6 ms·

> The organelles are ancient invaders — the remnants of symbiotic bacteria that integrated themselves into host cells about 2 billion years ago and specialized

> The organelles are ancient invaders — the remnants of symbiotic bacteria that integrated themselves into host cells about 2 billion years ago and specialized for energy production. That's accepted as scientific orthodoxy now, but it wasn't always. In the 1960's, evolutionary biologist Lyn Margulis proposed the theory that cell organelles such as mitochondria and chloroplasts were once independent bacteria, which combined through symbiotic mergers of bacteria to evolve into eukaryotic cells. Ernst Mayr called this "perhaps the most important and dramatic event in the history of life". Throughout her career, Margulis' work could arouse intense objection. One grant application elicited the response, "Your research is crap, do not bother to apply again", and her formative paper, "On the Origin of Mitosing Cells", appeared in 1967 after being rejected by about fifteen journals. In 2002, Discover magazine recognized Margulis as one of the 50 most important women in science. In 1995, Richard Dawkins said, "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."

duncan_bayne 6y ago
These days she'd have angry Twitter mobs doxxing her for opposing the "scientific consensus", or YouTube shutting down her account for spreading "misinformation".
- adammichaelc 6y ago
  Haha probably true.
- gbrown 6y ago
  I mean... maybe, but probably not. Science has also learned a lot since then, and most skeptics aren’t scientists. Plausible cynicism grade: C-
  - duncan_bayne 6y ago
    Well, I assume that along with her would also be a bunch of genuine cranks, mystics, "skeptics" etc. She'd be collateral damage. Similar case that springs to mind is the chap who had to infect himself to prove that stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria.
    - wombatmobile 6y ago
      Barry Marshall can just wave his Nobel prize at any skeptic. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2005/press-release/ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2005/press-releas... Lyn Margulis did not and will not ever have that pleasure, because, like Rosalind Franklin, (a) she was female, and (b) she's now dead.
      - wombatmobile 6y ago
        I'd like the human who modded my comment down, presumably for exposing gender bias in the awarding of the Nobel prizes, to let us know his/her/? gender.
        Proziam 6y ago
        I'm being downvoted for simply pointing out that there was/is a public 'debate' (if we can even give it that much credit) about hydroxychloroquine, and that the current state of online communication makes me able to imagine similar reactions to Lynn Margulis's work. I wouldn't take it personally, anything political on this forum seems to experience high variance.
        wombatmobile 6y ago
        I don’t mind. It’s an expression of the mind of the moderator. I like to try to guess their age and gender. But they are invisible so I don’t get any confirmation. I like this Hacker News. The discourse is civil and often informative.
  - 6y ago
- mhh__ 6y ago
  After all, Twitter mobs love nothing better than pouring through the annals of biology journal?
  - bloak 6y ago
    That should be "poring through", I think. (It's not an easy one to remember.)
    - stubish 6y ago
      For Twitter mobs I'd go with pawing through.
- gspr 6y ago
  > These days she'd have angry Twitter mobs doxxing her for opposing the "scientific consensus", or YouTube shutting down her account for spreading "misinformation". I would assume that this incredibly smart scientist (for all her HIV and 9/11 bonkers and disgusting lunacy) would not be using Twitter as the medium for her scientific discussions. I'm fascinated by how especially conspiracy theory people equate fighting on Reddit/Twitter/YouTube/… with real scientific debate.
