Which one of the following is not evidence* in support of the endosymbiont theor

Question

Which one of the following is not evidence* in support of the endosymbiont theory?

* note that a statement may be true but, it is not evidentiary (i.e not a a piece of evidence) if it doesn't support or lend credence to the idea it is linked to. For example, the fact that I have brown hair is not evidence in support of the statement (ie. evidentiary) that I am a female.

A. mitochondria have their own DNA (small, looped)

B. chloroplasts have photopigments

C. chloroplasts and eukaryotic flagella have their own DNA (small, looped)

D. chloroplasts have their own ribosomes (which resemble bacterial ribosomes)

E. mitochondria have their own ribosomes (which resemble bacterial ribosomes)

Explanation / Answer

The answer is A. because mitochondria have their own dna. Mitochondria within our cells have a separate genome. They have a separate reproductive life than the rest of our cells. They never go undergo meiosis. (This is why children inherit their mother's mitochondrial dna.) If a cell undergoes mitosis and somehow ends up without mitochondria the cell can't make any mitochondria. Of course, that's because mitochondria have their own dna. As for flagellum, I'm not sure what that question is all about. No, flagella don't have their own dna. They aren't even membrane bound.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse W
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.