Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:Jcw

2011-06-29T23:37:36Z

Professor: /* Endosymbiotic Theory */

This is a [[meritocracy]], and you deserve blocking privileges. They have just been awarded to you. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:55, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks Andy, much appreciated. I'll endeavor to use the privileges responsibly and to the benefit of CP. If I have questions about blocking policy or anti-vandal tactics, is it alright to ask publicly on your talk page, or is there a better venue? Thanks again. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:50, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
::Wow, your new privileges were just in time! Great effort a little while ago.

::I'll mark your talk page here as "watched" and you can ask any questions about blocking here, or on my talk page. Looks like you already know what you need, however!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:51, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Indeed, the vandals never seem to be far away... One question occurs at once: from the username policy, I'd assume that anyone with a clearly incorrect username should be gently blocked and invited to re-join. Is that something I can legitimately do, or should I leave it to the admins? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:57, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

::::Please do block inappropriate user names, even before any edits. Note that it is necessary to unblock the option boxes in those cases in order to allow re-registering under an appropriate name.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:22, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::Ah yes, I'll be careful of that. Thanks for all the help. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:29, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

==Freyja==

I won't put up with edit warring over my talk page. If you want to have this sort of discussion on here, you have to be civil and respectful. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 08:21, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

:Genuine thanks for being even handed and deleting the whole thread, rather than selectively deleting individual contributions. [[User:Freyja|Freyja]]

::I suppose I can't be upset at your using a sock to post that... I look forward to an interesting discussion elsewhere - perhaps on your talk page, or a CP debate page? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 08:44, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

== Question ==

Hello there, I'm new here on Conservapedia. However it seems I cannot create new pages. Is there any way I am able to do so? Or is it a restriction to protect the wiki from vandals creating nonsense pages? [[User:TomFowdy|TomFowdy]] 10:33, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

: When an entry does not exist, there is a link to click for it in order to create it. You should be able to do this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:35, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

== A minor point ==

First, congrats! And thanks for sorting out the A.D.s at [[Otho]]. Now for the minor point: virtually all of you edits are marked as ''minor''. That's very humble, but not right :-) Please have a look at [[Help:Editing etiquette#Minor Edit box]].

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:01, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
:Ah yes, a good point - I set the software to mark all edits as 'minor' when I first started contributing, and back then it was true. Thanks for pointing it out. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:05, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

== Alert block ==

Jcw, your alert block earlier was superb. I should have promoted you to this sooner: SkipCaptcha. Now you won't have to enter captcha characters any more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:15, 13 June 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks Andy, that'll be useful - reverting blanked pages usually involves a captcha, so skipping it will make fixing vandalism twice as fast. Speaking of which, have you considered a tool to allow banning a vandal and reverting all his edits at once? Of course it would only be applicable to the run-of-the-mill drive-by vandals who blank a few pages then get banned, but it could save a lot of time spent reverting. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:37, 13 June 2011 (EDT)
::::I think MediaWiki has an extension called Nuke something or other that does that type of reverting. [[User:Conservative|conservative]]

== thanks, removed reference to website ==

Thanks, I removed reference to the website in question. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:11, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
:No problem. Glad to be a help. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:15, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

== N3hima blocked ==

Good catch, I think they are trying to check whether the sysops read all the posts. Thank God you were alert :) --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 19:32, 23 June 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks. That's actually the first remotely intelligent attempt at vandalism I've seen - I'd almost stopped paying attention by the time it came to the vandalism. I think if the user had had a more reasonable name I might not have noticed at all. Silly vandal! [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 21:04, 23 June 2011 (EDT)
::Hehe, I do not like vandalism, but I must admit that this one attempt made me laugh! Still, good catch! --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 02:23, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

