I heard that ancient clams had teeth, is that true?

Information on the subject is scant.  This is because most clams when they died did not become dinosaur bones, like the dinosaurs.  They became limestone.  That is not to say that all dinosaurs became bones, some became oil, which was then turned into bags, which can be used when buying model dinosaur skeletons at gift shops, thus completing the circle of life.  Limestone is made of calcium (calcium carbonate), and teeth are made of calcium (calcium phosphate), so it is obvious that clams are completely capable of having teeth.  Heck, they basically half teeth all ready (calcium for you slower folks)!

On a side note, be sure that you are getting enough calcium in your diet, or your normal eating if you are satisfied with your current weight.  Dairy is a great source of calcium.  That is why baby teeth are sometimes referred to as "milk teeth."

I did some research on the subject of clams and discovered the following; one poem ( here), and one brief reference in a letter to the Smithsonian (here).  The page being referenced has it labeled as an urban legend, and as being false.  Clearly they did not do enough research, or they would have found the poem, which corroborates the story of the clams having teeth.  It is well known that poems never lie. 

For example "The fog came in on little cat feet." It is true, but it is a big cat for such little feet.  Or "There once was a man from Nantucket..."  Well, probably shouldn't bring him up here.  So, moving on with the examples "Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, and sorry I could not travel both, and be one traveler..."  Well, this may in fact prove to be erroneous with the continuing work on entwined elementary particles, but needless to say, the afternoon stroll that Robby Frost was on at the time would hardly be the time to be carrying around the necessary equipment to perform such actions.  Not to mention that the ramifications of such an act would be huge.  Currently stem cells are controversial, imagine that research.  It would be like better than a clone, because the entwining would cause each clone to experience the same things.  Of course, there are down sides, like if one of you dies...  More research also needs to be done to see if each entity could move apart without an external force.  It seems logical that each would be required to step at the same time, trip at the same time, etc.  I wonder what would happen to the one of them if the other were to be eaten by a ravenous man eating clam, with big teeth.  Note to self, think more on this later, much later, it gives me a headache.)

Well, I hope that proves it.  Clams had teeth.  The mystery is why would they give up such an evolutionary advantage.  It would also be a good time to be thankful that they never grew legs, otherwise we may still be on their diet, except those of us with high cholesterol, we would be safe, we would clog their arteries.

How does selling out work?

This really depends on what side of the equation you are on.  Are you the one selling, or buying. 

Your question seems to be coming from the selling side, so I will discuss it here.  I would like to point out that either way, selling out, or buying, it can be a rewarding experience for both parties. 

First, to sell out, you must have something of perceived value.  This is typically not a tangible item, like a car, or my new Nintendo Wii, except that the Wii is sold out everywhere... perhaps that is a bad example.  So, not like my car, or my theoretical PS3.  This is typically either fame and principles, or the like. 

The next step is often the most difficult.  It is fueled by greed, but there is a catch.  In most cases once people have enough prestige to sell out, they also have the money to not need to.  It is somewhat of a catch 22.  Those who you want to buy out, can afford not to sell.  Those you can afford, aren't worth buying. 

Typically selling out is doing anything against your nature for money alone.  In most cases selling out involves washed up actors or sports stars who blew their millions on who knows what already and need to get some cash fast.  They appear on infomercials, or regular commercials.  Or perhaps they put advertisements on their web log.  It may start small, just referral button for firefox, which the person honestly believes in and uses exclusively (almost).  But it grows, soon adwords appear, then a search bar.   Step by step they have whored themselves out to Google; stupid sell outs.

You may be thinking that I am a sell out.  I assure you it is not the case. 

First, I am not famous, and have zero exposure in the public sphere.  It's true, only 3 people read my blog, and 2 of them are me (my doctor says its OK). 

Second, it is not against my nature to look for innovative ways to make a buck, so selling out for money, is not selling out, it is sticking to my guns.  Doing it for, say, pizza, that could be construed as selling out.

Third, I like donuts. 

The last thing about sell outs is that they all deny selling out, most will even prepare a flimsy list of three reasons why they are not sell outs.  But in truth, we can all see right through them.

