I know that mitochondria were discovered by A. Kolliker, but since my googling skills are absolutely terrible, i can't find his first name or anything about how, when and where he discovered them (don't ask why I care; i need it for a project.) I'm really desperate now, and can't find anything. If anyone knows anything and can direct me to a web source that I could cite, that would be great.
2006-12-30 12:22:20 · 5 answers · asked by Me 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
Not to seem ungrateful or anything (I do appreciate people looking for this stuff,) but i've checked all these sites, and whenever it mentions the tull name (Rudolph Albert von Kolliker) it never mentions mitochondria, then when kolliker is mentioned with mitochondria, it never reveals the full name. So maybe there are two Kollikers? I don't know, but since mitochondria are never mentioned in the same document as Rudolph Albert von kolliker, (and I mean NEVER, not even wikipedia) then there may be...I'm so confunsed : - )
2006-12-30 13:36:23 · update #1
ME AGAIN - Smiley - UPDATED AS OF JAN 3rd!!!
Okay, so where did you first get the information that he discovered mitochondria? Maybe THAT source might be mistaken!!
Guess what!! IT IS!!!
I just found something!!! Check out this link:
http://education.vetmed.vt.edu/Curriculum/VM8054/Labs/Lab3/Lab3.htm
The inventor was a man who was a German biologist by the name of Robert Altmann.
With this in mind, go back to wikipedia.com and search for him.
GOOD LUCK!!! :)
2006-12-30 12:29:28 · answer #1 · answered by Smiley_1995 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
His full name is Rudolph Albert von Kölliker. Check the 2 references out for more information.
2006-12-30 12:38:31 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
More junk DNA is used for connection of species than anything else. It never implies branching from a common ancestor, it implies several possibilities creation and evolution are just 2 of them. No matter how a species adapts to it's environment speciation has never been observed. A computer isn't natural you moron somebody programs it. A computer programmer could just as easily set a computer up to refute evolution. Everything you mentioned here is just as easily used for proof of creation. And finally I don't accept evolution because it claims to be science but it isn't testable, observable or repeatable. This makes it speculative "science" which isn't science at all. Macro-evolution is at best guess work and at worse a fraudulent claim with no basis.
2016-05-22 22:18:01 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
This site is loaded with links hope it helps.
It's nice to know that you appreciate our attempting to help you. My suggestion is for you to go to this link and look under the heading 'Reference Articles'. Almost all of these sites base their information on sources of one kind or another. Wikipedia does so at the bottom of each page.
2006-12-30 12:32:02 · answer #4 · answered by Joe Schmo from Kokomo 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I found this.
2006-12-30 12:30:41 · answer #5 · answered by Silly me 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