Psycho

I haven't specifically found it as you haven't linked to it, I am not going to try and look up every source you present if you won't link to it yourself (it also make it vastly easier/quicker for future/present readers to understand the subject), as half the time you just end up reading the wrong thing, it isn't hard to make a link, I even linked to a tutorial on it. Microbes are microbes and can't easily be defined as they are to diverse, organelles are a "biochemical conversion machine" in one light. You seem to be trying to make the premise that they are the same thing, I have already seen that coming and have been trying to stop you writing a whole post about it for my last 3. I understand mitochondria very well, posting an article and not explaining the points you have taken from it (which maybe write or wrong, mitochondria aren't exactly the simplest things) isn't really helping the discussion, my aim was to get you to write your assertions with a link to the source you used so if incorrect for any reason (such as taking the information, using the premise that the mitochondria is a microbe) I could explain using your own source or if correct agree with them and add further information from a different source. Yes, but all they do is covert the chemical energy from O2 to a proton concentration gradient, how they get the O2 doesn't really matter for the life of a cell and therefore its intracellular mitochondria.

Actually I think you will find it isn't rude to call someone ignorant when they clearly are, it is just factual and this is a science forum, I am not going to pander to some social conception of niceties when people can't even be bothered to read the links I post them, they just need to be told straight out they are ignorant as they obviously don't know it. This is a science forums, my arguments are based around science, you shouldn't get negative votes for this being so and people need to be informed that this is the case if they converse with that person, so they can ignore them. It is also massively ironic that in a topic where someone doubts a source from Nature and supplies no other valid one the person supplying it gets reprimanded at the end, on a Science forum. If you really want me to start reporting posts because they are wrong, then you are going to end up with about 50 a day that will be utterly useless to you, as the whole point of this forum is to inform the masses about the current scientific consensus (or so I assumed), I always assumed that if they were posting they wanted to listen, maybe that was my error and I should go to another forum where the scientific method is upheld. If you don't want the current scientific consensus on a subject, from actual scientists, posting scientific sources to back their arguments, maybe you should mention that somewhere in the sign up process.

That isn't what it say, I haven't specifically found it as you haven't linked to it, however it doesn't say what you have asserted it to. Read all of this then you might actually understand mitochondria to a level so we can have an informed discussion about them and how they came about, bare in mind that the Mitochondrion may once been a bacteria but they no longer are and don't resemble one biochemically, they are an organelle and function as such. Then read through post #26 where I have already explained this already, then read post #27 to have CharonY agree with post #26.

I think I am going to cry. I give up.

Lol, of course you don't understand the concept of an abstract and can't access nature, I really should have seen that one coming. I can't believe you are still mentioning that book....... Oh and you owe me $25 dollars for that.

You could do that or I could just post the Nature article it is based on Link

... If you had read the other topic which shows you are just talking rubbish, I showed that an article from Nature was now wrong, the Museum of Natural History really hasn't got jack on the Journal of Nature. I can't even believe that it is being claimed that a textbook from the Museum of Natural History that is 5 years old is a good scientific source, only on the internet could this happen.

Seriously, that is the crap you come up with after all this, that is the goddamn worm I linked to as the most heat tolerant eukaroytic higher organism. Your book is wrong throw it away, it is useless and read the damn link people provide you next time to reduce your epic level of ignorance.

Yes, but apparently of a Science Forum informing people about science gets you negative votes, then saying exactly the same thing, but dumbing it down to a ridiculous level (no offence intended, if that is what is required, so be it) gets you positive ones. All I can see is I didn't realise there were people who didn't know that heat rises. Awesome, completely ignore my link explaining why that premise is wrong, why do I even bother. Seriously you are getting science information from a pop-science book and trying to refute people who are summarising the current research basis on the subject, no wonder what you are saying is all wrong.

To be fair the notion that he doesn't understand that concept doesn't really matter, no life can live above 122, simple or complex. A link to a topic that was subdivided from this one clearly leaving this one unfinished as it came back to exactly the same point I am not sure what the upper temperature boundary for multicellular eukaroytic life is though, from a quick search it seems to be about 80oC. I think you are completely missing the point that deep sea water is at a stable 4oC, how much temperature difference do you think a spout shooting out 400oC water is going to make in an ocean of 4oC water. (Giving people Negative votes because you are making an idiot of yourself and they are trying to reduce your ignorance to not only science but also where your TV programs come from isn't cool or clever either.) [/shamed]

What are you confused by, the biological nature of the question or the mathematics behind it? As fundamentally it is a geometry question.

There is a difference between around and in, they aren't scientific words, they aren't even complex words, a Year 3 pupil could tell you the difference, but apparently you missed that day at school. Lol, the BBC runs TV channels, that is their primary function, that is what the programs are made for, they are TV documentaries. Edit: As he edited his post, to increase its wrongness I thought I might as well quote that as well. No it isn't. Once the water has cooled it is a very nutrient rich stable environment, optimal for establishing life.