Kit B. Asks: How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

I think we need to realize that this is a myth.  Just because they don't chuck wood, does not mean that they can't chuck wood.  You see, woodchucks, or Marmota monax, as I like to call them, are rodents, just like beavers.  Beavers chuck wood, so a marmota monax should be able to as well.

Your question is also lacking a clear definition of chuck.  It has several.  Seriously, you should look it up in a dictionary.  I think that the most obvious definition would be a short throw, however, it could also mean to get rid of, or also to vomit, such as "up chuck."

If you did indeed intend for it to mean vomit, then your question has merit.  Many rodents, such as mice and rats, lack the ability to vomit, the woodchuck may fall into this catagory as well, wikipedia did not mention it one way or the other.  But in this case, the answer is none.  You see, woodchucks don't eat wood.  They eat grass, berries, gardens, and sometimes insects; no wood.  Termites are about the only creature that can digest wood.  So, to summarize, woodchucks probably can't chuck period, and even if they did, they couldn't chuck what they wouldn't eat.  However, they probably have about 6 oz. stomach. 

On the other hand, if you intended for it to mean throw, there is much more variability.  A beaver for example does not really chuck wood, he drags it.  Now don't get me wrong, I can't chew down a tree with a 10 inch diameter overnight, but I could throw it farther than a beaver.  I mean throw the tree farther than the beaver could, not that I could throw the tree farther than a beaver.  Although, it may be hard to hold the beaver, I bet he would get kind of squirilly, beavery? as I heaved him around in circles over my head, and if he were to bite my hand and not let go...  The beaver will be our reference all the same.  A beaver can be 40 pounds, marmota monax, gets to be about 10.  You may think that this would mean that a woodchuck could chuck 1/4 of what a beaver does chuck.  But it is more complex.  Woodchucks burro in the ground, this gives them strong front limbs compared to the swimmer legs of the beaver, I bet they never have trouble getting the lids of jars of pickles or spaghetti sauce, but at the same time they have a highly curved back like a mole, which may make it difficult to "put their backs into it."  Woodchucks however tend to be aggressive, and you know how sometimes in an emergency you get like super human strength, well, I bet the woodchuck could harness that rage to chuck more wood then a beaver. 

On the other hand, woodchucks live in clearings, with little wood around them, and are rarely far from their holes in the ground.  This would make it difficult to find wood to chuck even if they had that insatiable desire deep in their cute little monax souls. 

So, on an wood chucking scale from 1 to beaver, we take beaver divided by 4 due to size, plus three for the strong upper body, minus 1 for the bad back, a 1.5 pissed off multiplier, last, minus 2 for no wood.  If I got the math right the answer is:

As much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.

No beavers were harmed in the writing of this answer.  At least that I know of.

How do ghosts work?

Ghosts don't work.  That is what gives them so much time to go around scaring people.  If they had a day job they would be to exhausted to walk around the attic dragging chains.  Some do seem to have jobs however.  For example, Ebenezer Scrooge was visited by three ghosts; the ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Future.  However,  it seems that this is only seasonal employment for the unholy specters. 

Part of the difficulty comes from trying to employ a ghost.  They can only type with extreme difficulty, and are entirely unsuited for manual labor.  They would be ideal for checking for corrosion in pipes, but how would they hold the flashlight.  It should also be noted that ghosts don't have much need for money.  They don't eat, they don't need a mortgage to move into a new house, they can't operate cars. 

Ghosts are the disembodied spirits of the dead, and no one  is sure exactly what they are composed of.  Ghost busters claims they are ectoplasm, but fails to describe what ectoplasm is.  Ghost busters is also hardly an authoritative documentary on the subject. 

Many other documentaries on ghosts, such as "Sixth Sense," "Ghost," and "Heart and Souls" suggest that ghosts just hang around waiting for closure.  Just like that ex who just won't go away.

It has also been reported that it is just all in your head.   People want to believe, so they project ghosts into all the noises and oddities that occur in their lives.  Often this type of person is referred to as 'paranoid.'  But remember, just because your paranoid, it doesn't mean you are wrong. 

