It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mitochondria... the spark of the divine?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 02:34 PM
link   
I don't know if it is because I've been playing too much Parasite Eve or have been reading too many Discover magazines... but I have been thinking alot of the mitochondria; pesky little symbiotic parasites that live within all out genes... complete with their own DNA.

Their own DNA?!

Apparently, to put into a nutshell of what I have read... mitochondria are responsible for us having life. Really. We give them oxygen, and they supply our bodies cells with energy... without them, we couldn't live.

Are mitochondria the touch of something Divine? All religious accounts state that we were mud shaped as man, until a god or goddess touched us, giving us life... without the mitochondria, we would be nothing more than mud.

Life and energy providers?



d1k

posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Mitochondria are not parasites nor do they live in our genes, they are in our cells. Don't know how you would come to that conclusion nor have I ever heard of them having their own DNA, that is, different DNA then that of whats in the rest of our genes.

Yes they are one of the two "power factories" for our cells, but I would think that our bodies and everything that makes them work and everything else in life (the universe and everything in it) is some part of a divine plan.

[edit on 15-8-2004 by d1k]



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 03:02 PM
link   
kind of different perpsective there soothsayer.
can you provide some links to give us something to read up on and discover how you came up with this thought?
I have heard similar debates but only in realtion to very primitive Mitochondria.
If this were true then yes, they (the origional Mitochondria) would have to have different DNA sequence than from the host.
Unfortunately, this would have to of occured at an extremely early stage of all life that identification and the differentiation of the origional Mitochondria DNA from the (host) that it will be difficult if to determine the validity of this assumption.
The reason for this is that Mitochondria has become assumed and is a necessary part of the cell structure and it is needed for the processing of the ATP for energy to which to feed the entire cell.
Do you have any links so that we can investigate this further?



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Useful link:

biocrs.biomed.brown.edu...


I quote:

"In the early 1960s a number of experiments showed that mitochondria could not be produced by cells de novo, but instead always arose from the division of preexisting mitochondria. In other words, they were self-replicating. By the end of the decade it was clear that mitochondria had their own DNA, and some researchers began to speculate that they might indeed be the semi-independent creatures that Altmann had wondered about. "


Also, mitochondrial inheritance is maternal, it is passed on from mother to child.



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 03:45 PM
link   
soothsayer,

Are you making reference in your post from a book call the cosmic code?

In wish the author goes to explain why the god Gilgamesh came to be two-thirds divine?

In 1953 the double helix structure of DNS and the understanding of it was discovered. Supousely man and woman, sperm and egg combine to form an offspring with 50-50 share of their parents.

In 1980 It was another discovery that not only we have the regular DNA but also was another kind of DNA that floats outside the nucleus. It is call Mitchondrial DNA (mtDNA) and is only transmitted by mothers.

If this is true perhaps instead of Adan been the first man on earth actually Eve was the first woman in earth before Adan in order to transmit the (mtDNA). Right?

The ancients knew something about this because the ancients keep the marriage between themself to keep the line pure.

All this discoveries indeed can make scientist to come out with a different view of how life was form and DNA was pass on.



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 04:23 PM
link   
According to endosymbiosis theory. Eukaryotic cells were formed by symbiosis of several prokaryotic organisms (PubMed: Mitochondrial evolution). Bacteria are prokaryotic organisms and don't have mitochrondia or other organelles that have their own DNA, like chloroplasts. Choroplasts are the photosynthesis organelles of plants. Evidence for this theory is the fact that mitochondria and chloroplasts have circular dna, just like prokaryotic organisms, instead of the strands of DNA in eukaryotic organisms.

According to endosymbiosis theory, eventually some bacteria ended up living in other bacteria providing certain metabolic pathways and getting protection and a good food supply in return. This is current theory. It doesn't say if the symbiosis was caused by god or not. It isn't required though that a god was involved.

Mitchondria are also not required for life, they're just handy and provide certain metabolic pathways that greatly increase the efficieny of human cells, like the Krebs-cycle.

More about mitochrondria.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by soothsayer
We give them oxygen, and they supply our bodies cells with energy... without them, we couldn't live.


Without practically any of the cellular organelles we wouldn't be alive. The mitochondria aren't special in that respect.


marg6043:
If this is true perhaps instead of Adan been the first man on earth actually Eve was the first woman in earth before Adan in order to transmit the (mtDNA). Right?


One of the effects of adam and eve being fictional characters in a story from a couple of thousand years ago is that they don't make sense in light of modern scientific facts.


The ancients knew something about this because the ancients keep the marriage between themself to keep the line pure.


This would have nothing to do with mtDNA (if I even understand what you mean by this as its rather unclear). No matter who a woman reproduces with, the child will have her mtDNA.

When an egg is fertilized the father's and mother's dna are combined. However, the egg, being a cell of the mother's body, has mitochondria already inside of it, and the dna in the mitochondria (which controls the production of mitochondria) doesn't combine with the father's dna. As the fertilized egg develops along its own process the mitochondria with in the egg also continue along with their own 'reproduction' (in a sense anyway). That is why a person's mitochondrial dna is said to be 'maternal'.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join