There is no way for Mitochondria to live outside of the cell. There is also no way to prove that they ever did. Stating similarities proves nothing. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim; in this case, it is you with the claim that Mitochondria were once their own cells. It is impossible to prove this, because there is no record of it ever happening; if you actually tried to test it, you would lose every time.
If you have to make yourself feel better with cowardly attacks on one's level of education, of which you know nothing, then so be it. How big of you.
Now, having said that, it really comes down to the fact that I don't subscribe to the notion that evolution caused 100% of everything we see and know.
Most of my qualms with evolution come down to
- Creation of the universe - how did the matter come into being that created everything we know? Maybe I haven't read up enough, but I haven't found a solid argument concerning how matter even came into being (since that does go against the law of conservation) - Creation of organic matter - how did matter make the switch from the inorganic into organic? Is this even an observable thing that we can define through empirical study?
Just me though. You can believe in evolution to a point (and I agree with a decent bit of it), but there is certainly a point that it will have a major effect on your worldview - either for or against the idea of an entity being involved in the process.
To address your two points, neither of them are meant to have anything to do with the theory of evolution I'm afraid. Don't worry, this is a common misconception about evolution, people believe it tries to explain everything, from the point the universe came about, to organic molecules being created, to pretty much everything. Evolution is only supposed to tackle how one organism can evolve over time into another one.
...
Ah, but usually the arguments revolve around if you believe ID or believe creationism. I believe in creationism for the two aforementioned points. I know abiongenesis isn't evolution, but they are usually tied together by the same camps, AFAIK.
Either way I'll attempt to address your two points.
Your first point, the creation of the universe. My view is that the evidence that supports the big bang is so overwhelming like...
Redshift measurements proving Hubble's law - Redshift measurements of galaxies proved that space is expanding, if it is continually expanding then if you work back then logically there has to be a point where it was a singularity.
CMBR measurements - Cosmic background radiation, very shortly after the Universe came to be photons were created and destroyed rapidly, then the process stopped. The left over photons can be monitored in the microwave section of the electromagnetic spectrum. This is, in part, what makes an un-tunued TV hiss.
Galactic evolution - The further we look into space the less evolved the galaxies we observe are. Logically the less evolved they are the further back in time you are looking. We now observe early objects in space that are 13Billion+ years old.
I never argued if the Big Bang happened . What I argue is how the matter existed in the first place to even create the reaction. I understand redshift, CMBR measurements and other data we have to explain the universe is expanding from a central point - and I agree that there are many theories that help us understand it including aspects of BB. However, anything I've read concerning how the initial matter was created, exploded, ect usually gets very little discussion. As far as I've read, most argue the BB reaction was caused by antimatter atoms coming into contact with matter - how could such a reaction ocurr in a way to project the infinitely dense ball into what we have now? How long was the ball in a state of singluarity before the reaction? What forces caused the reaction in the first place?
Those are the questions I am curious about. I'm a huge sci-fi/astronomy nut, so I do try to read up on the various theories out there. I'm not a young-earth creationist in any way shape or form. I agree with all scientific laws concerning the age of the universe, as well as the various empirical data points (redshift, CBMR) you provided. I just have issues with the very root of it all - something I think took a hand well beyond what we understand, and may understand for a very long time.
As for the matter point I believe that reading around topics like gravitational fluctuations may hold some answers for you.
Personally though I don't see the big bang as infringing on the idea of a creator in any kind of way. If I was a theist, I think I would take the big bang as just a method of creation.
As do I. I just questioned the universes' origins to any sort of initial process that brought what we observe now.
Your second point about organic matter. Again this isn't meant to be covered by evolution. This is however covered by abiogenesis, which is still formed mainly of hypotheses, therefore it hasn't had conclusive studies done as of yet; Although evidence supporting it is fairly abundant, a quick google would answer a lot of questions.
But the gist of it is that amino acids can form via natural chemical reactions, these in turn formed proteins and so on and so forth until it became life. Chemistry is not my thing though so I can't explain it well, perhaps this video will do better...
(Oh and in that video he mentions this video called "ever seen a dog turn into a cat" it is a brilliant video, I often use it as an example to show what macro evolution is when the "macro micro argument comes up" it's worth watching link)
Why does all this exist or happen, that is the religious question and people can debate that forever and no one will have an answer that satisfies everyone.
