No they do not. First of all ants are eukaryotes - a completely different order of being,
Which arises from prokariotes.
further apart from prokaryotes than plants are to animals.
Which arise from eukariotes.
Second of all ants are multicellular - a tremendous leap requiring numerous new functions, new organs, new arrangements which also is totally impossible.
Which arises from animals.
Third of all ants are sexual and prokaryotes are asexual.
Sexuals, which arise from asexuals.
Therefore, in the stuff that really matters biologically they are completely different.
Uh huh. Competely different, yet they are biological precursors, one to another. You make my case. Thanks.
Your 'analogy' is even sillier than saying that rowboats and planes are alike because they both can get you over water without getting wet.
The measure of an analogy is whether or not the parallel being drawn is compelling. You are free to reject my thesis, as it is simply one of many hypotheses, however, you are not free to mis-represent it. It may be wrong, but it is not irrelevant to the argument I am making.
Which arises from prokariotes.
No they do not and I already showed you why many posts back - the tremendous differences between the two and there not being any intermediates betweem the two.
further apart from prokaryotes than plants are to animals.-me-
Which arise from eukariotes.
They may be eukaryotes, however, there is absolutely no explanation for multi-celled organisms arising from single celled ones. This is another totally unsupported evolutionist assumption. It takes evidence to say scientifically that anything descended from something else, there is not the vaguest evidence for multi-celled organisms arising from single celled ones. Saying it does not make it so. And that is the problem with your whole argument - you have no evidence. Science demands evidence.
Sexuals, which arise from asexuals.
Tell us how one mutation created both male and female. I want to hear this one.