If we label mitochondria as alive, that would mean prison laborers must count as living, too.
> thinly veiled abortion argument
Kek.
Mitochondria Are Alive
51–60 of 412 posts
Re: Mitochondria Are Alive
#52a lot of focus on the definition of "alive" in the comments, but i think that the weight of this rests on it being a step toward confirming the endosymbiotic relationship theory which states that mitochondria were potentially part of another eukaryotic cells carrying what would become mitogchodria were engulfed by another cell. this affected cellular development by outsourcing energy production for the cell itself. a lot of times the results seem "self-evident" but you still have to find evidence to support or reject a theory and this seems like a step in that direction.
Re: Mitochondria Are Alive
#53They are obviously alive, but also we are obviously a colony organism. The various bacteria we transmit from mother to child, the mitochondria inherent to our cells, all of this stuff is just part of a self-similarity of life from top to bottom. With sufficient zoom-out, we need not treat individuals (or pairs) as the only unit of life replication.
Re: Mitochondria Are Alive
#54I read the article waiting for an answer to the question "in what operational sense does this matter?" but it never arrived.
The question posed is whether we consider mitochondria to be "alive". It's just a word, who cares. What do we do differently given this assumption?
Re: Mitochondria Are Alive
#55a lot of focus on the definition of "alive" in the comments, but i think that the weight of this rests on it being a step toward confirming the endosymbiotic relationship theory which states that mitochondria were potentially part of another eukaryotic cells carrying what would become mitogchodria were engulfed by another cell. this affected cellular development by outsourcing energy production for the cell itself. a…
I still think about the fact that we're this close to proving the protocell theory, proving that we can create life from no life. Last time I read about it was 2021, and I'm really curious when the day arises we succeed
Re: Mitochondria Are Alive
#56>Defining mitochondria as “nonliving” isn’t just a classification mistake, nor a question of word choice. Rather, it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and role of mitochondria. It inherently undermines our understanding of biological systems and deeply influences the tools we build to study them.
This assertion is made but not supported. I don't think I understand the importance of this distinction, assuming that everyone already agrees about the evolutionary and mechanical facts about mitochondria, but as far as I can tell, no one disagrees that mitochondria were originally free living cells, or that they have their own DNA, or any of the other relevant facts about their origins or how they work in the cell. It's merely an argument about what it means to be alive. Which is philosophically interesting, but practically unimportant for the practice of biology.
This seems like a purely semantic debate with no broader importance.
Re: Mitochondria Are Alive
#57I don’t understand the headline (yes I skimmed the article). Why would mitochondria not be alive? What does that even mean?
"If we think of mitochondria as non-living organelles..." 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 was looking for specific notions explaining the emergence of this kind of endosymbiosis, anybody has links ?
Re: Mitochondria Are Alive
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a debatable statement and it doesn't explain the public appeal of mitochondria over ribosomes that predates recent research on the relationship between mitochondria and aging.
Why are you insisting on this comparison to ribosomes? They’re both interesting.
All organelles are valid. This is not a competition. Both mitochondria and ribosomes are cool in different ways.
Re: Mitochondria Are Alive
#59this is the first ive heard of mitochondria replicating separately and distinctly from the host cell, how fascinating! Are we saying that mitochondria have their own life cycle inside of a cell? living/dying/replicating in the span of the "life" of a single host cell? When a host cell reproduces, how does the mitochondria get produced in the new cell to get things started? Cant wait to research this later.
The two halves of the divided cells will usually both have mitochondria. Not always, though; sometimes cell division leaves one cell without any mitochrondria. That usually results in a non-viable cell, but sometimes the cell can survive with limited capacity. Some species that used to have mitochondria have apparently been through this process and have evolved to survive in their absence; Giardia duodenalis for example.
Re: Mitochondria Are Alive
#60> Mitochondrial DNA mutates 100-1,000 times faster than the human genome This statement is very interesting for two reasons: 1) We not consider mitochondrial DNA as part of the human genome when it's clearly is and can be used to establish the maternal genetic lineage. 2) Traditionally, we always think of telomere reduction and genetic mutations as the root cause of aging but not mitochondrial genetic damages.
> 2) Traditionally, we always think of telomere reduction and genetic mutations as the root cause of aging but not mitochondrial genetic damages.
A lot of research is looking into the role of mitochondrial damage as causes for a number of conditions.