> Similarly, I would argue that a "mitochondria" not living in a parent so is not a mitochondria at all. I'm not sure why you're continuing to try to make it c

> Similarly, I would argue that a "mitochondria" not living in a parent so is not a mitochondria at all. I'm not sure why you're continuing to try to make it clear to me that you're not wrong when we simply disagree, but your statement here employs nominal fallacy, or naming fallacy. Mitochondria is that same bacteria that it used to be prior to entering into a symbiotic relationship within the cell. It's a relatively new scientific revelation that mitochondrion organelles lived as bacteria discrete from its current function inside a cell. We may call this that and that this, to keep track of function, but it doesn't mean that a spade isn't a shovel.