No, its still not religious.
Why did that rock roll down the hill? Thermal cracking caused it to weaken from other rocks and when there was enough gravitational force overcome its tensile strength it broke free and rolled down the hill until its kinetic and potential energy was spent and it came to a halt at the bottom. No religion necessary, just facts. The same for evolution, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you can insert Jesus, Allah, Bhudda, or what have you in there.
I think you put too fine a point on my comment. What I was going after is, why is there matter in the first place, not why does natural phenomena happen. I'm a damn geology major, you don't need to tell me about how things in nature and how things in the past occur, hehe.
Why was there such a thing as The Big Bang. What caused matter to exist or energy to exist. Now, the answer is going to vary from person to person. A religious person might say it is because God created it and someone else might say that it just exists, has always existed, and it works.
There is no way for Mitochondria to live outside of the cell. There is also no way to prove that they ever did. Stating similarities proves nothing. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim; in this case, it is you with the claim that Mitochondria were once their own cells. It is impossible to prove this, because there is no record of it ever happening; if you actually tried to test it, you would lose every time.
If you have to make yourself feel better with cowardly attacks on one's level of education, of which you know nothing, then so be it. How big of you.
A talking donkey told me it doesnt in a 2000+ year old book.
VS
Evidence that mitochondria and plastids arose from ancient endosymbiosis of bacteria is as follows.
New mitochondria and plastids are formed only through a process similar to binary fission. In some algae, such as Euglena, the plastids can be destroyed by certain chemicals or prolonged absence of light without otherwise affecting the cell. In such a case, the plastids will not regenerate.
They are surrounded by two or more membranes, and the innermost of these shows differences in composition from the other membranes of the cell. The composition is like that of a prokaryotic cell membrane.
Both mitochondria and plastids contain DNA that is different from that of the cell nucleus and that is similar to that of bacteria (in being circular in shape and in its size).
DNA sequence analysis and phylogenetic estimates suggests that nuclear DNA contains genes that probably came from plastids.
These organelles' ribosomes are like those found in bacteria (70s).
Proteins of organelle origin, like those of bacteria, use N-formylmethionine as the initiating amino acid.
Much of the internal structure and biochemistry of plastids, for instance the presence of thylakoids and particular chlorophylls, is very similar to that of cyanobacteria. Phylogenetic estimates constructed with bacteria, plastids, and eukaryotic genomes also suggest that plastids are most closely related to cyanobacteria.
Mitochondria have several enzymes and transport systems similar to those of prokaryotes.
Some proteins encoded in the nucleus are transported to the organelle, and both mitochondria and plastids have small genomes compared to bacteria. This is consistent with an increased dependence on the eukaryotic host after forming an endosymbiosis. Most genes on the organellar genomes have been lost or moved to the nucleus. Most genes needed for mitochondrial and plastid function are located in the nucleus. Many originate from the bacterial endosymbiont.
Plastids are present in very different groups of protists, some of which are closely related to forms lacking plastids. This suggests that if chloroplasts originated de novo, they did so multiple times, in which case their close similarity to each other is difficult to explain.
Many of these protists contain "secondary" plastids that have been acquired from other plastid-containing eukaryotes, not from cyanobacteria directly.
Among the eukaryotes that acquired their plastids directly from bacteria (known as Primoplantae), the glaucophyte algae have chloroplasts that strongly resemble cyanobacteria. In particular, they have a peptidoglycan cell wall between their two membranes.
Mitochondria and plastids are just about the same size as bacteria.
People will always seek the "meaning" of life. And if there is one, science cannot answer that question, because science doesn't deal with purpose or meaning, it only deals with empirical fact.
The universe had to have a beginning, because time can not extend infintely in the past; if it did, we would never be able to reach the present, because we would have to go through infinity just to reach now.. which is impossible; it's a paradox. You have to have something beyond time and cause. What can be beyond time and cause? What can start time? Or, what was the first cause? What can bring something, out of nothing? Why is there anything at all, rather than nothing?
Those are questions science will ever be able to answer, because we cannot measure something that is beyond cause and time, or empirically detect meaning, and that is why religion has its place.
