”

So, what if they’re wrong, and life didn’t form spontaneously from non-living matter? What if, instead, God created life, and he designed animals to reproduce after their kind, just as the Bible says? Where does that leave evolution? The fact that there’s no evidence for a precursor to mitochondria is excellent evidence against evolution, and positive evidence for God’s existence since no precursor would be a successful prediction.

Nonetheless, these researchers must continue down this desperate road to fantasy land and try (anyway) to match living bacteria to what they imagine a protomitochondria might look like, and then they point to certain types of marine bacteria found in hot springs. Voila!

By assuming evolution, one can prove evolution. Right? Well, no, not really. But that didn’t stop the researchers from declaring this type of bacteria to be a “good candidate” for a protomitochondria, even though, by objective standards, it’s not. Other scientists could declare this a dead-end next week.

When I read through the actual scientific study, the researchers openly admit to a number of difficulties, including the fact that any proposed ancestry remains controversial and is a challenge to science. Genetic research simply hasn’t provided the results they were expecting. Sadly, they dismiss these issues by concocting more evolutionary tales, claiming that too much time has gone by. Convenient, huh?

As a creationist, I believe the evidence better supports special creation. After all, we wouldn’t expect there to be any precursor to mitochondria if God created a diverse variety of animals and man during the creation week described in Genesis 1. Mitochondria would be present in animals from the very beginning, and that’s exactly what the evidence supports.