How do Light bulbs work?

I assume you are referring to inclandestine bulbs and not fluorescent; because they are boring.

Fluorescent bulbs use an electrical current to excite mercury atoms, which then emit UV photons, which interact with the phosphorous coating on the bulb giving off white light.  If you were asking about those, you can now stop reading.

Inclandestine bulbs also use electricity, but use it differently.  The boring bulbs used the energy to make photons directly, thereby being more efficient.  The other bulbs, the ones being discussed here, use the energy like our bodies use caffeine, especially the bodies of young kids.  What happens is that the caffeine makes them hyper, they start running around yelling, knocking into things, breaking things, and by the end of the evening they are hot and sweaty sitting in a corner with a lampshade on their head. 

It is remarkable how similar the light bulbs are.  You run a current through the bulb, specifically the tungsten filament.  This infusion of electrons gets the tungsten hyper.  The atoms start to get all riled up knocking into their neighbors.  This bumping causes the atoms to loose photons, which are then used to light the room.  Tungsten has white photons, which allow us to see everything in the world.  The white photons tend to become colorful when they run into things.  Different things make them differently colorful.

Clandestine bulbs work in the same manner, but instead of tungsten, a proprietary material is used which has black photons.  This is typically called a black light. 

Why do stars go super nova?

First of all lets get this strait; humans are very biased and unimaginative.  While looking for life on others planets, moons, etc.  We all assume that life will be like us, made of organic compounds (proteins, DNA), and confined to a planet/moon/comet/etc.  So short sighted.

See, stars are actually alive.  It would be interesting to know what they think of us, confined to a planet instead of roaming the vast cosmos, only live about 80 years as opposed to billions of years.  But people and stars are more alike then people give them credit for.  Both maintain thermal homeostasis.  People can be big or little, stars can be big or little.  People can be white, black, brown, yellow, red and possibly others, stars can be white dwarfs, red dwarfs, brown dwarfs, red (super)giants, blue (super)giants, our star is yellow, Krypton had a red one, and there are also black holes.

Stars are actually very social creatures.  But in space no one can hear you scream, or talk, or even whisper; or so they would have you believe.  While this may be true for humans, stars don't communicate via sound waves, which can not propagate in vacuum.  They use gravity waves.  Gravity waves can and do propagate in vacuum.   Gravity waves are like yelling, best for public announcements.  Personal communication is typically carried out by radio waves, or other forms of electromagnetic radiation.  Some stars, like pulsars, almost exclusively use radio waves but this is easily intercepted and not a secure form of communication.  (Some think these are crys for help.)  On earth we have even received these messages, but have yet to figure out what they are saying.  Stars like ours use solar flares to communicate directionally and comets for private communications.  Comets are the interstellar couriers. 

Stars also have geopolitical boundaries, just like we have countries.  Our star is part of the so called "Milky Way."  I don't know why it got named after a candy bar so don't ask.  I mean, stars don't even like sugar, they prefer hydrogen and its isotopes. 

Stars also have celebrities, just like us.  Polaris is currently one of the most famous.  Some stars are famously bright, others are great broadcasters, others are known for stupid antics, some are all three.  Also like us, many stars feel it is better to burnout then to fade away.  This type of star burns out by going nova.  A recent example on earth would be Brittany Spears.  Basically these stars just get real big, and waste their youth on trivial pursuits; getting old before their time.  Once this happens people get the chills just looking at them.  They are burned out before they even get to the good part of life, by which time no one even cares.

On earth most washed up stars become spokesmen/women for infomercials.   Stars on the other hand become nebulas. 

The alternative for a star would be to slowly fade away into a dark spot that no one ever sees again and no one cares about.  Left all alone, growing cold.  But after going nova you have the chance to become a black hole, dragging all those around you down also.  But at least there is a lasting impression of you in the world, even if it does help destroy the fabric of your society.

My water has an expiration date, does it go bad?

Yes. Yes it does, sometimes.

