Comments on: Amoebic Morality http://www.damninteresting.com/amoebic-morality A collection of Damn Interesting things Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:31:54 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Zack Hembree http://www.damninteresting.com/amoebic-morality#comment-21969 Zack Hembree Wed, 02 Jul 2008 03:16:02 +0000 http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=901#comment-21969 nice article. gotta love those single/multi celled organisms. nice article. gotta love those single/multi celled organisms.

]]> By: Anthropositor http://www.damninteresting.com/amoebic-morality#comment-20958 Anthropositor Mon, 14 Apr 2008 08:02:43 +0000 http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=901#comment-20958 Actually, in the entire body of the article, and in all the comments, yours is the first and only mention of immortality. Also in my little parable, I never even used the word amoeba. I spoke in more general terms. The rest of your response is something of a mixture. It meanders around some glinty words and fragments of facts. Some of those fragments can grow up to play a part in the formation of a larger picture. Some of them could point the curious toward interesting ideas. It is easy to lose track of the focus, the main thought that you are trying to put across. If you lose track of it, certainly the reader will too. That will put the reader asleep. Time for my nap. Actually, in the entire body of the article, and in all the comments, yours is the first and only mention of immortality.
Also in my little parable, I never even used the word amoeba. I spoke in more general terms.

The rest of your response is something of a mixture. It meanders around some glinty words and fragments of facts. Some of those fragments can grow up to play a part in the formation of a larger picture. Some of them could point the curious toward interesting ideas. It is easy to lose track of the focus, the main thought that you are trying to put across. If you lose track of it, certainly the reader will too. That will put the reader asleep. Time for my nap.

]]> By: Disgruntled http://www.damninteresting.com/amoebic-morality#comment-20949 Disgruntled Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:44:46 +0000 http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=901#comment-20949 Perhaps I wasn't clear. The case of the first mitochondrium parisiticly invading and/or being eaten and not digested happened long before the amoeba came along! Amoeba are late comers to the party. By the way, mitochondria are not the only plastids created from endosymbiotic critters. Cloroplasts are too! There is even something called a Hatena arenicola (hatena translates roughly into "WTF?!") that starts out life as an animal and ends up a plant when it injests the right cloroplast. I must appologise for two things. First, I was mistaken. Amoeba are immortal normaly, but not always. Secondly, I must appologise for ruining the pemise of the article. As I said, amoeba are normaly immortal, but when starved, they start to age. Thereafter, they divide assymetricly. The daughter cells start off immortal while the mother cells continue to deteriorate. Even if the cells find food without having to form spors, the mother cells are doomed to old age and death! Incedently, yeast always divide assymetricly when it comes to age. Anyway, there is no sacrifice involved. The old cells grow old and die and the young stack up the bodies in an attempt to excape. cAMP isn't a signaling phermone, it's the smell of age. The amoeba come together because they know there will soon be dead to stack. As the daughter cells have starved, escape still means death for them, as they too will grow old and die. It is their daughters who will become immortal. Perhaps I wasn’t clear. The case of the first mitochondrium parisiticly invading and/or being eaten and not digested happened long before the amoeba came along! Amoeba are late comers to the party.
By the way, mitochondria are not the only plastids created from endosymbiotic critters. Cloroplasts are too! There is even something called a Hatena arenicola (hatena translates roughly into “WTF?!”) that starts out life as an animal and ends up a plant when it injests the right cloroplast.
I must appologise for two things. First, I was mistaken. Amoeba are immortal normaly, but not always. Secondly, I must appologise for ruining the pemise of the article.
As I said, amoeba are normaly immortal, but when starved, they start to age. Thereafter, they divide assymetricly. The daughter cells start off immortal while the mother cells continue to deteriorate. Even if the cells find food without having to form spors, the mother cells are doomed to old age and death! Incedently, yeast always divide assymetricly when it comes to age. Anyway, there is no sacrifice involved. The old cells grow old and die and the young stack up the bodies in an attempt to excape. cAMP isn’t a signaling phermone, it’s the smell of age. The amoeba come together because they know there will soon be dead to stack. As the daughter cells have starved, escape still means death for them, as they too will grow old and die. It is their daughters who will become immortal.

]]> By: Anthropositor http://www.damninteresting.com/amoebic-morality#comment-20798 Anthropositor Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:40:45 +0000 http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=901#comment-20798 I like your comment Mr. Disgruntled. However, the record is unclear exactly when the mitochondria came aboard the amoeba. What are the chances that it was the very first amoeba that was discovered and invaded successfully by an ambitious and predatory mitochondrium? Or among the first quadrillion? I like your comment Mr. Disgruntled.