== Conservative words count ==

You appear to have inadvertently reverted my change to the word count on Conservative Words. I added "left wing" to the 1800s. That is why the count was changed. --[[User:BertramB|BertramB]] 21:15, 23 June 2011 (EDT)
:Ah yes, my mistake. However, you seem to be adding some dubious words to the list - 'vacuous' seems awfully like parody to me. Please come and discuss your additions on the talk page. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 21:37, 23 June 2011 (EDT)
::I confess I am a little concerned and even put out by your reaction to my editing. And by the reaction of Aschlafly. Between you, you have removed all of my additions to the article. At least in your case you gave some sort of reason (in relation to "garrote" which I address below) but Aschlafly gave no reason at all other than an assertion that the edits didn't meet the "particularly high quality level" required. So I am left to ponder how my entry of "vacuous - Empty, void or free. A common characteristic of liberal argument" falls below the particularly high standard set by entries such as "blather - nonsensical or insignificant babble, as in "liberal blather is common on the lamestream media"". Or how my entry of the word "morals - A person's moral qualities" falls below the particularly high standard set by entries such as "fat farm - a place where obese people -- such as self-centered atheists -- might go to try to lose weight". Perhaps you could explain the difference to me? I have an interest in etymology and am very interested in editing the page so it would be of great assistance to know how these things are judged.
::As to the word "garrote" I regarded it as a conservative term in light of the fact that it was the state sanctioned method of execution in Spain for some time. Indeed American authorities kept the garrote as a method of execution in the Philippines after its capture in 1898. Capital punishment is often decried by liberals who have little or no concept of righteous punishment for criminal acts, whereas conservatives have always recognised the benefit of capital punishment in building a law abiding and just society. That was why I included the word. I do, however, appreciate your concerns and will not reintroduce the word into the article without consulting you. --[[User:BertramB|BertramB]] 00:04, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

== Trolling? ==

I'm sorry - but when is raising legitimate concerns about the conduct of people on Conservapedia "trolling"? Or is the standard response to "something I don't like" to delete it? Please can you enlighten me, so I know for future reference. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:04, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
:Please go back and re-read what you wrote. Your tone was rather offensive, indeed it seemed calculated to provoke Conservative. I'm sure you can make your substantive points in a less strident manner, then they'll be more likely to get a response. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:14, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
::Sorry, I was - am - annoyed. But I will tone down my questions for him. Thank you! [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:21, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
:::No problem TracyS, it happens to us all. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:28, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

== Well-deserved promotion ==

You've just received a well-deserved promotion to full 24x7 editing, without interruption.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
:Superb, many thanks. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 03:02, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

== Netball ==

Hi - I was curious why you reverted my change on netball? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:32, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
:Edited to add: This is from the referenced article on netball: Netball is an Olympic recognised sport. The sport gained recognition in 1995, after a twenty year period of lobbying. '''It has never been played at the summer Olympics but recognition means that it could be played at some point in the future.'''

Thanks, [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:36, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

:Hi Sharon. That entry could certainly be improved to make the point clearer, but I think it is correct - if you look at the WP article as it is now, and at its talk page, it's clear that there's been an overtly feminist attempt to overstate the importance and the international standing of netball using WP. The links given perhaps aren't the best chosen, but illustrating a wiki controversy by static links is always a difficult task. Note that the example is from [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]], so that would be the best place to take issue with it. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:52, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
::I agree that the WP article overemphasizes the sport - I know I've never heard of it before. There already is a statement in the CP article about feminists' arguments about the sport, but I still maintain that the WP article does NOT say the game is played in the Olympics, which the CP article states. The above bolded sentence has been in the WP article since it was created. Personally, I'd add a bit about sport fanaticism too, to all sporting articles, since it can be just as bad if not worse than feminism. ;-) [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 17:26, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
:::I think you're right on that point - I certainly wouldn't object if you re-wrote that part to be clearer about exactly what's wrong with the WP article. As for sports fanaticism, I entirely agree - my idea of sport involves dead birds and gin, so the fanaticism one sees around professional sports is incomprehensible to me. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:43, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

== Endosymbiotic Theory ==

Hi, I recently authored a page on Serial Endosymbiotic Theory (SET) that was factually accurate (I cited sources) and well-written (two users felt the page was excellent). I spent a great deal of time on it in order to legitimize Conservapedia as a source for scientific information. However, I found that it was almost immediately altered beyond recognition. We had a less-than-productive debate on the Talk page, and you removed the one comment that was rather insulting/trolling. I fail to see how it was, seeing as it DID raise legitimate concerns concerning the article. I don't know if you read my original article, but I feel that it is far superior to the current one and demonstrates a much better understanding of biological science. Please take a look and give me your thoughts. With all due respect, [[User:Professor|Professor]] 18:54, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
:Hi Professor. Please don't take this personally, but you really could have chosen a better username - real names or something like them are much preferred around here, and a name like 'professor' tends to suggest an attempt to impress with credentials. I'm sure that's not your intention, but one 'professor' amongst many 'first name last initial's is bound to stand out.
:As for the article, your version had much to recommend it but was sadly flawed. This site takes a firmly [[Creationist]] view, so you must have realized that the large block of confidently-presented 'evidence' for an evolutionary theory would be provocative; then you cap it with a needless quote from Dawkins, which is hard to take otherwise than as an affront.
:Speaking for myself, I'd welcome more information about the modern evolutionary view, but this isn't WP - information like that has to put properly in context and not given improper weight. If you want to improve the article, I suggest adding a bit at a time and discussing changes with other editors. Good luck. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:19, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
::That doesn't justify removing evidence. It's factual information--that it disagrees with a certain fundamentalist world view is not my concern or that of any other scientist. Are you suggesting that we lie or distort information because it is not in accordance with our beliefs? Should we engage in [[liberal deceit]] and prevent the truth from being known? It's not only against the teachings of most modern religions to lie: it is also antithetical to the principles of modern society.[[User:Professor|Professor]] 19:37, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

