3 ms·
> The implication of the whole article is that there something we have missed. I think this article is talking to people who haven't internalized the details o
by aeturnum 2y ago
> The implication of the whole article is that there something we have missed.
I think this article is talking to people who haven't internalized the details of the scientific consensus. Those people are still going around, talking about "life" and making decisions based on the flawed understanding this article is critiquing. I think it's likely that the thing that "has been missed" is not narrowly scientific in the way you seem to be thinking - but more about broad implications and worldview.
- meneton 2y agoI am not sure what exactly the 'broad implications and worldview' are here that are being challenged. The article is presented as a scientific opinion and references scientific research and has a doi number for citation (Cite: Liyam Chitayat. “Mitochondria Are Alive” Asimov Press (2024). DOI: https://doi.org/10.62211/38pe-75hu https://doi.org/10.62211/38pe-75hu). What do you think that the article was challenging?
- Jerrrry 2y agoLife is just an arbitrary number of magnitude of complexity
- legel 2y agoObviously the article is challenging the view — scientific or not — that mitochondria are not living. Side note: previously I was funded by NSF and NASA to study such questions from biophysics and astrobiology. That said, this was a delightful read. I did not realize or conceive of mitochondria as, like bacteria in our bodies, independent living networks with unique genomes, evolution, and flows of information and energy. Reading about the health benefits of “external mitochondria” made me think about when I hug my dog: are we exchanging mitochondria, perhaps?