However, the record is unclear exactly when the mitochondria came aboard the amoeba. What are the chances that it was the very first amoeba that was discovered and invaded successfully by an ambitious and predatory mitochondrium? Or among the first quadrillion?

]]> By: Disgruntled http://www.damninteresting.com/amoebic-morality#comment-20791 Disgruntled Tue, 01 Apr 2008 22:33:28 +0000 http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=901#comment-20791 [quote]Anthropositor said: "And it came to pass eventually that this life form diversified, not confining themselves to cAMP, which was perhaps more useful than just a signaling system. Many subtle steps were involved, and during that time, the slime was not always benign. They mixed cooperation with aggression. They adapted to use other similar chemical compounds like adenosine di phosphate and adenosine tri phosphate, which some of us have given the nicknames ADP and ATP not just to signal one another, but to do WORK. They invaded other, bigger creatures, which up to that time were pretty lazy, and laid around and goofed off a lot. These complex beings were unable to rid themselves of the slimy little invaders that had snatched their bodies, cell by cell. And that is how it came about that we got our most important and energetic slaves, slaves that can no longer escape their fate (until we die). We call them mitochondria."[/quote] Almost right. First of all, ameobas have mitochondria. They wouldn't be so lively without them. Secondly, "bodies, cell by cell"? Unless I'm mistaken, there were no multicelled lifeforms before mitochondria. I'm supprised that Carol didn't mention the most remarkable thing about the ameoba. They reproduce asexualy. Pretty much, any ameoba you see is a copy of the first one - which is to say that it is the first one. They never age and are about 4 billion years old! Thank Tom Robbins for that observation [quote]Anthropositor said: “And it came to pass eventually that this life form diversified, not confining themselves to cAMP, which was perhaps more useful than just a signaling system. Many subtle steps were involved, and during that time, the slime was not always benign. They mixed cooperation with aggression. They adapted to use other similar chemical compounds like adenosine di phosphate and adenosine tri phosphate, which some of us have given the nicknames ADP and ATP not just to signal one another, but to do WORK. They invaded other, bigger creatures, which up to that time were pretty lazy, and laid around and goofed off a lot. These complex beings were unable to rid themselves of the slimy little invaders that had snatched their bodies, cell by cell.

And that is how it came about that we got our most important and energetic slaves, slaves that can no longer escape their fate (until we die). We call them mitochondria.”[/quote]
Almost right. First of all, ameobas have mitochondria. They wouldn’t be so lively without them. Secondly, “bodies, cell by cell”? Unless I’m mistaken, there were no multicelled lifeforms before mitochondria.
I’m supprised that Carol didn’t mention the most remarkable thing about the ameoba. They reproduce asexualy. Pretty much, any ameoba you see is a copy of the first one – which is to say that it is the first one. They never age and are about 4 billion years old!
Thank Tom Robbins for that observation

]]> By: Anthropositor http://www.damninteresting.com/amoebic-morality#comment-20614 Anthropositor Thu, 20 Mar 2008 21:00:40 +0000 http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=901#comment-20614 And it came to pass eventually that this life form diversified, not confining themselves to cAMP, which was perhaps more useful than just a signaling system. Many subtle steps were involved, and during that time, the slime was not always benign. They mixed cooperation with aggression. They adapted to use other similar chemical compounds like adenosine di phosphate and adenosine tri phosphate, which some of us have given the nicknames ADP and ATP not just to signal one another, but to do WORK. They invaded other, bigger creatures, which up to that time were pretty lazy, and laid around and goofed off a lot. These complex beings were unable to rid themselves of the slimy little invaders that had snatched their bodies, cell by cell. And that is how it came about that we got our most important and energetic slaves, slaves that can no longer escape their fate (until we die). We call them mitochondria. And it came to pass eventually that this life form diversified, not confining themselves to cAMP, which was perhaps more useful than just a signaling system. Many subtle steps were involved, and during that time, the slime was not always benign. They mixed cooperation with aggression. They adapted to use other similar chemical compounds like adenosine di phosphate and adenosine tri phosphate, which some of us have given the nicknames ADP and ATP not just to signal one another, but to do WORK. They invaded other, bigger creatures, which up to that time were pretty lazy, and laid around and goofed off a lot. These complex beings were unable to rid themselves of the slimy little invaders that had snatched their bodies, cell by cell.

And that is how it came about that we got our most important and energetic slaves, slaves that can no longer escape their fate (until we die). We call them mitochondria.