There is no way for Mitochondria to live outside of the cell. There is also no way to prove that they ever did. Stating similarities proves nothing. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim; in this case, it is you with the claim that Mitochondria were once their own cells. It is impossible to prove this, because there is no record of it ever happening; if you actually tried to test it, you would lose every time.
If you have to make yourself feel better with cowardly attacks on one's level of education, of which you know nothing, then so be it. How big of you.
A talking donkey told me it doesnt in a 2000+ year old book.
VS
Evidence that mitochondria and plastids arose from ancient endosymbiosis of bacteria is as follows.
New mitochondria and plastids are formed only through a process similar to binary fission. In some algae, such as Euglena, the plastids can be destroyed by certain chemicals or prolonged absence of light without otherwise affecting the cell. In such a case, the plastids will not regenerate.
They are surrounded by two or more membranes, and the innermost of these shows differences in composition from the other membranes of the cell. The composition is like that of a prokaryotic cell membrane.
Both mitochondria and plastids contain DNA that is different from that of the cell nucleus and that is similar to that of bacteria (in being circular in shape and in its size).
DNA sequence analysis and phylogenetic estimates suggests that nuclear DNA contains genes that probably came from plastids.
These organelles' ribosomes are like those found in bacteria (70s).
Proteins of organelle origin, like those of bacteria, use N-formylmethionine as the initiating amino acid.
Much of the internal structure and biochemistry of plastids, for instance the presence of thylakoids and particular chlorophylls, is very similar to that of cyanobacteria. Phylogenetic estimates constructed with bacteria, plastids, and eukaryotic genomes also suggest that plastids are most closely related to cyanobacteria.
Mitochondria have several enzymes and transport systems similar to those of prokaryotes.
Some proteins encoded in the nucleus are transported to the organelle, and both mitochondria and plastids have small genomes compared to bacteria. This is consistent with an increased dependence on the eukaryotic host after forming an endosymbiosis. Most genes on the organellar genomes have been lost or moved to the nucleus. Most genes needed for mitochondrial and plastid function are located in the nucleus. Many originate from the bacterial endosymbiont.
Plastids are present in very different groups of protists, some of which are closely related to forms lacking plastids. This suggests that if chloroplasts originated de novo, they did so multiple times, in which case their close similarity to each other is difficult to explain.
Many of these protists contain "secondary" plastids that have been acquired from other plastid-containing eukaryotes, not from cyanobacteria directly.
Among the eukaryotes that acquired their plastids directly from bacteria (known as Primoplantae), the glaucophyte algae have chloroplasts that strongly resemble cyanobacteria. In particular, they have a peptidoglycan cell wall between their two membranes.
Mitochondria and plastids are just about the same size as bacteria.
I almost feel like you're not paying attention on purpose.
There has NEVER been a recorded instance of a Mitochondria living on their own, as their own cell. Even IF they were once free-living bacteria, they would be expected to exhibit some vestigial remnants of their former condition... of which they have none. Notice how the word "similar" is so prevalent in this theory. It's the only thing it has to go by. Not actual proof. Sorry.
Also:
"A talking donkey told me it doesnt in a 2000+ year old book." Are you comparing Endosymbiotic Theory to some obscure children's book written by Julius Caesar? Because I know you're not talking about the Bible. Interesting.
There is no way for Mitochondria to live outside of the cell. There is also no way to prove that they ever did. Stating similarities proves nothing. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim; in this case, it is you with the claim that Mitochondria were once their own cells. It is impossible to prove this, because there is no record of it ever happening; if you actually tried to test it, you would lose every time.
If you have to make yourself feel better with cowardly attacks on one's level of education, of which you know nothing, then so be it. How big of you.
A talking donkey told me it doesnt in a 2000+ year old book.
VS
Evidence that mitochondria and plastids arose from ancient endosymbiosis of bacteria is as follows.
New mitochondria and plastids are formed only through a process similar to binary fission. In some algae, such as Euglena, the plastids can be destroyed by certain chemicals or prolonged absence of light without otherwise affecting the cell. In such a case, the plastids will not regenerate.
They are surrounded by two or more membranes, and the innermost of these shows differences in composition from the other membranes of the cell. The composition is like that of a prokaryotic cell membrane.
Both mitochondria and plastids contain DNA that is different from that of the cell nucleus and that is similar to that of bacteria (in being circular in shape and in its size).
