Psycho

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 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.

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?

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.

It explains the need for oxygen as an electron acceptor is the sole reason that we breathe air

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.

!

Moderator Note

Seriously? Psycho, you're not a new member here. You already know our code of conduct. Being rude doesn't add credibility to your posts, and makes it extremely hard to read what you are writing. It's also against the rules.

 

If you guys think other posters warrant the attention of staff, use the report button. Lowering yourselves to the level of rudness will just make us respond to the civility issue rather than a potentially more important underlying issue.

 

 

Tone it down, please.

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.

The website is called The Mitochondrial and Metabolic Disease Center and this is where one of my sources explains what I said above.

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.

My digestive system is inside my body, maybe yours isn't but everybody else does.

Then read through post #26 where I have already explained this already, then read post #27 to have CharonY agree with post #26.

Well, it told me I had to pay for the article, and I have no reason to think that source is right over an archive of professional scientists and editors with information provided by the most famous museum in America, and it's not famous for being wrong.

 

Here's the deal: You have your non specific "journal entries" as well as stuff from the infamous wikipedia, and you expect me to believe that over a 65$ book that had a lot of work put into it, more than a few websites and BBC.

I think I am going to cry.

I give up.

That journal entry simply states it is most common for those animals to be in those lower temperatures, which means even according to that article its possible for those worms to survive higher temperatures but for only brief periods of time. If that is the case, it would be fine according to that quote form my book as it does not specify how long those worms stay in vents.

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.

Temperature is one of the most important environmental factors that governs a species' distribution. Some highly specialized prokaryotes can grow at temperatures above 113 °C (ref. 1), but eukaryotes appear less versatile2 and do not normally occur above 55 °C. Here we show that a colony-dwelling polychaete worm, inhabiting deep-sea hydrothermal vent chimneys, regularly experiences temperatures above 80 °C and a thermal gradient of 60 °C or more over its body length.

 

Active deep-sea hydrothermal vents typically contain areas of high temperature flow (above 300 °C) which are essentially abiotic. Associated with and peripheral to these hot sites are cooler (below 100 °C) diffuse flow regions where mixing with ambient seawater (2 °C) occurs. The thin tube dwellings of the Pompeii worm (Alvinella pompejana; Fig. 1) form thick, heavily channelled structures along the outer walls of vent 'chimneys' created by an accumulation of metal sulphides. Although these worms spend most of their time in the tubes with their gills and buccal structure extended from the tube opening, individuals make regular excursions of up to 1 m to feed on free-living filamentous bacteria growing on the outer surface of the colony.

We deployed self-recording time-lapse temperature probes from the research submersible DSV Alvin at high-temperature chimneys located at the M-Vent site (9° 50.6' N, 104° 17' W) within the Axial Summit Caldera on the East Pacific Rise (EPR) during November 1995 and April 1996. M-Vent is one of three active chimneys, 5-7 m tall, from which intense diffuse vent fluids emerge through densely populated Pompeii worm colonies.

 

On each dive we positioned a specially designed time-lapse temperature logger (the 'Mosquito'), containing a 20-cm-long titanium probe (0.75 cm diameter), with its temperature sensor adjacent to a Pompeii worm's tail (Fig. 2a). We placed two further temperature recorders adjacent to the tube of interest. We chose completely intact worm tubes, to avoid temperature sampling where the hydrodynamic conditions of the colony might have been altered; we also monitored unoccupied tubes. In all cases resident worms displayed normal behaviour before, during and after deployment of the temperature recorders. The loggers were calibrated before and after each dive. We also made real-time temperature measurements with Alvin's low-temperature probe (0-60 °C range).

In six independent surveys, temperatures recorded 6-8 cm within the worm tubes averaged 68plusminus6.33 °C (meanplusminuss.d.), with frequent spikes exceeding 81 °C (Fig. 2b). The external temperatures were variable, depending on the placement of the in situ recorders and the submersible's low-temperature probe. Measurements made at the tube openings averaged 22plusminus2.5 °C; thus, a temperature gradient of up to 60 °C exists along the length of the worm's body. These measurements were consistent with long- and short-term measurements taken near Pompeii worm colonies at several different EPR sites3,4. No temperature differences were detected between occupied and unoccupied tubes.

