Endosymbiosis (soul, blood, evolution, creation, divine)

[Opethian]

To you, perhaps; I would have much rather you had qualified that not as being a universally accepted fact, but as your personal opinion.

I'm just saying that if creationists are going to say that we were created by god with the mitochondria in our body, that they are interpreting it wrong, because all the evidence points to the mitochondria becoming present in our cells through the process of endosymbiosis, a very long time ago in a primitive eukaryotic ancestor of ours. Saying that we were created like we are now, with the mitochondria present, is ignorance, and dismissing all the evidence.

I still stand by my comment in another thread, in which I stated something like "The day science manages to create an entire sentient being without using any living organic cells (i.e start from the original beginning of the process which brought into being makind)....i.e without that 'divine spark of God, and the soul that is an essential part of a living being.

Ok, but endosymbiosis also has nothing to do with forming life from non-life, it's just a point in time where 2 primitive already living organisms evolved in a remarkable way together into 1 more advanced and more adapted living organism. Since I seem to remember that you supported the evolution theory, why would you have any problems with this?

[Opethian]

What facts do creationist interpret wrong then regarding this subject then Opethian?

Well, the problem is, they don't even start thinking about the subject. This is a simulation of the openminded thinking of a creationist :"This doesn't correspond with the biblical creation, dismiss it!".

When you say that it could be that some god created us as we are, including the mitochondria, you are forgetting a few important things:

Why do the mitochondria have so many features of bacterial cells?
Why do mitochondria have their own DNA?
Why have parts of the mitochondria's original DNA been transferred to our own?
Why is it so logical for the process to happen since it occured at a time where the atmosphere was changing with more access to oxygen?

And with the help of a book of Biology and Biochemistry I'm pretty sure I can come up with dozens more.

[Opethian]

Ok, I'm a little fuzzy because of cold medication (that's today's excuse). Are you trying to say that aerobic bacteria gave the ability for anaerobic organisms to survive in an aerobic atmosphere?

Yeah like Halcyon said, the entering of the aerobic prokaryote inside the anaerobic eukaryote gave both of them an advantage, and was an important adaptive change in an atmosphere that was filling up with oxygen.

[Endless]

1.Why do the mitochondria have so many features of bacterial cells?
2.Why do mitochondria have their own DNA?
3.Why have parts of the mitochondria's original DNA been transferred to our own?
4.Why is it so logical for the process to happen since it occured at a time where the atmosphere was changing with more access to oxygen?

1. Similarity means very little, there are many many more differences than similarities between the mitochondria and bacteria.
2. Because it is inconceivable that all the RNA and proteins that are used inside the mitochondria could be produced externally and transported inside. The demand for them is high - it's just not workable any other way but for them to produce them inside as they need.
3. Irrelevant - what difference does it make whether DNA was transferred or not. DNA gets transferred from other organisms via viruses.
4. Merely conjecture - the time atmosphere changed to oxygen and the time Endosymbiosis took place.

The fact of the matter is that this theory should have been chucked out the window because of all the problems with it - however in the evolutionary framework there is no other option - therefore the presumption worked upon is that it must have happened. Therefore the theory remains - this is bad science and you see it all the time with evolutionary theory. It must have happened, so this theory explains it, yes, i know there are big problems with this theory, but it must have happened and this is the best thing that we have got at the moment.
Interpreted within an evolutionary framework.

[Opethian]

1. Similarity means very little, there are many many more differences than similarities between the mitochondria and bacteria.

Please let me know of the differences and tell me how they don't make sense from the point of view of evolution. Also please let me know of any other organelles inside the human body that have these resemblances to prokaryotic cells and have their own DNA.

2. Because it is inconceivable that all the RNA and proteins that are used inside the mitochondria could be produced externally and transported inside. The demand for them is high - it's just not workable any other way but for them to produce them inside as they need.

Please show me a peer-reviewed article where someone shows that it is not workable any other way?

3. Irrelevant - what difference does it make whether DNA was transferred or not. DNA gets transferred from other organisms via viruses.

It very much matters because it shows the evolution of the organelle inside the cells and the loss of independance.

4. Merely conjecture - the time atmosphere changed to oxygen and the time Endosymbiosis took place.

Conjecture based on strong evidence and supported by many scientists who know what they're talking about. Of course we can never know something for sure that happened billions of years ago, but is that a reason to dismiss strong evidence?

The fact of the matter is that this theory should have been chucked out the window because of all the problems with it - however in the evolutionary framework there is no other option - therefore the presumption worked upon is that it must have happened.

