Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mitochondria Are Alive

asimov.press

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 412 posts

Re: Mitochondria Are Alive

#341

Post by andai »

jessriedel wrote: post #153

This article managed to hit two classic science journalism cliches in just the first few paragraphs. (1) “Someone hypothesizing a very dramatic theory with weak evidence was considered wrong by most colleagues but later vindicated when strong evidence emerged”. (No mention of thousands of other dramatic hypotheses that turned out wrong.) (2) “You may have heard in unsophisticated popularization that [philosophical cl…

>No mention of thousands of other dramatic hypotheses that turned out wrong.

In other news, Local Man Didn't Win Lottery

Re: Mitochondria Are Alive

#342

Post by hshshshshsh »

dekhn wrote: post #213
hshshshshsh wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think reality has this property that what cannot be tested through scientific method is not true.

It might not, you wouldn't be able to convince anybody that something is true, but cannot be tested- that's philosophy and religion.

I think David Deutsche has this idea that the best explanations should be treated as true even if you can't test it.

Re: Mitochondria Are Alive

#343

Post by Thiez »

maroonblazer wrote: post #293
positus wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The strongest arguments against abortion don't hinge on whether the fetus is a person. The question of abortion ultimately boils down to whose rights we privilege: those of the mother, or the fetus?

Why would the fetus have any rights that are not automatically defeated by the rights of its mother if it's not a person? All anti-abortion arguments that I'm aware of start by arguing that the fetus deserves the rights of a person, and then proceed from there. Could you present a counterexample?

Re: Mitochondria Are Alive

#344

Post by meneton »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #331
meneton wrote: post #179

This article is framed as if there is something novel and profound here, but the "aliveness" of mitochondria is simply a matter of how we choose to apply the label "life" - a human linguistic construct that exists independently of the biological phenomena. This is not a new discussion - science has been considering this question for many decades, just as it has with viruses. These all come down to arguments about sem…

I’m not sure what you are arguing against. For me, the article offered a lovely reminder that life is special. Life involves mechanisms but it is more than a machine. And with an attitude that our lives our symbiotically bound to another living organism (or 10^17 of them) we gain a valuable humility — one that might afford us new perspectives on how to make them all happy and flourish. That’s the promise— not just a…

As I said in another comment, I think that mitochondria are fascinating, understudied and a rich area for research.

We are bound to the myriad other pieces of DNA that all have different evolutionary histories within us, we are symbiotically bound to many strands of life on many levels. We are just one strand, a part of a singular whole, bound to all strands of life beyond us. This view of life led me to science. I totally think that this view of biology is not properly appreciated by most scientists.

But this article was presented as a scientific piece and made the explicit claim that mitochondria were alive which is a semantic argument that doesn't have a scientific answer.

It is a well written piece that made it to the top of hacker news and it's great to see the debate.

But it just isn't true that mitochondria are alive by our currently accepted definition of alive. This is an old debate in biology that was settled years ago. There is nothing in this paper that wasn't known to mainstream science decades ago, but it is presented as a novel scientific viewpoint.

Re: Mitochondria Are Alive

#345

Post by jsvlrtmred »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #331
meneton wrote: post #179

This article is framed as if there is something novel and profound here, but the "aliveness" of mitochondria is simply a matter of how we choose to apply the label "life" - a human linguistic construct that exists independently of the biological phenomena. This is not a new discussion - science has been considering this question for many decades, just as it has with viruses. These all come down to arguments about sem…

I’m not sure what you are arguing against. For me, the article offered a lovely reminder that life is special. Life involves mechanisms but it is more than a machine. And with an attitude that our lives our symbiotically bound to another living organism (or 10^17 of them) we gain a valuable humility — one that might afford us new perspectives on how to make them all happy and flourish. That’s the promise— not just a…

I think they are arguing against the subtitle of the article: "Recognizing that mitochondria are alive will open new horizons into how we learn about, and build with, biology." Which seems a stretch based on semantics.

Re: Mitochondria Are Alive

#346

Post by meneton »

d0mine wrote: post #336
colechristensen wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that’s exactly what they are, former endoparasites which gradually lost their independence and became more specialist in their function. Defining an arbitrary line and then attaching labels does not really add to understanding.

