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.