How do creationists explain mitochondria?

reply to post by rhinoceros

The origin of mitochondria is universally agreed upon in the scientific community. They used to be free-living alphaproteobacteria. What is debated, is the nature of the host cell, as well as the physiological capabilities of the proto-mitochondrion.

Sounds a bit dogmatic.

Mitochondria do not contain anywhere near the amount of DNA needed to code for all mitochondria-specific proteins, however, a billion or so years of evolution could account for a progressive loss of independence. The endosymbiotic hypothesis might be called a theory, but experimental evidence can't be provided to test it. Only circumstantial evidence is available in support of the proposal, which is the most likely explanation for the origin of mitochondria. The evidence needed to change the model from hypothesis to theory is likely forever lost in antiquity.

Link



Another source....

The endosymbiotic theory for the origin of mitochondria claims that our mitochondria were derived from an engulfed bacterium that was enslaved to become the current powerhouse of most eukaryotic cells. This endosymbiotic theory has become consensus among evolutionary biologists to such an extent that it is considered a fact and forms the basis for most research on molecular evolution. In fact, a falsification of the endosymbiotic theory would shake the scientific world and would have to lead to the reinterpretation of virtually all phylogenetic data. I argue that the mechanistic basis of the endosymbiotic theory is not sound and even contradictive to our current concepts of evolution. Therefore, there seems to be no reason to consider the endosymbiotic theory a fact.

In order for an evolutionary theory to be considered a scientific fact or a valid scientific theory, there are some basic requirements. First, it is necessary to have a reasonably detailed mechanism that explains the basic steps in the endosymbiotic scenario. Second, this mechanism should be placed in the context of current Darwinian evolutionary theory and should contain no fundamental problems or falsifications. Third, a substantial body of empirical evidence that directly supports this scenario should be present. Fourth, no credible or logically sound alternatives should exist. If these criteria are not met, the endosymbiotic theory cannot be considered to be a scientific fact that has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Remarkably, the endosymbiotic theory fails all points.

Link




I think that the origins of mitochondria become a chicken and egg thing if you don't believe in a Creator.

How so?

Which came first protein or DNA?

reply to post by dusty1


That's not even close to chicken vs egg argument. DNA doesn't give birth to or lay eggs for proteins that grow into new DNA. It replicates itself in its entirety.

Originally posted by dusty1

Which came first protein or DNA?

They probably evolved together, most likely as complementary offshoots to RNA. DNA isn't just a bunch of proteins strung together, and proteins are fantastically complex. DNA is a simple double helix that's far more stable for long strands of proteins, unlike RNA, which tends to be unstable if the chains get too long. With DNA as the replicator, proteins provide much better catalysis for much more complex functions than RNA could handle. RNA is a good catalyst, but proteins are better. It's also a good replicator, but DNA is better. So proteins and DNA evolved alongside each other, while RNA continued as the go-between. It also explains why RNA is able to speak the "language" of both RNA and proteins.

Originally posted by dusty1
Sounds a bit dogmatic.

Mitochondria do not contain anywhere near the amount of DNA needed to code for all mitochondria-specific proteins, however, a billion or so years of evolution could account for a progressive loss of independence. The endosymbiotic hypothesis might be called a theory, but experimental evidence can't be provided to test it. Only circumstantial evidence is available in support of the proposal, which is the most likely explanation for the origin of mitochondria. The evidence needed to change the model from hypothesis to theory is likely forever lost in antiquity.

Link

Not really. Whoever wrote the stuff in your link isn't very up-to-date on mitochondria. The link e.g. states that mitochondria probably descended from purple nonsulfur bacteria. I have no idea how many decades you need to go back in time to find people who thought so. The writer clearly was not aware of the molecular evidence for monophyly of mitochondria and SAR11, nor the actual gene orders which remain partly the same in e.g. Reclinomonas americana mtDNA and free-living SAR11.

Another source....

In order for an evolutionary theory to be considered a scientific fact or a valid scientific theory, there are some basic requirements. First, it is necessary to have a reasonably detailed mechanism that explains the basic steps in the endosymbiotic scenario. Second, this mechanism should be placed in the context of current Darwinian evolutionary theory and should contain no fundamental problems or falsifications. Third, a substantial body of empirical evidence that directly supports this scenario should be present. Fourth, no credible or logically sound alternatives should exist. If these criteria are not met, the endosymbiotic theory cannot be considered to be a scientific fact that has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Remarkably, the endosymbiotic theory fails all points.

Link

That might have been true in the 1960's. However, it's not true anymore (see e.g. first post in this thread).

Which came first protein or DNA?