DNA sequence analysis and phylogenetic estimates suggests that nuclear DNA contains genes that probably came from plastids.
These organelles' ribosomes are like those found in bacteria (70s).
Proteins of organelle origin, like those of bacteria, use N-formylmethionine as the initiating amino acid.
Much of the internal structure and biochemistry of plastids, for instance the presence of thylakoids and particular chlorophylls, is very similar to that of cyanobacteria. Phylogenetic estimates constructed with bacteria, plastids, and eukaryotic genomes also suggest that plastids are most closely related to cyanobacteria.
Mitochondria have several enzymes and transport systems similar to those of prokaryotes.
Some proteins encoded in the nucleus are transported to the organelle, and both mitochondria and plastids have small genomes compared to bacteria. This is consistent with an increased dependence on the eukaryotic host after forming an endosymbiosis. Most genes on the organellar genomes have been lost or moved to the nucleus. Most genes needed for mitochondrial and plastid function are located in the nucleus. Many originate from the bacterial endosymbiont.
Plastids are present in very different groups of protists, some of which are closely related to forms lacking plastids. This suggests that if chloroplasts originated de novo, they did so multiple times, in which case their close similarity to each other is difficult to explain.
Many of these protists contain "secondary" plastids that have been acquired from other plastid-containing eukaryotes, not from cyanobacteria directly.
Among the eukaryotes that acquired their plastids directly from bacteria (known as Primoplantae), the glaucophyte algae have chloroplasts that strongly resemble cyanobacteria. In particular, they have a peptidoglycan cell wall between their two membranes.
Mitochondria and plastids are just about the same size as bacteria.
I almost feel like you're not paying attention on purpose.
There has NEVER been a recorded instance of a Mitochondria living on their own, as their own cell. Even IF they were once free-living bacteria, they would be expected to exhibit some vestigial remnants of their former condition... of which they have none. Notice how the word "similar" is so prevalent in this theory. It's the only thing it has to go by. Not actual proof. Sorry.
Also:
"A talking donkey told me it doesnt in a 2000+ year old book." Are you comparing Endosymbiotic Theory to some obscure children's book written by Julius Caesar? Because I know you're not talking about the Bible. Interesting.
Actually, I think he was. And it was (at least the New Testament) written... well edited, by the Eastern Roman Emperor Constantine (Not ole' Julius Caesar). Basically he needed to unify religion in Eastern Rome and took all the gospels that refered to Jesus' divinity and took out everything else and made them heretical. Even Mary Magdalene supposedly had a gospel according to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Not to mention that Christmas was actually moved from the date of Christ's birth to coincide with the Winter Solstice to make it easier for Pagans to convert to the new religion. Constantine was also a bit of a nut-bar, he buried himself with 12 other tombs believeing himself to be the 13th disciple of Christ. Anyway, I've gone off topic and rambled, but one has to wonder how Christianity would have turned out without him.
Basically, in regards to the all the evidence presented, logic dictates that the most likely scenario is the endosymbiotic theory. To the bolded, half the things on that list are remnants of their former condition so I have no idea what you're on about. Idon't know what you contitute as "proof". You might as well say gravity doesn't exist because we can't see it, even though the effects are obvious.
There is no way for Mitochondria to live outside of the cell. There is also no way to prove that they ever did. Stating similarities proves nothing. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim; in this case, it is you with the claim that Mitochondria were once their own cells. It is impossible to prove this, because there is no record of it ever happening; if you actually tried to test it, you would lose every time.
If you have to make yourself feel better with cowardly attacks on one's level of education, of which you know nothing, then so be it. How big of you.
A talking donkey told me it doesnt in a 2000+ year old book.
VS
Evidence that mitochondria and plastids arose from ancient endosymbiosis of bacteria is as follows.
New mitochondria and plastids are formed only through a process similar to binary fission. In some algae, such as Euglena, the plastids can be destroyed by certain chemicals or prolonged absence of light without otherwise affecting the cell. In such a case, the plastids will not regenerate.
They are surrounded by two or more membranes, and the innermost of these shows differences in composition from the other membranes of the cell. The composition is like that of a prokaryotic cell membrane.
Both mitochondria and plastids contain DNA that is different from that of the cell nucleus and that is similar to that of bacteria (in being circular in shape and in its size).