- rsynnott 6y ago
  ... Eh, no. General rule: controversial theories, in a vacuum, are fine. Promoting controversial theories in a manner likely to lead people to die (hydroxycloroquine self-medication, bleach-drinking, deliberate self-infection): not fine. Twitter and Youtube are full of people promoting all sorts of nonsense, and also legitimate unorthodox theories (there is a difference; there's a huge gap between, say, "the earth is flat" and "dark matter isn't a thing") without any trouble. It's when you get into the realm of health advice that is likely to injure people that there's a problem.
msla 6y ago
Sadly, these days Lynn Margulis is better known for her AIDS crankery: > Margulis said that "the set of symptoms, or syndrome, presented by syphilitics overlaps completely with another syndrome: AIDS," and also noted that Kary Mullis[a] said that "he went looking for a reference substantiating that HIV causes AIDS and discovered, 'There is no such document.' " > This provoked a widespread supposition that Margulis had been an "AIDS denialist." Notably Jerry Coyne reacted on his Why Evolution is True blog against his interpretation that Margulis believed "that AIDS is really syphilis, not viral in origin at all."[50] Seth Kalichman, a social psychologist who studies behavioral and social aspects of AIDS, cited her 2009 paper as an example of AIDS denialism "flourishing",[51] and asserted that her "endorsement of HIV/AIDS denialism defies understanding."[52] Also: 9/11 crankery! > Margulis argued that the September 11 attacks were a "false-flag operation, which has been used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unprecedented assaults on ... civil liberties." She claimed that there was "overwhelming evidence that the three buildings [of the World Trade Center] collapsed by controlled demolition."[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis
- wombatmobile 6y ago
  The complication with (incorrectly) labeling Margulis "an AIDS denialist", msla, is that you then make her responsible for a whole collection of unsubstantiated tropes that are targeted by that label. That's unwarranted, because Margulis was doing something quite opposite to "AIDS denialism"; Margulis, an esteemed scientist, was proposing an alternative causative factor that may explain AIDS, which isn't HIV, or more precisely, which isn't HIV in isolation. This fascinating discussion will make your jaw drop https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/discover-interview-lynn-margulis-says-shes-not-controversial-shes-right https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/discover-inter...
  - msla 6y ago
    > Margulis, an esteemed scientist, was proposing an alternative causative factor that may explain AIDS, which isn't HIV, or more precisely, which isn't HIV in isolation. She's not esteemed in the field of what causes AIDS. She's esteemed in a different sub-field. In terms of AIDS, the actual experts have come to the conclusion she's wrong, and one thing we should all have learned by now is that our ignorance is not equal to the knowledge of experts. > This fascinating discussion will make your jaw drop Not for the reasons you think it would, though.
amelius 6y ago
How is the research going on the effects of antibiotics on these organelles?
- DrAwdeOccarim 6y ago
  That's a great question. A lot of antibiotics are effluxed out so they don't build up to high levels within the cell. Also, a lot of antibiotics bind to part of the bacterial cell wall, which mitochondria lost over evolution. Antibiotics that inhibit protein synthesis actually do negatively impact mitochondrion but not as bad because of divergences in ribosomal structure compared to bacteria.
msla 6y ago
She's a victim of Nobel Disease and said stupid things out of her field. How is that controversial?

