Mitochondria are evolved purple bacteria( alpha proteobacteria) But you seem to think , mistakenly , that once a bacterium always a bacterium . The same thing happened to the Cyanobacterial precursor to chloroplasts So we know that forever-a-bacterium nonsense is wrong . Some theropod dinosaurs evolved into birds . We’ve got the fossils and genetically, birds closest living relatives are crocodilians so birds weren’t always birds. There are a lot of other examples that you’ll just ignore so I’m not going to type them out. You’ve been given ( and ignored) this information before as well. You’re not living up to your user name.
Hypothesis.... You keep presenting hypothesis as fact, a mistake a real scientists would never make.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrion
"There are two hypotheses about the origin of mitochondria: endosymbiotic and autogenous. The endosymbiotic hypothesis suggests that mitochondria were originally prokaryotic cells, capable of implementing oxidative mechanisms that were not possible for eukaryotic cells; they became endosymbionts living inside the eukaryote. In the autogenous hypothesis, mitochondria were born by splitting off a portion of DNA from the nucleus of the eukaryotic cell at the time of divergence with the prokaryotes; this DNA portion would have been enclosed by membranes, which could not be crossed by proteins. Since mitochondria have many features in common with bacteria, the endosymbiotic hypothesis is more widely accepted."
But let's all be honest, if that is possible on evolutionists side. no bacteria has been observed to become anything other than bacteria, so your hypothesis has no scientific foundation, but is simply want-it-to-be-so.......
Also you got no evidence theoropods evolved into birds. You got feathered dinosaurs, but no precursor. Oh my bad, this is the part where we insert the missing common ancestor, right? Right????
Cyanobacterial precursor to chloroplasts. Let's see, how does that story go? "Somewhere around 1 to 2 billion years ago......" Yah, ok..... if you all say so..... Shouldn't that story start out "Once upon a time......"
So what? DNA showed that those finches were all interbreeding and had never been reproductively isolated and so never underwent speciation. Doesn't stop you from ignoring the DNA evidence, so why bring up DNA if you aren't going to accept it???? Ahhh, pick and choose right? Evolutionists best friend, ignoring 99.9% of the data.....