]]> By: detscorach http://www.damninteresting.com/amoebic-morality#comment-19800 detscorach Sun, 03 Feb 2008 00:18:00 +0000 http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=901#comment-19800 Carol, I enjoyed your article, I had no idea these little guys lives such complex lives. As for Creationism, I always get a chuckle when creationists attack the theory of evolution by asking for proof. I know what would happen if they asked their priest for proof of creationism... In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Creationists call us to believe the Biblical creation story as a literal account of historical events. However, Genesis contains two distinctly different creation accounts. Which creation story are they calling us to "literally" believe? For generations, serious students of Scripture have noted stark divisions and variations in the age of the Hebrew, its style and language within Genesis. As we have it now, Genesis is actually a composite of three written primary sources, each with its own character, favorite words and distinctly different names for God. Such differences all but evaporate when translated into English, but they are clear in the ancient Hebrew text. The first creation account, Genesis. 1:1 to Genesis. 2:4a, was written during or after the Jews' Babylonian captivity. This fully developed story explains creation in terms of the ancient near eastern world view of its time. A watery chaos is divided by the dome (firmament) of the sky. The waters under the dome are gathered and land appears. Lights are affixed in the dome. All living things are created. The story pictures God building the cosmos as a supporting ecosystem for humanity. Finally, humanity, both male and female, is created, and God rests. The second Creation story, Genesis 2:4b to 2:25, found its written form several centuries before the Genesis. 1:1 story. This text is a less developed and much older story. It was probably passed down for generations around the camp fires of desert dwellers before being written. It begins by describing a desert landscape, no plants or herbs, no rain; only a mist arises out of the earth. Then the Lord God forms man of the dust of the ground, creates an oasis-like Garden of Eden to support the "man whom he had formed." In this story, God creates animal life while trying to provide the man "a helper fit for him." None being found, God takes a rib from the man's side and creates the first woman. These two creation stories clearly arise out of different histories and reflect different concerns with different sequences of events. Can they either or both be literal history? Hail Odin! Carol, I enjoyed your article, I had no idea these little guys lives such complex lives. As for Creationism, I always get a chuckle when creationists attack the theory of evolution by asking for proof. I know what would happen if they asked their priest for proof of creationism…
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory.
Creationists call us to believe the Biblical creation story as a literal account of historical events. However, Genesis contains two distinctly different creation accounts. Which creation story are they calling us to “literally” believe?
For generations, serious students of Scripture have noted stark divisions and variations in the age of the Hebrew, its style and language within Genesis. As we have it now, Genesis is actually a composite of three written primary sources, each with its own character, favorite words and distinctly different names for God. Such differences all but evaporate when translated into English, but they are clear in the ancient Hebrew text.
The first creation account, Genesis. 1:1 to Genesis. 2:4a, was written during or after the Jews’ Babylonian captivity. This fully developed story explains creation in terms of the ancient near eastern world view of its time. A watery chaos is divided by the dome (firmament) of the sky. The waters under the dome are gathered and land appears. Lights are affixed in the dome. All living things are created. The story pictures God building the cosmos as a supporting ecosystem for humanity. Finally, humanity, both male and female, is created, and God rests.
The second Creation story, Genesis 2:4b to 2:25, found its written form several centuries before the Genesis. 1:1 story. This text is a less developed and much older story. It was probably passed down for generations around the camp fires of desert dwellers before being written. It begins by describing a desert landscape, no plants or herbs, no rain; only a mist arises out of the earth. Then the Lord God forms man of the dust of the ground, creates an oasis-like Garden of Eden to support the “man whom he had formed.” In this story, God creates animal life while trying to provide the man “a helper fit for him.” None being found, God takes a rib from the man’s side and creates the first woman. These two creation stories clearly arise out of different histories and reflect different concerns with different sequences of events. Can they either or both be literal history?
Hail Odin!

]]> By: Velveeta http://www.damninteresting.com/amoebic-morality#comment-18283 Velveeta Sun, 11 Nov 2007 16:19:11 +0000 http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=901#comment-18283 I love these critters! When I was in college, way back when, we actually had them in a lab class and got to watch the slugs slime around and react to various stimuli. We were taught that the slug is called a "grex". Great name, eh? Thanks for reuniting me with my old buddies, Carol! I love these critters! When I was in college, way back when, we actually had them in a lab class and got to watch the slugs slime around and react to various stimuli. We were taught that the slug is called a “grex”. Great name, eh?

Thanks for reuniting me with my old buddies, Carol!

]]>