duncan_bayne 6y ago

These days she'd have angry Twitter mobs doxxing her for opposing the "scientific consensus", or YouTube shutting down her account for spreading "misinformation".

adammichaelc 6y ago
Haha probably true.
gbrown 6y ago
I mean... maybe, but probably not. Science has also learned a lot since then, and most skeptics aren’t scientists. Plausible cynicism grade: C-
- duncan_bayne 6y ago
  Well, I assume that along with her would also be a bunch of genuine cranks, mystics, "skeptics" etc. She'd be collateral damage. Similar case that springs to mind is the chap who had to infect himself to prove that stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria.
  - wombatmobile 6y ago
    Barry Marshall can just wave his Nobel prize at any skeptic. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2005/press-release/ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2005/press-releas... Lyn Margulis did not and will not ever have that pleasure, because, like Rosalind Franklin, (a) she was female, and (b) she's now dead.
    - wombatmobile 6y ago
      I'd like the human who modded my comment down, presumably for exposing gender bias in the awarding of the Nobel prizes, to let us know his/her/? gender.
      - Proziam 6y ago
        I'm being downvoted for simply pointing out that there was/is a public 'debate' (if we can even give it that much credit) about hydroxychloroquine, and that the current state of online communication makes me able to imagine similar reactions to Lynn Margulis's work. I wouldn't take it personally, anything political on this forum seems to experience high variance.
        wombatmobile 6y ago
        I don’t mind. It’s an expression of the mind of the moderator. I like to try to guess their age and gender. But they are invisible so I don’t get any confirmation. I like this Hacker News. The discourse is civil and often informative.
- 6y ago
mhh__ 6y ago
After all, Twitter mobs love nothing better than pouring through the annals of biology journal?
- bloak 6y ago
  That should be "poring through", I think. (It's not an easy one to remember.)
  - stubish 6y ago
    For Twitter mobs I'd go with pawing through.
gspr 6y ago
> These days she'd have angry Twitter mobs doxxing her for opposing the "scientific consensus", or YouTube shutting down her account for spreading "misinformation". I would assume that this incredibly smart scientist (for all her HIV and 9/11 bonkers and disgusting lunacy) would not be using Twitter as the medium for her scientific discussions. I'm fascinated by how especially conspiracy theory people equate fighting on Reddit/Twitter/YouTube/… with real scientific debate.
rsynnott 6y ago
... Eh, no. General rule: controversial theories, in a vacuum, are fine. Promoting controversial theories in a manner likely to lead people to die (hydroxycloroquine self-medication, bleach-drinking, deliberate self-infection): not fine. Twitter and Youtube are full of people promoting all sorts of nonsense, and also legitimate unorthodox theories (there is a difference; there's a huge gap between, say, "the earth is flat" and "dark matter isn't a thing") without any trouble. It's when you get into the realm of health advice that is likely to injure people that there's a problem.

msla 6y ago

Sadly, these days Lynn Margulis is better known for her AIDS crankery: > Margulis said that "the set of symptoms, or syndrome, presented by syphilitics overlaps completely with another syndrome: AIDS," and also noted that Kary Mullis[a] said that "he went looking for a reference substantiating that HIV causes AIDS and discovered, 'There is no such document.' " > This provoked a widespread supposition that Margulis had been an "AIDS denialist." Notably Jerry Coyne reacted on his Why Evolution is True blog against his interpretation that Margulis believed "that AIDS is really syphilis, not viral in origin at all."[50] Seth Kalichman, a social psychologist who studies behavioral and social aspects of AIDS, cited her 2009 paper as an example of AIDS denialism "flourishing",[51] and asserted that her "endorsement of HIV/AIDS denialism defies understanding."[52] Also: 9/11 crankery! > Margulis argued that the September 11 attacks were a "false-flag operation, which has been used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unprecedented assaults on ... civil liberties." She claimed that there was "overwhelming evidence that the three buildings [of the World Trade Center] collapsed by controlled demolition."[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis

wombatmobile 6y ago
The complication with (incorrectly) labeling Margulis "an AIDS denialist", msla, is that you then make her responsible for a whole collection of unsubstantiated tropes that are targeted by that label. That's unwarranted, because Margulis was doing something quite opposite to "AIDS denialism"; Margulis, an esteemed scientist, was proposing an alternative causative factor that may explain AIDS, which isn't HIV, or more precisely, which isn't HIV in isolation. This fascinating discussion will make your jaw drop https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/discover-interview-lynn-margulis-says-shes-not-controversial-shes-right https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/discover-inter...
- msla 6y ago
  > Margulis, an esteemed scientist, was proposing an alternative causative factor that may explain AIDS, which isn't HIV, or more precisely, which isn't HIV in isolation. She's not esteemed in the field of what causes AIDS. She's esteemed in a different sub-field. In terms of AIDS, the actual experts have come to the conclusion she's wrong, and one thing we should all have learned by now is that our ignorance is not equal to the knowledge of experts. > This fascinating discussion will make your jaw drop Not for the reasons you think it would, though.

amelius 6y ago

How is the research going on the effects of antibiotics on these organelles?

DrAwdeOccarim 6y ago
That's a great question. A lot of antibiotics are effluxed out so they don't build up to high levels within the cell. Also, a lot of antibiotics bind to part of the bacterial cell wall, which mitochondria lost over evolution. Antibiotics that inhibit protein synthesis actually do negatively impact mitochondrion but not as bad because of divergences in ribosomal structure compared to bacteria.

msla 6y ago

She's a victim of Nobel Disease and said stupid things out of her field. How is that controversial?