Obviously people who dismiss the evolution theory have the opinion that this theory should have been chucked out of the window. People who won't accept anything that conflicts with a literal interpretation of some fairy tale, unless it is irrefutably proven, and even then... I guess there is no amount of evidence existant that could convinve people like this.

Therefore the theory remains - this is bad science

In your opinion.

and you see it all the time with evolutionary theory

How so?

It must have happened, so this theory explains it, yes, i know there are big problems with this theory, but it must have happened and this is the best thing that we have got at the moment.

Why don't you show me some of the big problems then? I guess the biggest problem you have with it is that it assumes that evolution occured, yes? What an outrageous assumption!

Interpreted within an evolutionary framework.

The only correct framework. A creationist framework is nonexistant, except for the imaginary threads formed by creationists' imagination, somehow assumed held together by some supernatural entity. But hey, something that is imagined can't collapse either, right?

[sandy whitelinger]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

They gave previously anaerobic eukaryotes the ability to exploit oxygen, yes.

Was their anything in the parts you left out about how aerobic and anaerobic organisms came to exist?

Edit- Halycon, I just got it that you didn't post the original thread. that question refered to the original post.

[Victor]

Ah, it's all coming back now.
I vaguely remember my professor saying that the endosymbiotic theory still gets much heat from biologist because an organism living within another can only explain so much.

[godsfire77]

Prove to me that a DNA strand can just be put together along with other organelles at random and form a living cell that springs life on earth into action. Show some study or test that has been done that DNA so complicated and intricate could form together and work properly.

[Opethian]

Prove to me that a DNA strand can just be put together along with other organelles at random and form a living cell that springs life on earth into action. Show some study or test that has been done that DNA so complicated and intricate could form together and work properly.

Science has not advanced far enough yet to be able to do this, but I'm pretty sure that it won't take very long until we can accomplish such things. Because of the complexity of even one of these primal living cells and the very small scale our technology doesn't yet allow to try and form them.

Was their anything in the parts you left out about how aerobic and anaerobic organisms came to exist?

Yes, but that is a different matter and should better be a subject entirely of its own.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Victor

Ah, it's all coming back now.
I vaguely remember my professor saying that the endosymbiotic theory still gets much heat from biologist because an organism living within another can only explain so much.

And no doubt you garner much comfort from such comments. It's important for the God-of-the-Gaps that some gaps be preserved.

On the other hand, from Scientific American ...

Marine Microorganism Plays Both Host and Killer


A tiny ocean organism's relationship with an alga is shedding light on an unexplained process that occurred more than a billion years ago and drove the evolution of plants and algae.

The colorless organism, named Hatena (meaning "enigma" in Japanese) by the Japanese scientists that described it the October 14 issue of Science, alternates between two phases: one allows it to host, and another allows it to devour a green alga. The stages demonstrate remarkably quick changes in both the host organism and the symbiont cell that could have played a key role in the evolution of photosynthesis, the process by which modern plants and algae make their own food by converting light energy into chemical energy.

Surprisingly, photosynthesis did not originate in plants and algae, but arose first in bacteria. Algae figured out a way to engulf bacteria, which eventually evolved into a chloroplast, a specialized cellular component responsible, in this case, for photosynthesis. How it happened, though, has been a mystery. Now biologists Noriko Okamoto and Isao Inouye of the University of Tsukuba in Japan have observed a similar process taking place in the wild algae Hatena.

Hatena's life cycle alternates between a host phase and a predator phase. As a host, the otherwise colorless Hatena harbors a green alga cell known as Nephroselmis, which makes Hatena appear green. The green cell splits in two, always producing one colorless daughter cell and one green daughter cell. The colorless cell develops a feeding apparatus that it uses to engulf a new Nephroselmis. Once devoured, Nephroselmis becomes a functioning part of the host and the host's feeding apparatus--now no longer needed--degenerates.

The green daughter goes off on its own, presumably dividing into more green daughters, however the scientists were unable to culture the wild Hatena and thoroughly follow its life cycle. But this stage could hint at what needs to happen to make the chloroplast a permanent part of the cell. "Whatever you need to make that a permanent part is not occurring here. Maybe in a hundred millions years it will figure it out," says biologist Debashish Bhattacharya, director of the Interdisciplinary Program in Genetics at the University of Iowa.

In other experiments, Okamoto and Inouye tried to feed Hatena other strains of Nephroselmis to see if the organism would behave the same way. But although it engulfed the alga, it did not undergo the modifications, suggesting a specialized relationship between the two. Determining whether that relationship is genetic is the next puzzle the scientists will have to solve.

This too, of course, "only explain so much".