In addition to their mitochondria, plastids and protein synthesis details, these distant groups in the evolutionary tree of life share “stunningly similar” cell morphology “although completely different from what is the rule of the eukaryotic cell.” These similarities include:
Subapical flagellar insertion
Thickened cell surface
You can hear about these beginning at the [10:05] mark here. It is well worth a listen. And in a related paper, here is how the authors summarize this situation:
Both euglenozoans and alveolates have a reputation for “doing things their own way,” which is to say that they have developed seemingly unique ways to build important cellular structures or carry out molecular tasks critical for their survival. Why such hotspots for the evolution of novel solutions to problems should exist in the tree of life is not entirely clear. However, the deeper we look into these groups, the more often it is found that they are also evolving strikingly similar mechanisms for achieving these essential biological functions. Significantly, however, there is a great weight of phylogenetic data that show these lineages are not closely related: of the 5 eukaryotic supergroups hypothesized to explain all eukaryotic diversity, alveolates and euglenozoans fall into 2 different supergroups, chromalveolates and excavates, respectively. The support for these supergroups as a whole remains contentious, but there is strong support from phylogenomics and many individual phylogenies and rare genomic characters for a specific relationship between alveolates and stramenopiles on one hand, and euglenozoans and heteroloboseans on the other hand. Moreover, no analysis of eukaryotic phylogeny has ever suggested they are closely related to one another. Still more significantly, the majority of the characteristics we discuss below are not universal to all members of either alveolates or euglenozoans, but rather appear to have evolved within a subgroup of each lineage. Altogether, the distribution of these characteristics can really only adequately be explained by convergent evolution. Below, we will examine some of these examples of convergence and what the cooccurrence of convergent traits may tell us about how they evolved.
Doing things their own way? Developed unique ways to build important structures and carry out tasks? Strikingly similar solutions in lineages not closely related?
So what does all this mean? For those not familiar with molecular and cellular biology, and not familiar with the details of evolutionary theory, all of this may seem confusing. Here then is the take-home message. Evolution is a lie.
Evolution may be true, false or somewhere in between. It is difficult to be certain of how the species arose. I’d love to tell you it’s obvious but the science just isn’t that clear. The science is certainly against evolution, but that does not necessarily mean evolution is completely false. We simply can’t know for certain.
So when someone tells you they do know for certain then run, for it’s a lie.
And that’s the rub. Evolutionists are certain and that’s a lie. Over and over evolutionists have made this abundantly clear. In their lectures and in their writings, evolutionists have consistently mandated that evolution is a fact beyond any reasonable doubt. It is the one common thread in evolutionary thought. They say it would be perverse to deny this fact. It is as obvious and true, they say, as is gravity, heliocentrism and the roundness of the Earth.
The problem here is that these are not minor mistakes. It is not merely a technical scientific detail that evolutionists have missed.
This fundamental tenet of evolutionary thought—that evolution is a fact—is utterly at odds with the evidence. It is in spite of the evidence, not because of the evidence. This is because evolution is not about the evidence. Evolution is not about an objective analysis of the biology. You see, evolution is not science, it is dogma.