DNA sequence analysis and phylogenetic estimates suggests that nuclear DNA contains genes that probably came from plastids.
These organelles' ribosomes are like those found in bacteria (70s).
Proteins of organelle origin, like those of bacteria, use N-formylmethionine as the initiating amino acid.
Much of the internal structure and biochemistry of plastids, for instance the presence of thylakoids and particular chlorophylls, is very similar to that of cyanobacteria. Phylogenetic estimates constructed with bacteria, plastids, and eukaryotic genomes also suggest that plastids are most closely related to cyanobacteria.
Mitochondria have several enzymes and transport systems similar to those of prokaryotes.
Some proteins encoded in the nucleus are transported to the organelle, and both mitochondria and plastids have small genomes compared to bacteria. This is consistent with an increased dependence on the eukaryotic host after forming an endosymbiosis. Most genes on the organellar genomes have been lost or moved to the nucleus. Most genes needed for mitochondrial and plastid function are located in the nucleus. Many originate from the bacterial endosymbiont.
Plastids are present in very different groups of protists, some of which are closely related to forms lacking plastids. This suggests that if chloroplasts originated de novo, they did so multiple times, in which case their close similarity to each other is difficult to explain.
Many of these protists contain "secondary" plastids that have been acquired from other plastid-containing eukaryotes, not from cyanobacteria directly.
Among the eukaryotes that acquired their plastids directly from bacteria (known as Primoplantae), the glaucophyte algae have chloroplasts that strongly resemble cyanobacteria. In particular, they have a peptidoglycan cell wall between their two membranes.
Mitochondria and plastids are just about the same size as bacteria.
I almost feel like you're not paying attention on purpose.
There has NEVER been a recorded instance of a Mitochondria living on their own, as their own cell. Even IF they were once free-living bacteria, they would be expected to exhibit some vestigial remnants of their former condition... of which they have none. Notice how the word "similar" is so prevalent in this theory. It's the only thing it has to go by. Not actual proof. Sorry.
Also:
"A talking donkey told me it doesnt in a 2000+ year old book." Are you comparing Endosymbiotic Theory to some obscure children's book written by Julius Caesar? Because I know you're not talking about the Bible. Interesting.
Actually, I think he was. And it was (at least the New Testament) written... well edited, by the Eastern Roman Emperor Constantine (Not ole' Julius Caesar). Basically he needed to unify religion in Eastern Rome and took all the gospels that refered to Jesus' divinity and took out everything else and made them heretical. Even Mary Magdalene supposedly had a gospel according to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Not to mention that Christmas was actually moved from the date of Christ's birth to coincide with the Winter Solstice to make it easier for Pagans to convert to the new religion. Constantine was also a bit of a nut-bar, he buried himself with 12 other tombs believeing himself to be the 13th disciple of Christ. Anyway, I've gone off topic and rambled, but one has to wonder how Christianity would have turned out without him.
Basically, in regards to the all the evidence presented, logic dictates that the most likely scenario is the endosymbiotic theory. To the bolded, half the things on that list are remnants of their former condition so I have no idea what you're on about. Idon't know what you contitute as "proof". You might as well say gravity doesn't exist because we can't see it, even though the effects are obvious.
"Well-edited by Constantine?" Please tell me you don't believe fools like Dan Brown; Brown says that Emperor Constantine imposed a whole new interpretation on Christianity at the Council of Nicea in 325. That is, he decreed belief in Jesus' divinity and suppressed all evidence of his humanity. This would mean Christianity won the religious competition in the Roman Empire by an exercise of power rather than by any attraction it exerted. In actual historical fact, the Church had won that competition long before that time, before it had any power, when it was still under sporadic persecution. If a historian were cynical, you would say Constantine chose Christianity because it had already won and he wanted to back a winner.
But of course, some people apparently like to draw their historical arguments from works of fiction, such as "The Da Vinci Code." Anyways...
I admit, I made a mistake. Some of the items on the list would indeed appear to be vestigial remnants. I overlooked it. HOWEVER, you cannot equate such a theory to gravity, which can be easily TESTED, and its effects are visible and obvious. Unless you can explain how the Scientific Method can be used to test Endosymbiotic Theory (which would be interesting), then no, there is no proof. It is more of an educated guess than anything else.