User talk:Jcw

2011-06-29T22:54:27Z

Professor:

Talk:Endosymbiotic hypothesis

2011-06-28T19:19:34Z

Professor: /* Falsifiability */

==Falsifiability==

I take issue with the claim that the endosymbiotic hypothesis is not falsifiable. Off the top of my head, it strongly predicts that a) we should find similarities between mitochondria and chloroplasts and their hypothesized "relatives" in the bacterial kingdoms, and b) that such organelles should have two layers of plasma membrane rather than one. Finding evidence against either of these would falsify the theory. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 17:47, 4 May 2009 (EDT)

I essentially performed a massive surgery on this page. The original was good, but I felt that it needed an academic face-lift. I'm also a little more knowledgeable on this subject than the first author, though they did do a superb job for someone that (I'm assuming) lacked advanced training in biology. I can safely say that MOST university professors would be comfortable with their students using this article as a quick reference. [[User:Professor|Professor]] 01:57, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
:Professor, I did some additional surgery too plus a graft. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:23, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::Conservative, your surgery included the complete deletion of some parts, for example the "evidence" paragraph. I am sure that you had your reasons, but I believe that it is better for Conservapedia that when the complete deletion of some parts is required, a full, detailed reason should always be provided in the talk page, lest we are accused of censorship. Self-respecting conservatives do not engage in that kind of thing, and we must lead by example. So, what was the reason for the deletion of entire sections from the article? Were they poorly sourced? Were they demonstrably untrue? Do you have reason to believe it was parody? Again, I am not criticizing, but I think it will ultimately benefit Conservapedia if there is some transparence and openness behind the decisions of admins.
::By the way, how is your new satire article coming along? You mentioned you were working on something, and I am looking forward to it :)
::Respectfully,
::--[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 07:37, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
::::Evobabble is not science. Conservapedia doesn't want the adherents of the religion of atheism to put in their atheist origins myth which is evolution. Conservapedia is not a big fan of astrology and evolution. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 12:58, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::I was entirely accurate in the article. The evidence that was burned (Godwin's law, anyone?) represents a wealth of scientific knowledge that has been accumulated over a century. I agree that symbiotic theory is a key argument used by evolution proponents, but I don't think that warrants the blatant disregard of scientific fact. Whether we agree with the theory or not, surely we can respect the massive amount of time and research that has been devoted to better understanding ourselves and other organisms. [[User:Professor|Professor]] 13:07, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I am not buying your "wealth". Please read: [[Evolution]] and [[Atheism]]. Are you an atheist? Do you have proof and evidence that atheism is true? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:47, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservative, I know perfectly well why you deleted that material, I am not asking you to explain it to me; all that I am asking for is that, in the spirit of openness, you acknowledge the complete deletion of a section in the log and in the talk page, clearly providing the reason for why it is deleted. It is very easy to be accused of censorship, and we do not want to provide any ammo to those who criticize us. And... you didn't reply for what concerns your next satire article :) --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 14:29, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I am not arguing against religion; personal faith has had, in many instances, a demonstrably positive effect on society. Where would we be without the Catholic Church's support of the Renaissance? What would be the state of modern physics without the contributions of religious scientists such as Newton? Indeed, I support the study of religion for the positive impacts it has had. One cannot properly enjoy English literature (perhaps ALL literature) without being intimately familiar with the Bible. What I do not support, however, is the blatant distortion of scientific fact. Whether we profess to be "atheist" or "creationist", all of us share a common goal: the revelation of the truth. I contend that science is the path to that truth. It is the gateway to that enlightenment. It is the road to that common understanding. If science leads us to embrace a Divine Creator, then so be it. However, if science leads us to doubt the existence of the Creator, then I must whole-heartedly accept that as well. No matter what our personal beliefs may be, we all share a common devotion to educating the next generation. I feel that censoring what is considered to be a large body of scientific evidence disingenuous to that goal. With all due respect, [[User:Professor|Professor]] 14:37, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Sorry, atheism is on the decline in the world because of its irrelevance. Please see: [[Atheism]] and [[Evolution]]. Liberalism is under duress too via austerity budgets. Unlike evolutionists/atheists/liberals, I try to have relevant material. Not voodoo "science". [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:43, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::Again, I am not concerned with atheism, liberalism, conservatism, or any other "-ism". My only issue is the truth. I understand that you disagree with the facts (or perhaps my presentation), but how you can relegate a century's-worth of work to "voodoo" science is beyond me. What exactly makes this "voodoo" science? Is it my not providing you with original data? I think not, as I doubt you can present the ORIGINAL ten commandments. Not the "voodoo", copied version found in a book that was printed in the 50s. The REAL tablets. Is it that the theory cannot be adequately tested? Again, doubtful; there is no conceivable way (in my narrow-minded, scientific view) of testing God's existence. What, then, can it be? What makes certain evidence "true science", while other facts are labeled "voodoo, pseudoscience"? I can think of only one explanation: "voodoo" science is any piece of evidence not in accordance with your world view. Humbly waiting your reply, [[User:Professor|Professor]] 15:19, 28 June 2011 (EDT).