In fact, in 2003 water killed an average of 9 people per day (edit: in the USA alone). I should also point out that 2/3 of these murders were committed against males, watch your backs brothers. This is the second largest killer of otherwise healthy people aged 0-14 years old (the first is parental nagging, or car accidents, take your pick).

No one is quite sure why it goes bad, I guess it sometimes just flips out and kills people for no reason at all, ask a Ninja if you don't believe me. But there are some theories. First of all, there is very little "pure water," the oceans are salty, public water is often chlorinated, well water often has a high mineral content. Distilled water is typically considered to be pure; mineral water typically has added minerals, if you can follow that logic.

So, why does it go bad? First, chlorine is negative in its ionized state. Over time this negative exposure can lead to a warped perspective on life. Even the "pure" distilled water is getting 'dis'sed. I understand tilling, farmers do it all the time, but 'dis'tilling, I just don't get it. In addition to this most water is forced to move by external forces, particularly gravity. It always flows downhill, which is great for indoor plumbing, but it gets old for the water. Imagine how life for you would be if you had so little control over your life. Among humans this typically leads to revolution.

I think that is what is slowly happening today. Water is tired of putting up with all our crap. Just think of how vulnerable we are to water. We can die by drowning, dehydration, water intoxification, ice falling off airplane wings landing on our heads, these are just the direct causes. Water also causes floods and droughts, both of which are bad for us humans.

Both creationists and evolutionists recognize the power of water. Evolution states that all life began in the primordial sea, which is in Africa near the Congo. This would lead to the conclusion that water knows our weaknesses and could take us out, just like it did the dinosaurs (I couldn't find references, but imagine how much urine a 35 ton dinosaur makes, that would piss off the water for sure). Creationists have the story of Noah, where every thing was killed except for Noah and his family and their private zoo. Although God promised never to flood the earth again, his wording clearly leaves regional flooding in the equation. How sweet would it be to flood all of (insert country/state/province here) and get rid of all them (insert group here). He could pick several continents and still be within the bounds of the agreement.

After billions of months, why isn't all the water bad. Well, water goes through what is called the perspiration cycle. It is almost just like sweating in reverse. When the surface of water gets hot, it gets dry. This water doesn't just disappear, it becomes clouds through evaporation. When clouds get cold they start to sweat and rain falls. In the clouds the water enjoys the sunlight and is placated.

Water at the bottom of the ocean only rarely evaporates, due to the statistical improbability of a single undisturbed water molecule diffusing through 2 miles of water as a result of Brownian motion with any regularity. As a result water gets pissed and crushes things. Not all things, there are fish who live there, but we humans would be crushed. The fish don't get crushed because they are miserable looking fish and misery loves company; the water likes having them around.

So, how does the water company pick the date the water goes bad? First, it is not an exact science. They have ways of determining the probability that the water will go bad based on minerals in the water, how much pressure is in the bottle, and others. Drinking water past its expiration date will most likely not kill you; but your chances of getting pneumonia do increase, or so I heard from an anomalously source. Mostly however it is just random, they pick something far enough away to make it easy to sell it all before it goes bad, and close enough so you think it must be fresh.

So remember, water has been around for billions of years, and we need to give it respect, and never turn our backs. Ever.

The REAL cause of global warming?

The previous theories are all just supposition, and need to be taken with a grain of salt. In reality there is some truth in all of the ideas, but only this one is 100% correct.

First, mankind is responsible for the current global warming. Second, it has nothing to do with carbon dioxide.

Global warming is occurring because of Hot Air. That is right, the world is getting warmer because the air is hotter. Some of you may be thinking I am backwards in saying this and have no proof, but I assure you I am right.

Just look at the graph below


Taken from: http://geology.com/news/images/global-warming-graph.jpg

This graph clearly shows that the cause of global warming is politics. It is well known that politicians are full of hot air (as well as other stuff). Increased political debate causes increased global temperatures due to the hot air emitting from capital buildings all over the world.

For example, the last major cooling trend occurred around 1940. This coincided with WWII. This was a time of action, not debate. Once the debate ended temperatures dropped. Then the war ended, filibuster ensued, and the temperatures have generally been climbing ever after.

The following chart looks even farther back.