I don't quite understand your point, you have to be on immunosuppressants all your life if you have any form of organ transplant (except in the eye) to stop rejection of the foreign organ due to non-native cell markers. The CD4 receptors are very important in T-cell activation, knocking them out would destroy the child's adaptive immune system before they are born, while making them immune to HIV it would also for all intents and purposes give them similar symptoms to AIDS. That is ignoring the ethical issues of genetically modifying human embryos and the technicality of this. How would you plan on making a knock out mutation of the CD4 receptor in vitro in a fully functioning human, as this isn't actually possible. This is forgetting the fact that once you have AIDS, a disease which takes 10 years to occur after HIV infection, you would be susceptible to all kinds of normally harmless bacteria and would probably die of septicaemia (the average life expectancy for someone with AIDS without treatment being 9.2 months) while pregnant unless you decided to live in a sterile field for 2-3 years, but don't worry you can just take the antiretroviral therapy (HAART), oh wait, it causes birth defects. Not to mention purposely giving yourself HIV probably voids your health insurance. It isn't the immune system working against us, it is the immune system doing exactly what it evolved to do, stopping foreign objects being inside us, as in nearly all cases apart from transplant surgery, a highly unnatural and crude process (in biochemical and genetic terms), any foreign organism living inside us is taking our nutrients and most likely only out for one thing, itself.

They aren't in us, as I have already explained. This is correct, though how it was made isn't relevant, before you start going on about that for no reason. The mitochondria will always be called an organelle, its DNA has been sequenced it has nothing left to hide. Mitochondria don't consume any air they utilize it for the greater good of the cell by creating a proton motive force, working to create ATP for the cell using distribution of labour. No food is metabolised by the mitochondria. How is it strange that the origin of the mitochondria are believed to be from endocytosis of a prokaryotic bacterium and prokaryotes don't have organelles, these two ideas are in no way related or relevant to any argument made or each other. Stop making things up. I am now requiring a source for any of your information or I am no longer responding to it and you can continue to live in ignorance.

Indeed, his peeve actually seems to be that he can't run red lights in case people are crossing and he runs them over.

It is true, I don't know, but I do have occams razor on my side. I really hope that isn't true.

Lifespan and average life expectancy are vastly different one is for the singular and one is for the populous, lifespan is rather irrelevant in terms of statistics or any kind of measure of increased social advancement and well being, the average life expectancy of children today is considerably higher than that of previous generations due to the current (relatively) rapid advancement of medical treatments for degenerative diseases, cancers and cardiac conditions, however none of these effect the maximal lifespan of a human they just stop premature death. One thing that does have promise to increase the maximal lifespan is stem cell therapy as this gives the ability to 'reset' your cells allowing you to grow new organs, tissues and anything you want from them and in theory these could be used to replace the old (it has been done with a trachea), I think the real key bottleneck will always be the brain, if not growing a new one then transferring your conciousness over to it, but their will be many hurdles to come before that is even need to be considered as an issue.

Except we haven't actually increased the human life span by much at all, all we have achieved is to get a greater proportion of people to it. Anyone who reaches the longest life span around 110-115 has lived in an age when these levels of healthcare weren't available but still no one expects the current generation to live much past 110, they just expect a greater proportion to get close. Life expectancy is just an average of the ages people die, it has no correlation to the age the body can effectively manage itself (therefore be alive).

Not really a hard premise to make that it is the most biochemically active, it is full other trillions of cells doing very similar things, it would be vastly inefficient for any of our organs to work in this fashion with limited cooperation. Furthermore biochemically active doesn't really mean anything, it makes no assertion of the complexity or nature of the activity, the more inefficient a process the more it has to occur to create the same product, that makes it worse not better. As for referring to us as 'super organism' (in inverted commas as it is in the paper), it is a whimsical remark to be picked up by journalists hence the commas, as well as being utterly meaningless as it has no definition in laymans terms or scientifically. Of course the microbiota has co-evolved with humans this hasn't ever been questioned, no one has ever claimed there aren't commensal bacteria. I fail to see how that article helps your argument, all it does is prove your assertions wrong, while my affirmations that I have presented are based on scientific papers similar to that as well as practical experience and knowledge. What you have done is read it and not understand its content and then tried to present your intangible premises as truths.

Yes of course, so the logical assertion of a man sitting next to a fire is that he spontaneously combusted, not that the evidence was destroyed by the fact he was on fire.

Well done, another completely irrelevant statement that doesn't support or disprove any of the statements made.

What I said is plan to see and you found a case of a dead man sitting by a fire, I specifically asked for one where there was no other source of ignition, it is plainly obvious that the fire caused that case.

I am sure that there are some intracellular symbiotic bacteria that live in the gut, but I can't think of any off hand, most forms intracellular bacteria in humans are just classed as pathogens due to the idea that they normally do damage to the host cell, I would be intrigued by any examples that could be found though. That is completely and utter irrelevant to anything at all, that happened way before humans and even mammals existed... You mean the meaning of the facts, rather than the interpretation, I understand this whole concept very well and its molecular basis and read about the topic frequently. No one has ever said they don't, you should probably actually read what has been written rather than just apparently making it up.

... First line: Michael Faherty, 76, was found lying face down near an open fire I don't know where you keep your fire but I tend to keep mine with the fire, not to mention that a newspaper isn't a scientific source and the coroner was probably drunk cause he's Irish.

Actually my point is under a biochemical definition anything that passes through your gastrointestinal tract never enters your body at all, there is a tube from your mouth to your anus that forms a hole right through the middle of you which is segregated by sphincters, hence most matter leaving via the anus is classed as being egested rather than excreted or secreted as it isn't a product of metabolism. Note that I using the medical definition of egested, excreted and secreted rather than the laymans.