Talk:Endosymbiotic hypothesis

2011-06-28T18:37:48Z

Professor: /* Falsifiability */

Talk:Endosymbiotic hypothesis

2011-06-28T17:07:26Z

Professor:

Talk:Endosymbiotic hypothesis

2011-06-28T05:57:27Z

Professor:

Endosymbiotic hypothesis

2011-06-28T05:43:03Z

Professor: Although the original article was well-written and demonstrated an obvious attempt to understand the subject, I felt that a more academic approach was needed here.

The '''endosymbiotic theory''', known to academics as the serial endosymbiosis theory (SET), is a [[scientific theory]] concerning
the origins of [[mitochondria]], plastids (e.g. [[chloroplasts]]), and [[nuclei]] in [[eukaryotes|eukaryotic cells]]. According
to this theory, these organelles arose from free-living bacteria that were taken inside another cell as endosymbionts.

== History ==

The endosymbiotic theory was first articulated by famed [[Russian]] botanist Konstantin Mereschkowski in 1905<ref>Mereschkowski C (1905). "Über Natur und Ursprung der Chromatophoren im Pflanzenreiche". Biol Centralbl 25: 593–604.</ref>. Mereschkowski based his theory in part on work done by botanist Andreas Schimper, who had observed in 1883 that the division of chloroplasts in green [[plants]] closely resembled that of cyanobacteria. Schimper had himself tentatively proposed (in a footnote) that green plants could have arisen from the symbiosis of two simpler organisms.<ref>Schimper AFW (1883). "Über die Entwicklung der Chlorophyllkörner und Farbkörper". Bot. Zeitung 41: 105–14, 121–31, 137–46, 153–62.</ref> In the 1920s, Irvin Wallin, a [[professor]] at the University of Colorado Medical School, extended the idea of an endosymbiotic origin to the mitochondria.<ref>Wallin IE (1923). "The Mitochondria Problem". The American Naturalist 57 (650): 255–61. doi:10.1086/279919.
</ref> These theories were initially dismissed (or ignored) by the scientific community. More detailed electron microscopic comparisons between cyanobacteria and chloroplasts (for example, studies by Hans Ris<ref>Ris H, Singh RN (January 1961). "Electron microscope studies on blue-green algae". J Biophys Biochem Cytol 9 (1): 63–80. doi:10.1083/jcb.9.1.63. PMC 2224983. PMID 13741827.</ref>) combined with the discovery that plastids and mitochondria contain their own [[DNA]]<ref>Stocking C and Gifford E (1959). "Incorporation of thymidine into chloroplasts of Spirogyra". Biochem. Biophys. Res. Comm. 1 (3): 159–64. doi:10.1016/0006-291X(59)90010-5.
</ref> (which had recently been identified as the hereditary material of organisms) led to a resurrection of the idea in the 1960s.

