The evolution of cells is a hot topic amongst biochemists as it answers the most fundamental question a biochemist can ask: How can a 'random' collisions of molecules bind together in such a way to create life?
Biochemists and biologists commonly believe that mitochondria (the little 'power houses' of cells that produce ATP through oxidative phosphorylation and the citric acid cycle) were once bacteria that lived independently of the eukaryotic cell. A cell is thought to have eaten the bacterial mitochondria through phagocytosis, a process on which a cell takes on an external body as shown in the YouTube animation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1xPpsxvhVA. After the mitochondria was taken on to the eukaryotic cell biologist conceive the cell and bacteria to have existed ever since in symbiosis.
Evidence shows that all know eukaryotes have or once have had mitochondria, suggesting that perhaps this symbiotic relationship and the uptake of mitochondria occurred several times in the evolution of eukaryotic cells. Yet the evidence for mitochondria once being bacteria is not certain. Mitochondria are the right size to be seen as bacteria and this may explain the initial assumption. However we would expect if mitochondria were once independent bacteria they would have an independent genome coding for all the proteins the mitochondria needs for its self. In fact the mitochondria only has 20 genes that code for proteins and the nucleus of the eukaryote coding for the masses. This may or may not support that the eukaryote may have constructed these little organelles its self, due to the paradoxical notion of when we look at the mutations in the mitochondria's genome compared to the cells. Research has proved that mitochondria have evolved far further than the cell, making growing mitochondria in a culture like we could easily with bacteria now, not impossible, but very hard.
The evidence is inconclusive to the 'how' of the evolution of mitochondria in eukaryote cells but the 'why' is apparent; giving cells energy and intern fuelling life. And the answer the the question of how cells developed in the first place is not a mystery when we consider the time frame they evolved from atoms to molecules to life in: 1000's of millions of years. Long enough for a few convenient coincidences to occur in.
Biochemists and biologists commonly believe that mitochondria (the little 'power houses' of cells that produce ATP through oxidative phosphorylation and the citric acid cycle) were once bacteria that lived independently of the eukaryotic cell. A cell is thought to have eaten the bacterial mitochondria through phagocytosis, a process on which a cell takes on an external body as shown in the YouTube animation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1xPpsxvhVA. After the mitochondria was taken on to the eukaryotic cell biologist conceive the cell and bacteria to have existed ever since in symbiosis.
Evidence shows that all know eukaryotes have or once have had mitochondria, suggesting that perhaps this symbiotic relationship and the uptake of mitochondria occurred several times in the evolution of eukaryotic cells. Yet the evidence for mitochondria once being bacteria is not certain. Mitochondria are the right size to be seen as bacteria and this may explain the initial assumption. However we would expect if mitochondria were once independent bacteria they would have an independent genome coding for all the proteins the mitochondria needs for its self. In fact the mitochondria only has 20 genes that code for proteins and the nucleus of the eukaryote coding for the masses. This may or may not support that the eukaryote may have constructed these little organelles its self, due to the paradoxical notion of when we look at the mutations in the mitochondria's genome compared to the cells. Research has proved that mitochondria have evolved far further than the cell, making growing mitochondria in a culture like we could easily with bacteria now, not impossible, but very hard.
The evidence is inconclusive to the 'how' of the evolution of mitochondria in eukaryote cells but the 'why' is apparent; giving cells energy and intern fuelling life. And the answer the the question of how cells developed in the first place is not a mystery when we consider the time frame they evolved from atoms to molecules to life in: 1000's of millions of years. Long enough for a few convenient coincidences to occur in.
6 comments:
"Biochemists and biologists commonly believe that mitochondria (the little 'power houses' of cells that produce ATP through oxidative phosphorylation and the citric acid cycle) were once bacteria that lived independently of the eukaryotic cell."
Are you yet another narcissist? So, there are no biologists or biochemists who are creationists or ID theoriets? What was your mental tone when you wrote that, one of smugness, or "OH POPPYCOCK, no such things as creationist biologists," or "hee hee nanny nanny I can't see u, dang I'm so smart and clever."? Or did you just blank your mind and delude yourself into believing your false reality of no such thing as a creationist biologist and so not even think of them?
And wow, what dishonesty: "The evidence is inconclusive to the 'how'"
YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE MR. PASSIONATE ABOUT BIOCHEMISTRY. Instead of being passionate about the material things God made, how about the spiritual truths he gave us, how about truth? "DON'T LIE", there's a start. Or, "keep me from the sin of presumption". In other words judging before having any evidence. You have no evidence yet BELIEVE on FAITH that it's true, while denigrating faith as silly. Aren't you a blind hypocrite? Get you're priorities straight. TRUTH FIRST, not MATERIAL, fame, money and career.
It's really disturbibg that people like you exist, such deep hatred to be so bigoted. "Scary".
May God rip that hatred out of you and save you.
Dear eternian,
It's really disturbing* that people like YOU exist. Do you really have nothing better to do than seek out blogs which disagree with your beliefs and try to criticise them with arguments which simply don't hold together.
Now, to make myself clear, there is nothing wrong with having your own beliefs, but it's a bit like having a penis; don't go shoving them down other people's throats.
Notice the phrasing of "Biochemists and biologists commonly believe". Yes, most Biologists are evolutionists, there are a few creationists, but not many. Most accept the fact that carbon dating proves that the earth was not created 5700-10000 years ago. Sorry MR. PASSIONATE ABOUT BIBLE BASHING, in this case, majority rules!
Also, your argument about materialism really doesn't work considering how much Christians value the bible. Why not speak directly to God (other than the annoying bit about him not existing), why make his words material? How very hypocritical of you.
Now kindly fuck off and make peace with your dear and fluffy lord.
P.S. Don't even bother replying telling me I'm going to hell, because I don't care as long as you're not there.
I don't need to say anything. Mr eternian proved everything that I could have said about him in his comment. Such as assuming something from nothing: reflecting his very views on everything.
The real sad thing though that quote is a falsifiable fact. I defiantly don't lie spread unfalsifiable views and especially in such a hateful way.
Mr/Mrs/Miss, Eternian, your insane babbling has actually brought down the tone of this piece of writing. You speak of not having evidence to support a theory you describe as being "Poppycock". Well I'm sorry but did I skip the part of the Bible (a material belonging) that proves the existence of a God? I don't think so, and even if your God was real he wouldn't be a God i would wish to follow, he is a vengeful and evil son of a bitch, who decided that when Humans made a mistake he would kill them all. Any ways, I'm rambling about something that doesn't exist. But let's face facts, your a fool.
Post a Comment