 

A Pompeii worm has survived short exposure to 105 °C (ref. 5); however, this was outside the worms' natural habitat. Our data demonstrate unambiguously that Pompeii worms inhabit an environment with an unprecedented temperature gradient of up to 60 °C. This gradient, although somewhat dynamic, is remarkably uniform over a period of hours. Such a consistent and pronounced gradient over the length of a single worm establishes A. pompejana as the most eurythermal (tolerant of wide temperature range) organism on record. Moreover, the 81 °C temperature at the posterior of the worm suggests that this is also the most thermotolerant metazoan known.

 

The most thermotolerant and eurythermal eukaryote previously described is the Sahara Desert ant Cataglyphis, which forages under the midday sun at temperatures nearing 55 °C and remains underground for the rest of the day while the temperature rarely drops below 20 °C (ref. 6). These conditions are not as extreme as those experienced by the Pompeii worm.

Several studies have proposed that the Pompeii worm tube might be an efficient barrier against the thermal effect of the diffusing fluid3,7. Other researchers have proposed active ventilation or convective cooling as mechanisms to minimize the thermal exposure of the worm3,8. The present study suggests that the tubes actually channel the hot diffuse flow fluids over the worm's body, maintaining a continually flushed high-temperature environment.

 

How the Pompeii worm's physiology has adapted to function under such an extreme temperature gradient has yet to be determined. It is also unclear how a metazoan's cytoskeletal proteins, chromosomes, nucleic acid processing machinery and other macromolecules, previously thought to be the thermally limiting components of multicellular eukaryotes, can function at temperatures above 80 °C. Recent interest in the Pompeii worm has focused on a unique assemblage of symbiotic filamentous proteobacteria that cover the dorsal surface of the animal9,10. Like their hosts, these bacteria are positioned within this extreme thermal gradient and survive the same high-temperature environment laden with heavy metals and hydrogen sulphide. Studies of the worm and its associated microflora afford a unique opportunity to discover the biochemical adaptations that allow organisms to thrive in such an extreme thermal regime.

I can't believe you are still mentioning that book.......

Oh and you owe me $25 dollars for that.

I'll tell you what...I'll try and see if I can scan it sometime and upload the image(s) to an image hosting site like photoucket.

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

If you want to buy the 50-60$ book (thought it might be cheaper by now), I'm sure it's at a book store, maybe even Half-Price books. The info was on page 171. Or you could try amazon, it's probably cheaper there. Maybe they change the covers for different editions, but mine has a cover of a small swimmer in front of a giant jellyfish.

 

And Psycho, your name fits you. I've been pretty patient despite what you've said and now your saying information form the Museum of Natural History is wrong, just stop already.

...

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.

Found it

 

"OCEAN", published by DK Publishing, the first of which in 2006 (the EARTH book was 2009-10), with information provided by the American Museum of Natural History says

 

"HEAT-TOLERANT WORM

This polychaete worm (. type of segmented worm) was discovered by the Alvin submersible in 1979- and named Alvinella pompejana in its honor. It is the most heat-tolerant animal on Earth, living in water emerging from hydrothermal vents at 570ºF (300ºC)."

So, moon was right. But I would agree that it is rare as I realize that most heat from vents travels directly upward.

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.

btw the Pompeii worm is head and shoulders above any other known heat tolerant complex creature I can find any information about, it is amazingly tolerant of heat.... if for no other reason finding out about the Pompeii worm was worth the google search....

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.

but the reasons I would continue to think there are animals that can survive the vents is because of extremeafiles which could potentially evolve into complex life,

Awesome, completely ignore my link explaining why that premise is wrong, why do I even bother.

If someone can find shrimp-like creatures that occupy the vent-ecosystems, I might be able to look it up in the index for more detail, but I'm having trouble finding it.

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.

Questionposer, do you have clue as to what the difference is between "life" and "complex life"? If not then I suggest you do a little bit of research before you make any more claims that are... somewhat less than well informed...

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.

As far as I can tell, crabs and shrimps and octopus are complex. If that is incorrect then feel free to say that, unless I find that in the ocean book it says otherwise. The crabs I don't think are too close to the vent, but the shrimp-like organisms are nearly in it. Most of these are small organisms too, it's not like giant things would be able to live in such conditions.

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.