The endosymbiotic theory was advanced and substantiated with [[microbiology|microbiological]] evidence in 1967 by [[American]] biologist Lynn Margulis. A young faculty member at [[Boston University]], Margulis authored a theoretical paper entitled ''The Origin of Mitosing Eukaryotic Cells''<ref>Lynn Sagan (1967). "On the origin of mitosing cells". J Theor Bio. 14 (3): 255–274. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(67)90079-3. PMID 11541392.</ref>. The paper, however, was "rejected by about fifteen scientific journals," Margulis recalled<ref>John Brockman, The Third Culture, New York: Touchstone, 1995, 135.</ref>(see [[Best of the Public]]). It was finally accepted by ''The Journal of Theoretical Biology'' and is considered today a landmark in modern endosymbiotic theory. Drawing heavily from the ideas of Mereschkowski and Wallin, Margulis's endosymbiotic theory formulation is the first to rely on direct microbiological observations as opposed to [[paleontology|paleontological]] or [[zoology|zoological]] observations, which were previously the norm for new works in [[evolutionary biology]].

The possibility that peroxisomes may have an endosymbiotic origin has also been considered, although they lack DNA. Christian de Duve proposed that they may have been the first endosymbionts, allowing cells to withstand growing amounts of free molecular [[oxygen]] in the [[Earth|Earth's]] atmosphere. However, it now appears that they may be formed ''de novo'', contradicting the idea that they have a symbiotic origin<ref>Gabaldón T, Snel B, van Zimmeren F, Hemrika W, Tabak H, Huynen MA (2006). "Origin and evolution of the peroxisomal proteome". Biol. Direct 1 (1): 8. doi:10.1186/1745-6150-1-8. PMC 1472686. PMID 16556314. (Provides evidence that contradicts an endosymbiotic origin of peroxisomes. Instead it is suggested that they evolutionarily originate from the Endoplasmic Reticulum)</ref>. It is believed that over millennia these endosymbionts transferred some of their own DNA to the host cell's nucleus during the evolutionary transition from a symbiotic community to an instituted eukaryotic cell (called "serial endosymbiosis"). This hypothesis is thought to be possible because it is known today from scientific observation that transfer of DNA occurs between [[bacteria]] species, even if they are not closely related. Bacteria can take up DNA from their surroundings and have a limited ability to incorporate it into their own [[genome]].

== Evidence ==

A great body of evidence exists in the fields of [[molecular biology]], [[biochemistry]], and [[genetics]] that supports the theory that mitochondria and plastids arose from bacteria<ref>Kimball, J. 2010. Kimball's Biology Pages. Accessed October 13, 2010. An online open source biology text by Harvard professor, and author of a general biology text, John W. Kimball.</ref><ref>Reece, J., Lisa A. Urry, Michael L. Cain, Steven A. Wasserman, Peter V. Minorsky, Robert B. Jackson, 2010. Campbell Biology. 9th Edition Benjamin Cummings; 9th Ed. (October 7, 2010)</ref><ref>Raven, P., George Johnson, Kenneth Mason, Jonathan Losos, Susan Singer, 2010. Biology. McGraw-Hill 9th Ed. (January 14, 2010)</ref>.
* New mitochondria and plastids are formed only through a process similar to binary fission. In some [[algae]], such as Euglena, the plastids can be destroyed by certain chemicals or prolonged absence of light without otherwise affecting the cell. In such a case, the plastids will not regenerate.
* They are surrounded by two or more membranes, and the innermost of these shows differences in composition from the other membranes of the cell. They are composed of a peptidoglycan [[cell wall]] characteristic of a bacterial cell.
* Both mitochondria and plastids contain DNA that is different from that of the cell nucleus and that is similar to that of bacteria (in being circular in shape and in its size).
* DNA sequence analysis and [[phylogeny|phylogenetic]] estimates suggest that nuclear DNA contains genes that probably came from plastids.
* These organelles' [[ribosomes]] are like those found in bacteria (70S).
*[[Proteins]] of organelle origin, like those of bacteria, use N-formylmethionine as the initiating amino acid.
*Much of the internal structure and biochemistry of plastids, for instance the presence of thylakoids and particular [[chlorophyll|chlorophylls]], is very similar to that of cyanobacteria. Phylogenetic estimates constructed with bacteria, plastids, and eukaryotic genomes also suggest that plastids are most closely related to cyanobacteria.
* Mitochondria have several [[enzyme|enzymes]] and transport systems similar to those of bacteria.
* Some proteins encoded in the nucleus are transported to the organelle, and both mitochondria and plastids have small genomes compared to bacteria. This is consistent with an increased dependence on the eukaryotic host after forming an endosymbiosis. Most genes on the organellar genomes have been lost or moved to the nucleus. Most genes needed for mitochondrial and plastid function are located in the nucleus. Many originate from the bacterial endosymbiont.
* Plastids are present in very different groups of protists, some of which are closely related to forms lacking plastids. This suggests that if chloroplasts originated de novo, they did so multiple times, in which case their close similarity to each other is difficult to explain.
* Many of these [[protists]] contain "primary" plastids that have not yet been acquired from other plastid-containing eukaryotes.
* Among eukaryotes that acquired their plastids directly from bacteria (known as Primoplantae), the glaucophyte algae have chloroplasts that strongly resemble cyanobacteria. In particular, they have a peptidoglycan cell wall between the two membranes.
* Mitochondria and plastids are similar in size to bacteria.

