21–30 of 412 posts
I don’t understand the headline (yes I skimmed the article). Why would mitochondria not be alive? What does that even mean?
I don’t understand the headline (yes I skimmed the article). Why would mitochondria not be alive? What does that even mean?
mitochondria were thought to just be a component of the cell. But they have their own DNA separate from that in the cell's nucleus. They replicate on their own like bacteria.
I expect such lively news to make this comment section the powerhouse of the front page. :^)
I'm sure there's a fantastic midi-chlorian joke here.
I don’t understand the headline (yes I skimmed the article). Why would mitochondria not be alive? What does that even mean?
I imagine it's similar to how viruses are not considered to be alive, since they cannot reproduce without a host cell? But I have never been a fan of that argument either, both seem alive to me.
I expect such lively news to make this comment section the powerhouse of the front page. :^)
It's funny that this phrase has had such staying strength, while the key word in it, "powerhouse," has fallen out of fashion. The more modern American English way to phrase it would be "the power plant of the cell."
So maybe the original usage has been subsumed by "power plant", but I think the word has alternative meanings which persist.
I expect such lively news to make this comment section the powerhouse of the front page. :^)
It's funny that this phrase has had such staying strength, while the key word in it, "powerhouse," has fallen out of fashion. The more modern American English way to phrase it would be "the power plant of the cell."
> If one considers bacteria as living entities — and all biologists seem to — then it is impossible to explain why mitochondria are not. There seems to be a strange, half-hubris, half-pride vein that runs through Humanity that would see us as lesser for being hosts to benevolent bacteria, despite us very obviously being unable to survive without benevolent bacteria.