kitkat

Then why is this not broadcasted on every media outlet with an actual number of scientists standing behind these facts?

In my opinion, there seems to be an ongoing problem for people that have a general interest in finding out as much as they can of what is current in science discoveries of what interests them. Today, people do all of their research via the internet and we blindly place trust in the content of all the websites that gladly provide their research and their conclusions of those findings. When a particular question of interest is provided by these resources and we share them here, it is often met with sarcasm and require proof of our sources. This is confusing to the person presenting this information since I feel that the person that represents an education on the matter should already know what is being provided via the web to the public and they should provide the source that provides us with the correct information. Coming to these forums and the responses you get makes me question whether I should even bother with doing any personal research since most of it is untrue. Another problem is, "if you don't talk like a scientist using their specific terminology and do not mimic their choice of words in the strictest sense, then you will responded as if you are an idiot. People of science should learn to translate their language in something that lay people can easily understand of how they interprete in their own opinion of the research. To insist on recited information that a scientist can only understand to the public creates a wall between them and that is why forums like these do not have a large population to participate in it.

What is it like $22 Billion paid by tax payors to support scientists and their research and you expect "us" to read, learn, discuss...act per your comment? The public is informed of conflicting information all of the time on this subject and it is no wonder that half can't agree with the other half of what is real or not. All you have to do is follow the funding trail of money to observe that we do not always get the truth, especially at election time for the active populace to "act" or not act. What is it like $22 Billion paid by tax payors to support scientists and their research and you expect "us" to read, learn, discuss...act per your comment? The public is informed of conflicting information all of the time on this subject and it is no wonder that half can't agree with the other half of what is real or not. All you have to do is follow the funding trail of money to observe that we do not always get the truth, especially at election time for the active populace to "act" or not act.

Good question, I won't be back here anymore.

So we can communicate properly - prokaryotes, microbes, bacteria are all one and the same subject correct?

I can certainly see why this forum has so few people interested in it, with an attitude like yours, I can see why people get turned off to learning science. When you expect people to use your terminology in a strict fashion that you can only understrand in the scientific mumbo jumbo language that is brainwashed in your field of expertise, nobody wants to play by your rules. That is why there are many scientific articles out there is written in a way that a regular person can relate to and understand its meaning. The problem arrives when a person comes to these forums and expects that the people responding to their questions or how they interpret the information that is on the internet is translated so we get it. Instead it is responded with sarcasm and insults and that we better go learn more on the subject before coming here.

There is another website called Overview of Krebs-Reactions Electron Transport and Oxidative... It explains the need for oxygen as an electron acceptor is the sole reason that we breathe air jeb.biologists.org/content/210/12/i.2 The oxygen uptake in mitochondria is another website. Do you want more? I think the problem we are having in communication is how we have a different viewpoint of microbes. Is your opinion of microbes is that they are biochemical conversion machines or something similiar to that?

The website is called The Mitochondrial and Metabolic Disease Center and this is where one of my sources explains what I said above. My digestive system is inside my body, maybe yours isn't but everybody else does.

You state we can process nutrients just fine without bacteria so why are they in us? I also thought that mitochondria evolved to take in oxygen produced by photosynthesis, is this wrong? I just read that mitochondria consumes over 80% of the air we breathe and make over 90% of the energy our cells need to function. Air and food are metabolized by mitochondria. Our cell, eukaryotes likely evolved from two prokaryotes. Just because we can physically breathe oxygen, it is still converted by mitochondria. Mitochondria is currently called an organelle but its origin is believed to be a prokarote. This is strange since prokaryotes are not known to have organelles.

How long after that do you think the chloroplasts came onto the scene after eukaryotes with mitochondria?

Are you a microbiologist? May I suggest reading dnaresearch.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/1/1.full which I might add views humans as a super organism. The microbial biota by far is the most biochemically active "organ" in the human body and they profoundly influence the physiology of its host. It is also believed that the microbial biota has co-evolved with the human host and its ancestors even before we looked human that goes all the way back to our origin.

The processes and interactions underlying symbiotic intracellular associations are still poorly understood by science so the facts aren't in yet.

The article written by Stephen Gould explains it very well and this is why I formed my opinion that bacteria have a far greater influence then what is currently believed in these science forums. The widespread of HGT in bacteria was in the Science Daily article

That is a very good question, however, the level of understanding between a human and another mammal is not so vast that we cannot communicate at all. We share many of the same principles of sexual behavior, nurturing offspring, emotional responses and so on. When you say, "but it is always "us" we are putting in the other's shoes" is not all together correct. Empathy is mirroring neurons from one entity to the one that is effected by it and this appears almost universal in response to most creatures we share this planet with. We understand when a snake uses it rattle when we are too close to it that it means to back off we are in its space. People use verbal or body language to create the same message. The snake cannot speak our language obviously but we still understand what the snake is telling us. It is the same when you are in a foreign country trying to communicate to the natives by using your language. You end up using body language in gestures to hopefully get them to understand what you need. This is no different from what other mammals use in their abilities to be understood when interacting with another type of creature. Cats and dogs are always invented new ways to get their point across and when we feel we have trained them but in reality many of them have trained us.

I agree with questionposter and if I could be immortal, I would like my body to be that of someone in their twenties and remain that way while my mind can still accumulate all my experiences through time and still remember it well.

Call it whatever you want but it still originates from endosymbiont bacteria I am not trying disapprove the theory of evolution but I do question your interpretation of the facts.

These facts are relevant and you yourself admitted they were facts. Your analogy makes no sense and your comparisons are meaningless. It is amazing how science provides all of the wonderful details of microbes and how we can't live without them, how we are dependent on them for oxygen and so on, but when it comes to our microbial biota they are insignificant. There only purpose for being their is free room and board and in return train our immune system and provide us with changing what we eat into chemicals so our body can use them. The fact is we have mitochondria which is viewed as its own microbe that allow us to breathe oxygen and we have microbial biota in our digestive system so we can consume nutrients. Without this we would not survive very long so yes the facts are very relevant to me.

Okay, you win, but if they don't have it we don't have it either!

Thank you for your response!

Thats cute! Both tree and parrot are also homes to trillions of bacterial cells.

There was a comment made on another thread here that UV light cannot penetrate water very well, is this true?

It can't be agreed on due to people being so arrogant in how they want it defined. The subject of physics is based on a predictable reaction to a cause, the results cannot change unless other things are added to the experiment. Simplistic cause and effect - a no brainer, no intelligence required situation. I get that and it is a logical explanation based on the tests and the repetitive identical results every time you retest it. The fact is no living entity lives in an environment where there is only one cause which produces one typical reaction. We have also many observations of pathogens and their hosts that evolve to defeat them or reduce their harm and to me that is taking control of cause and changing the outcome in your favor = intelligence

Had a problem with my computer is why quadruple post, sorry! Yes, 10% of the trillions of cells are truly human while 90% are bacteria, viruses, and other microbes cells. I believe that is where DNA is stored in a cell, right? 90% of bacteria cells is 100% bacterial DNA while 10% of human cells is 100% human = 90% bacterial DNA and 10% human DNA.

Thank you, that is the first honest answer I have heard in a long time on a science forum.

People with severe anxiety disorders certainly have an idea of what self is when a anxiety attack is over and has released the "self" from inprisonment. As for your comment as only being of a bundle of sensations associated with self is obviously the mechanism used in all living entities. You can look at it and determine that life is an illusion too. Since we are just a being of biochemical activities that stimulate atoms in an excited state that allows us to exist as "living" so at the physics level we don't even exist.