== Problems ==

* Neither mitochondria nor plastids can survive in oxygen or outside the cell, having lost many essential genes required for survival. The standard counterargument points to the large timespan that the mitochondria/plastids have co-existed with their hosts. In this view, genes and systems that were no longer necessary were simply deleted, or in many cases, transferred into the host genome instead. (In fact these transfers constitute an important way for the host cell to regulate plastid or mitochondrial activity.) For example, most plastids are not able to produce respiratory proteins necessary for respiration. Like any living cell, plastids would die if energy is not provided to them by respiration.
* A large cell, especially one equipped for phagocytosis, has vast energetic requirements, which cannot be achieved without the internalisation of energy production (due to the decrease in the surface area to volume ratio as size increases). This implies that, for the cell to gain mitochondria, it could not have been a eukaryote, and must have been a bacterium. This in turn implies that the emergence of the eukaryotes and the formation of mitochondria were achieved simultaneously. This may be explained by possibly a very close symbiotic relationship between two types of bacteria which eventually led to gene exchange and engulfing of the mitochondria precursors through partial fusion or engulfing by the host bacteria.
* Genetic analysis of small eukaryotes that lack mitochondria shows that they all still retain genes for mitochondrial proteins. This implies that all these eukaryotes once had mitochondria. This objection can be answered if, as suggested above, the origin of the eukaryotes coincided with the formation of mitochondria. Alternatively, we may postulate extinction of all other descendants of a mitochondrion-free ancestral eukaryote, perhaps due to competition from the symbiotic clade, or oxygen poisoning as levels continued to rise.

These last two problems are accounted for by the [http://www.fbmc.fcen.uba.ar/materias/genmol/bibliografia-1/hipotesis%20del%20hidrogeno%20para%20el%20primer%20eucariota.pdf hydrogen hypothesis].

== Serial Endosymbiosis Theory and Evolution ==

The endosymbiotic theory is part of a large body of evidence supporting the [[theory of evolution]]. Prominent evolutionary biologist [[Richard Dawkins]] had the following to say of Lynn Margulis and her work:

<blockquote>
I greatly admire Lynn Margulis's sheer courage and stamina in sticking by the endosymbiosis theory, and carrying it through from being an unorthodoxy to an orthodoxy. I'm referring to the theory that the eukaryotic cell is a symbiotic union of primitive prokaryotic cells. This is one of the great achievements of twentieth-century evolutionary biology, and I greatly admire her for it.<ref>John Brockman, The Third Culture, New York: Touchstone, 1995, 144.</ref>
</blockquote>

There are essentially two differing views concerning endosymbiotic theory, one slightly more logical than the other:
* [[Creationists]] (rightfully) assume that [[God]], in His infinite wisdom, designed a complex cellular system that allows modern organisms to function perfectly on a ''molecular level''. Endosymbiotic theory speaks to the majesty of His [[creation]]. Indeed, when confronted with endosymbiotic theory, [[Christians]] often think of the words of Daniel: "I will praise thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made."
* The general consensus of the scientific community is that endosymbiotic theory is a demonstrated fact, backed up by a mountain of molecular/biochemical evidence. This fact, in conjunction with a wealth of biological research, confirms Darwin's theory of evolution as a scientific truth.

== See Also ==

* [[Theory of Evolution]]
* [[Symbiosis]]
* [[Cell]]
* [[Biology]]

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:biology]]