this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
123 points (90.2% liked)
Asklemmy
43796 readers
777 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Okay, as a biologist it really upsets me how that phrase is written off. I did an impromptu half hour lecture for my wife about how significant "the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell" is,
The mitochondria is what ties everything on this planet together, it's the one thing that ties all life together, it is the exact same mechanism in plants as it is in animals, it takes the same ingredients and does the same function, and comes from the same origin.
There is no chain in our DNA that codes for the mitochondria, it exists outside of our DNA, it has no relationship with our DNA, it only fuels reading DNA and it's decoding and replication, but it isn't included in our genetics. It replicates itself, it exists as a separate entity, and it acts as the functioning unit for all energy within the cell.
It would be like if when a child was born their lungs were provided by an outside source and had the same genetic material as everyone else's lungs. Oh and puppy lungs, and crab lungs, and avocado lungs, and grass lungs, every single living thing on this plant has the same lung genetic material. And it has no clue that it serves this function, all it knows is ADP goes in, ATP goes out, and ATP is energy that fuels all function of all life.
And it comes from the friggin mitochondria.
Please be impressed with that little hitch hiker, it is the powerhouse that powers your neurons, grows the vegetables you eat, and makes life happen on earth.
How will we know something extraterrestrial comes our way? They'll have their own mitochondria, because something needs to power their cells, and it won't be the same as ours.
Writing off the mitochondria from biology is like writing off the exchange of goods in economics, or doing physics without the concept of mass, or art without feeling. There is nothing more basic, more fundamentally important to biology than the existence of the mitochondria, and it's role as the powerhouse of the cell.
MITOCHONDRIA IS THE POWERHOUSE OF THE CELL. That you know that makes me happy.
Physics can be done without mass. Next question
It's pretty hard though. Without mass, everything travels at the speed of light and doesn't experience the flow of time, which don't really mesh well with classical physics (or quantum mechanics, and definitely not relativity).
Define the speed of light to be 1 (gaussian units). Then Einstein's E=mc^2 becomes E=m. Mass is energy. In physics mass is not fundamental. Energy is.
In biology mitochondria are not essential, hydrocarbons are. Life sprung up without mitochondria, but it wouldn't be what it is without them. Chemistry is fundamental to biology, mitochondria aren't, but I think you'd agree physics wouldn't be what it is today without mass, nor would biology be without the mitochondria
Depends what you mean by "what it is today.". Mass isn't fundamental. It is a particle's coupling to the Higgs Boson which generates mass. The Lagrangian of the Standard Model is an energy equation. Not a mass one.
Do you watch a lot of v-sauce? There's a certain argumentative style that he instills in his audience that I'm picking up when reading your comments. There's a lot of nuance and acceptability outside of the strict definitions that goes into the scientific process (as much as strict adherents don't like it, science is done when we close those gaps, it isn't immediate nor absolute)
No