But it does. How many grains of send form a heap? How many atoms form a fluid? Is it something a particle or a wave? The line can be drawn depending on specific problem, on how useful a heap/fluid/particle/wave model for this specific application. A label (abstraction) allows us to bring corresponding tools that were developed for it. If you can count trees then the same math can be useful to count people.

Arguing about where you draw the line doesn't advance anything, it just muddies the water. We have robust definition of what is and isn't alive built by consensus. Mitochondria fall into the 'not alive' category by our definition. Presenting decades old scientific views as evidence that this categorisation is wrong doesn't add anything. This article has had far more exposure than some really groundbreaking science and it adds nothing.

Re: Mitochondria Are Alive

#347

Post by rgbswan »

colechristensen wrote: post #254
beambot wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These all come down to arguments about semantics and don't add anything to the science. This accurately describes much of science... > My heart can exist independently of me, and be transplanted into other people, but does it mean that it is alive? The cells that comprise your heart are very much alive, but they will die without support infrastructure. They live, they replicate, they die -- like every cell in your…

The final categorization is the least interesting part though. If we understand the origins and mechanics of how the once parasitic organism became an integral part of almost all complex life, does arguing the semantics of what label you put on it really add much value? To reframe it: what you’re really doing is arguing about the definition of alive. In this case my opinion is: who cares. I fail to see how expanding…

i might be wrong but corporations/institutions never sponsor R&D in all directions so framing/phrasing is vital. but, from a philosophical pov, I agree with you.

Re: Mitochondria Are Alive

#348

Post by ElFitz »

meneton wrote: post #179

This article is framed as if there is something novel and profound here, but the "aliveness" of mitochondria is simply a matter of how we choose to apply the label "life" - a human linguistic construct that exists independently of the biological phenomena. This is not a new discussion - science has been considering this question for many decades, just as it has with viruses. These all come down to arguments about sem…

This "aliveness" debate reminds me of the "11.000 years old dog". Basically a tumour that has been spreading from one dog to another for thousands of years.

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/11000-year-old-living-do...

Re: Mitochondria Are Alive

#349

Post by rgbswan »

jibal wrote: post #281
aydyn wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's a little farfetched since a lot of prokaryotes show the beginning stages of complex multi-cellularity.

I don't understand why anyone would commit to so adhering to a speculative hypothesis H as to call themselves an "H-er", especially one so pointless and vague as "Rare Earth". There is some probability that a random star has intelligent life on orbiting planets, but we have no idea what that probability is. The original "Rare Earth" proposal suggested that the Earth may be the only such planet in the galaxy, but at t…

> There is some probability that a random star has intelligent life on orbiting planets, but we have no idea what that probability is.

100%. The evolutionary pattern of our solar systems formation and earth ending up, temporarily, in just the right spot isn't rare but (was) a matter of time/timing.

Now one could argue that the stellar objects carrying specific components necessary for life did not hit every or many solar systems but every single simulation (in my head) of the big bang's aftermath reveals that it's at least multiple hundreds of thousands, given how much the observable universe has revealed so far in the places that we looked.

Re: Mitochondria Are Alive

#350

Post by Tor3 »

amy-petrik-214 wrote: post #317
thinkling wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most of their genes, the code for their structure, are in the nuclear DNA. Are they? I was under the impression that mitochondria are closer to pseudo-cells living inside human cells. Wikipedia seems to confirm this [1]: > Although most of a eukaryotic cell's DNA is contained in the cell nucleus, the mitochondrion has its own genome ("mitogenome") that is substantially similar to bacterial genomes. [1] https://en.w…

Yea I would def. not call mitochondria "alive" since they are so deeply integrated with the rest of the cell & vice versa. mito is like principle derives from the concept of "the selfish gene" or "the red queen" these famous books on the topic. Arms races between X and Y chromosome. Arms race between nucleus and mitochondria, and so on. or put it this way. why do all animals have sex? because it generates gene sequen…

I don't understand this definition of "alive". Isn't every cell in my body alive? There are definitely differences between an alive cell and a dead one.
Post reply on HN