So, in the same post, you stated only simple life can grow around high temperatures, and then linked to websites that even have pictures proving you wrong...

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.

Planet Earth series is BBC, and not a TV show as far as I know, they are documentary movies.

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.

Even the water "around" vents is hotter than 100 C

No it isn't. Once the water has cooled it is a very nutrient rich stable environment, optimal for establishing life.

I'm reading about an article published in the March-April 2011 issue of the "Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology"

 

Seems like individuals who have the implant need the immunosuppressants to prevent rejeciton.

Afterward, they are still needed to prevent the immune system from attacking the thing (perhaps the immune system is what led to original necrosis of the first uterus).

 

Looks like the immunosuppressants are useful for keeping the implant and maintaining it (not out of rejection in the latter sense, but to prevent the immune system from attacking whatever markers are on the typical human uterus). So, it seems like the problem is the immune system that you have. In short, you are naturally immune to pregnancy, it would appear. Canny, really. I suspect that's an evolutionary fluke, but I keep reading that odd evolutionary adaptions keep coming about in species to prevent pregnancy. The one you have did not seem to pan out for survival and reproduction.

 

But, alas, modern science.

 

If the issue is your immune system, then you would more than likely have to be on some kind of immunosuppressants while hoping to give birth.

Which might cause problems with pregnancy or keeping the baby around 9 months, and might ruin the child's immune system.

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.

I wonder if you would be better off getting AIDs (destroy your immune system), getting the implant, genetically engineering your child to be resistant to AIDs (cd4 receptor knock-out, I think), giving birth to this mutant child, and then taking out your CD4 receptors also (painful procedure). You'd soon lose the utereus, though.

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.

The idea of destroying the human immune system is a bit off topic but is something I have been thinking about lately. I guess this is another example of our natural immune system working against us. Maybe someday this might be the case where we will voluntarily have our natural immune systems destroyed, and replaced by something synthetic!

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.

You state we can process nutrients just fine without bacteria so why are they in us?

They aren't in us, as I have already explained.

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.

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.

What sports or utilities are these SUVs being used for?

It seems like a really good example of how the US looks to the rest of the world as if they have lost the plot.

Who goes out and thinks " If I spend more money, I can get a more hazardous vehicle that costs a lot more to run. Yep! that's the right choice for me!"?

 

 

Incidentally, if you can't see past the SUVs then you shouldn't be going much faster than walking pace.

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

Firstly, I personally am quite sceptical when it comes to spontaneous human combustion.

I am just stating the fact that at least one death certificate gives it as the cause of death.

The reason for this appears to have been arrived at by a coroner who was able to call on whatever experts he considered necessary.

He seems to have enlisted suitable experts (who would quite likely be scientists) to consider whether the fire was the cause of the combustion and they said no it wasn't.

Therefore you are not arguing with me - you are arguing with a coroner and his panel of experts.

As for me, I am quite willing to declare that I really don't know. Do you?

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

Generally, coroners have had a previous career as a lawyer (solicitor/barrister) or physician of at least five years standing.

I really hope that isn't true.

I have read that today's children are likely to have a lower lifespan than their parents due mainly to factors such as obesity and lifestyle.

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).

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.

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.

That appeared to be so obvious that it was considered by experts. To quote from the report :-

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.

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

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

I am of Irish Ancestry - I like a drink and sometimes sit by the fire. However you did ask for an officially recorded case and this seems to be one!

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 would call it a physiological, anatomical or (more generally)a biological definition rather than a biochemical one, but it is, of course correct. However, even if bacteria penetrate cells, quite often they are not really inside the cell either. They are still separated from the host's cytoplasm as they are still surrounded by the host's membrane (e.g. after endocytosis).

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.

Call it whatever you want but it still originates from endosymbiont bacteria

That is completely and utter irrelevant to anything at all, that happened way before humans and even mammals existed...

I am not trying disapprove the theory of evolution but I do question your interpretation of the facts.

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.

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.

No one has ever said they don't, you should probably actually read what has been written rather than just apparently making it up.

There is at least one death officially recorded as spontaneous human combustion. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/8783929/Irish-pensioner-died-of-spontaneous-human-combustion.html

...

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.

The fact a microbe lives within a human does not make it part of the human nor it does make human DNA 90% microbial - I think Psycho's analogies are trying to convey this point.

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.