My opinion: first RNA, then protein, then DNA. RNA first because autocatalytic RNA molecules can arise spontaneously. Then proteins, which are absolutely required for e.g. DNA synthesis (i.e. DNA polymerases). But, this is not related to mitochondria at all..

reply to post by rhinoceros

I have no idea how many decades you need to go back in time to find people who thought so

2005 is hardly decades old.

Copyright and Intended Use Visitors: to ensure that your message is not mistaken for SPAM, please include the acronym "Bios211" in the subject line of e-mail communications Created by David R. Caprette ([email protected]), Rice University 8 May 97 Updated 10 May 05

David R Caprette PhD Lecturer In Biochemistry and Cell Biology Rice University

That might have been true in the 1960's. However, it's not true anymore (see e.g. first post in this thread)

.

2012 Albert de Roos

Albert de Roos PhD

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

I have no idea how many decades you need to go back in time to find people who thought so

2005 is hardly decades old.

Copyright and Intended Use Visitors: to ensure that your message is not mistaken for SPAM, please include the acronym "Bios211" in the subject line of e-mail communications Created by David R. Caprette ([email protected]), Rice University 8 May 97 Updated 10 May 05

David R Caprette PhD Lecturer In Biochemistry and Cell Biology Rice University

Well, he's clearly unaware of the advances that have been made during the last half a century.

That might have been true in the 1960's. However, it's not true anymore (see e.g. first post in this thread)

2012 Albert de Roos

Albert de Roos PhD

As above.

What do you hope to gain from citing people who clearly don't know what they're talking about?

reply to post by rhinoceros


How do evolutionists explain DNA, abiogenesis and why they haven't found the Missing Link yet?

Originally posted by IamJoy
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

How do evolutionists explain DNA, abiogenesis and why they haven't found the Missing Link yet?

Abiogenesis discussed in e.g. this thread. Don't know what your vague DNA and missing link references are about and how they're related to the topic of this thread, i.e. mitochondria and common ancestry.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by dusty1
Sounds a bit dogmatic.

Mitochondria do not contain anywhere near the amount of DNA needed to code for all mitochondria-specific proteins, however, a billion or so years of evolution could account for a progressive loss of independence. The endosymbiotic hypothesis might be called a theory, but experimental evidence can't be provided to test it. Only circumstantial evidence is available in support of the proposal, which is the most likely explanation for the origin of mitochondria. The evidence needed to change the model from hypothesis to theory is likely forever lost in antiquity.

Link

Not really. Whoever wrote the stuff in your link isn't very up-to-date on mitochondria. The link e.g. states that mitochondria probably descended from purple nonsulfur bacteria. I have no idea how many decades you need to go back in time to find people who thought so. The writer clearly was not aware of the molecular evidence for monophyly of mitochondria and SAR11, nor the actual gene orders which remain partly the same in e.g. Reclinomonas americana mtDNA and free-living SAR11.

Another source....

In order for an evolutionary theory to be considered a scientific fact or a valid scientific theory, there are some basic requirements. First, it is necessary to have a reasonably detailed mechanism that explains the basic steps in the endosymbiotic scenario. Second, this mechanism should be placed in the context of current Darwinian evolutionary theory and should contain no fundamental problems or falsifications. Third, a substantial body of empirical evidence that directly supports this scenario should be present. Fourth, no credible or logically sound alternatives should exist. If these criteria are not met, the endosymbiotic theory cannot be considered to be a scientific fact that has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Remarkably, the endosymbiotic theory fails all points.

Link

That might have been true in the 1960's. However, it's not true anymore (see e.g. first post in this thread).

Which came first protein or DNA?

My opinion: first RNA, then protein, then DNA. RNA first because autocatalytic RNA molecules can arise spontaneously. Then proteins, which are absolutely required for e.g. DNA synthesis (i.e. DNA polymerases). But, this is not related to mitochondria at all..

edit on 21-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

Hi Rhino,

Did you see this by any chance?

www.technologyreview.com...

I never posted in this forum.. like.. ever. This is my first time and this is what I believe which is quite thought provoking.

Nature. Nature is the creator, when I say that, I mean I believe nature is a conscious slice of life. With this thought in mind, where is the line of creation and evolution?

If you look around you at the small stuff, you'll see little things like the Fibonacci Sequence and Phi in many forms of life. If you look at something like Chemistry, what is it? It is nothing more than a human procedure to replicate and accelerate natural procedures. Chemistry is the closest thing at playing God.

So where is the line? If nature creates the things we need, then it must have some kind of consciousness especially since humans are able to replicate natural procedures.

How do creationists explain drug resistant bacteria/viruses?

Originally posted by Anonymous404
How do creationists explain drug resistant bacteria/viruses?

They ignore it.

Simple:
Same data, different conclusion.

All these things being progressively the same, in even a tree-like manner? The same person made them over and over again.