Wounded King

Fiach,

Please, please, please read up on the Serial endosymbiont hypothesis look for Margulis or Cavalier-Smith for references, and then stop telling people things like
Mitochondria are not thought to represent a proto cell. They are thought to be the descendents of prokartyotic bacteria which have undergone a loss of independence and become endosymbionts.

Prokaryotic cells are clearly a form of life and do not have mitochondria. You insist on confusing the origin of eukaryotic cells with abiogenesis, they are completely different things.

Mitochondria do not have "Maternal DNA" and "cytoplasmic DNA", they have their own mtDNA which is inherited only through the maternal line in humans, giving rise to the mitochondrial eve scenario, some of the neccessary DNA for the synthesis of mitochondria is also contained within the nucleus of the "Host" cell, this is one of the reasons mitochondria are thought of as obligate endosymbionts, they no longer have all the genetic information needed to live independently.

I hope you dont think I am being rude, but at the moment you are propagating a rather misleading impression of both abiogenesis and the origin of the eukaryota.

Thanks,

Wounded

Godot

yes and no at the same time. Forgive my nit-picking here, but I feel the need to clarify a couple of points.

We need to investigate how living forms arises from naturally forming replicating molecules to form cells. We don't know that yet.

I gather here that you are desiring greater scientific energies be directed towards how life coalesced from the primordial goo, and from thence on to organisms of increasing complexity?
I also have to agree with what Wounded had to say on the subject of mtDNA, although he said it far more eloquently than I could have done.

[B] Real Science means following either testing methods in a protocol that can test short time events like Na+ with Cl- forming table salt. But events over a long time scale are studied by collection large amounts of evidence, preferably from various sources. [B]

Are you suggesting that the only real sciences are the hard, physical sciences? Or do you include all disciplines that rely on empirical data gathered from legitimate sources using standardised and accepted methods? (no bias from me visible here!)

Arbogast

"The human species is 99.999% blind as to what goes on beyond our little rock.

Well, not astrophysicists and astronomers. " - Fiach

Sure we are that blind, if not even blinder.

Without the amazing work of the astronomy crowd, I guess the figure would be 99.9999999999999999%.

We are sketchy in our knowledge of even nearby places like the Moon and Mars.

Arbogast

PS, to clear the air
I consider it quite possible there are no alien civilizations in our local neighborhood.
I consider it possible but highly unlikely that alien civilizations do not exist.

I just have a gut feeling there is alot more out there, even nearby, than we notice.

I DONT believe aliens are trying to contact us actively from the nearby neighborhood. If that were the case I think it would be obvious (ie they would tap into our telecommunications network and talk to us directly)

We really are ignorant of what goes on anywhere in the universe except the surface of the earth.

Godot

I'd be a bit wary of a race of beings that possess the ability to travel interstellar distances yet spend their spare time anally pillaging members of the great unwashed.
That said, it's unlikely that we're alone in the universe. To believe otherwise would be foolishly arrogant.

Arbogast

I also, Godot, am skeptical a race can cross the interstallar divide, and then be accidentally seen by human beings. A race with that technology is highly unlikely to crashland on earth after a trip like that.

I must confess, I have often thought becoming a UFO expert would be a good side business, I just am not that good of a liar...

Fiach

Shhhh! You will wreck the economy of Roswell, New Mexico, USA.

Fiach