"I personally believe it's because mitochondria are driven to breakdown glucose into ATP and metabolism.'

 

they are the indeed a facilitator in the cytrc cycle and oxygenicphosfolysation (is that how you spell it in eng?)

but that still wouldn't explain why their DNA is so different from the host cell.

it's much more likey that it's a symboisis of a bacteria we intergrated WAY back in the evolutionary past.

why? because they have their own division cycle, separate from the cell nuclues.

 

"It's genetic breakdown of RNA help assemble amino acids into functioning proteins."

NO

it's not the brakedown. it's the "reading" of a set of codon's (3 base pairs that code for an amino acid) from a m- RNA strand that is copied of a DNA template.

yes, ultimately the M-RNA is recycled, but durign the synthesis in the ribosome, it's not borken down to produce protiens.

 

"Interestingly enough, combining raw nucleotides with metabolism and oxygen is impossible, even in a natural sense. But life depends on all three functioning together."

 

same story with Chlorophores.

does that mean god made them? no. because we have a natural explination for that. (although i better read up a bit more on this before i continue)

 

"In addition, the codons found in DNA follow specific patterns and designs in order to create the biological organism."

 

not the organims in it's entirety, just protiens.

the gene's are expressed by certain factors in the cell.

and again. if they wouldn provide a benefit, they wouldn't be there to be expressed. evolution explains their existance.

 

"Even the slightest discrepancy could prove to be cataclysmic to the organism"

 

only in VERY SPECIFIC genes. you forget that the vast majority of our DNA is junk DNA. and that we have 20 amino acids and 61 codons to code for em..so that's 2 more codons that code for the same acid (oon average).

 

"This "alphabet" of nucleotide selection and habitual assembly highly suggest's predetermined designation."

 

yet it can be explained by evolutionary theory......figure that.

I wasn't claiming that becuase the function of the mitochondria they have to been by natural selection. Oh wait I do! Mitochondria are so similar to procaryotes instead of eucaryots. Genetic studies show that. And the reason is concluded in the symbiotic theory, meaning that a long long time ago procaryotes started to live in symbios with eucaryotes to help their own survival and each other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_multicellularity
We see the same evidence for this in the genome of chloroplasts.
There are genetic properties that only occur in procaryotes and not in eucaryotes and that is one way to see where it derives from. Another is different origins of replication that only exists in procaryotes and have been found in mitochondria and chloroplast, supporting this theory.

I found this on the creation wiki u linked:
"Mitochondrial DNA also does not recombine; there is no shuffling of genes from one generation to the other, as there is with nuclear genes."

"Interestingly enough, combining raw nucleotides with metabolism and oxygen is impossible, even in a natural sense. But life depends on all three functioning together."
- That doesn't make any sense at all. First you say it's impossible and then you say it works. Talk about oxymoron.

"In addition, the codons found in DNA follow specific patterns and designs in order to create the biological organism."
- Yes they follow the pattern and design of the genome, not something that has nothing to do with it.

"Even the slightest discrepancy could prove to be cataclysmic to the organism."
- It's natural selection at it's work. We all have mutations in us and our cells. It's not so much falality mutations that occur. When it comes to point mutations and a nucleotide get's deleted or inserted, the effects could have a big impact if it made a stop codon or did a frame-shift. But mutations where a single nucleotide is changed to another don't have to have a big effect on the organism at all. It could be a "silent" gene, it could make the same aminoacid even if it was mutated and it could make the same protein with a slightly worse/better effect.
"There are estimated to be over 4000 human diseases caused by single gene defects."
Also a lot of diseases require several genes to be defect to show phenotypically.

"This "alphabet" of nucleotide selection and habitual assembly highly suggest's predetermined designation."
- 1. There's no "alphabet" of nucleotide selection.
2. Ever heard of the theory of neutral selection?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution

There's no selection for any kind of mutation, only a slight mutation rate for the advancement of evolution and genetic diversity. We need mutations to evolve, for good or bad. Mutations just happen and we have a system for dmg repair, but when the repair fails it ends up being a mutation. There are also different genetic strings of DNA that will activate homologue recombinations and genetic transfers.
You can't find it in the creationwiki, hmm strange... wonder why?

"No two things are the same, sir. I will say that if you look at the structure of organisms and the cycles of anatomy, you will find that death, extinguishment of a life, is not a natural thing."
- Ehm what? The reason why we get old and weak is because our genes does not need us anymore. We've reproduced and helped our offspring survive and we survived long enough for us to reproduce. That is why our bodies does not put any large effort in to survival processes and such. Our telomeres in our chromosomes get's depleted and the cell either dies or becomes cancer. Death is a natural thing, how could it not be? Both life and death IS a natural thing.

"In the human body alone, our organs renew themselves every seven years..." Don't know the number for it, but it depends on what organ and type of cells.

"...our death is not a designed part of our life."
- And that my friend is why ID doesn't work. It's NOT designed in any extent.

"I know what you will say, "That's a lie! Your so stupid, you fairy! I can't believe you would think that your tissue renews itself! You don't have the right to believe that! You don't understand science, your so dumb, that's a false dichotomy! You just don't understand how evolution works!""
- Well i didn't have too, you just did ;)
You can't prove any design empirically and the only arguments for design is somewhat like "it's too complex for any of us to understand and so GOD DUNNIT!"

"our organs renew themselves every seven years, our death is not a designed part of our life."

 

that's a gross over simplification. the turnover rate (if the organs have them) differes greatly from organ to organ and part to part.

you brai for one, DOES NOT REGENERATE AFTTER YOU REACH 21! IN FACT.

you start , losing neurons there after you turn 21....ever hear of dementia?

 

not all cells renew themselves (especially neurons). whihc makes some part of the body, well old reative to the rest no matter how you put it.

 

but the real problem with aging is the body STOPS beign able to renwe it self.

 

YAY TELOMERES!

learn what those are.

evetually the homeostasis becomes to difficult to handle, so you die.,

of:

disease.

worn out organs.

disruption of homeostasis.

 

""That's a lie! Your so stupid, you fairy! I can't believe you would think that your tissue renews itself! You don't have the right to believe that! You don't understand science, your so dumb, that's a false dichotomy! You just don't understand how evolution works!" etc, so forth and so on."

 

oh you think you'd cut down the grass before us?

no dice,

 

what biologist in his right mind would deny that cells renwe themselves (celldivision).

 

you've yet again shown great ignorance of the understanding of biology, since you went out of the way to strawman our "possible" response.

 

oh and btw.

the only people who have been calling "homo" are bigdog. and he called ME a gay....so that  "fairy" part just folds back to bite you in the ass.