Taken from: http://i2.tinypic.com/sb3drl.gif

Here several other political events can be seen which influenced the weather. Rome -- lots of debate, also Christianity missionary work, more debate, temperatures up. Fall of Rome, return of dictatorships, loss of free speech, temperatures down. Vikings -- people afraid to talk and give away their hiding places, temperatures down. Cathedrals -- these are much like modern day Walmarts, everybody used them, but nobody wanted it in their neighborhood (also the Cathedrals were publicly funded, more debate), hotter weather. Black death -- people too busy burring the dead to argue, cooler weather. The mini ice age was caused by the renaissance, everyone just jumped on the band wagon, no debate, no peer reviewed journals, no hot weather.

Then in the late 1700's The United States of America was formed, giving free speech to everybody. Revolution then spread to France, and Russia, and other places too.

As one last evidence that this is the true cause of global warming, consider the USA. It has sunny California, Florida, Arizona, all these hot places are in a free country with lots of debate. Russia has Siberia, and anyone with opinions contrary to the ruling party is 'disappeared.' Not lots of filibuster there. Lots of cold.

So, those of you who are concerned about global warming: "Shut up! You're making it worse!"

More on Global Warming...

Al Gore has been talking about Global Warming and even wrote a book about it.  I can't say I have read it, but from what I have heard he seems to be in favor of it as a whole.  The book was titled "An Inconvenient Truth."

So Mr. Gore, what is Inconvenient about truth?  Is it that you spend over $30,000 in utility bills, or that you don't practice what you preach?  Source Here.  Could be, but I am not sure.  But I am certain of one fact.  Ignorance is Bliss.  Seems any truth which dispels ignorance would be inconvenient.  I know that when I am not blissful it is inconvenient.  Interruptions are inconvenient as well, especially at dinnertime.  See, I got this phone call the other day, and even if its true that I actually could get that rate for refinancing, I don't own the apartment building.  Actually that was less inconvenient and more pain in the... lets just say pain for the sake of the younger readers.  But back to the book. 

After reading the reviews of the book on Amazon.com it seems that some people don't believe in global warming.  He may be referring to a specific inconvenient truth, namely global warming.  It is obvious that man influences the weather, everyone who has washed their car on a sunny day knows that.  It is the modern day rain dance.  Umbrella use also seems to cause rain to an even higher degree.  I just don't know how all those people coordinate carrying their umbrellas.  I must not be getting the right news channel.  

It seems some people just can't realize that because two things coincide they are automatically causal.  This type of reasoning is so important in science that it has been given its own Latin name, a very rare honor.  The phrase is " Post hoc ergo propter hoc," often abreviated to simply post hoc.

It works like this: In past decades there has been a large increase in college admission rates, as well as drug use.  So clearly college admission causes drug use.  I know I saw some interesting things in my undergrad studies.  Yet many people are unwilling to admit that college causes drug use, morons. 

Recent trends in global warming coincided with the industrial revolution, and the increase in CO2 output after the second world war, so clearly they are related, right?  No.  If used incorrectly post hoc analysis can be wrong, as it is in this case. 

Al is right, global warming is real.  But the problem is not carbon dioxide emissions.  He,and so many other scientists picked the wrong causal factor to lay their suppositions on.  Tune in on Friday for the shocking truth.

What is the big deal about global warming? I like the summer.

I am with you on that one, every year the world is warming for about 6 months out of the year (about February - July). Except near the equator, there it is always just hot. Hot and humid.

After looking online it seems that the problem is that the earth likes summer too, and hasn't been cooling off for those other months (August - January) at the same rate it heats up. A good analogy would be my bank account. No, I think that would be a simile, or a corollary... Don't worry, I checked, it seems to be an analogy after all.

So back to my bank account. Just like the heat of the earth my money comes and goes, and if more comes then goes I have what is commonly called a surplus. Surpluses are good things; so we can deduce that global warming is actually good. No, that can't be right.

Well, actually it is more like a loan from Benny, you've seen him, he stands on the corner of Third and Main, always dressed in black leather. See, Benny is like a bank, but he packs heat, and if you don't return your surplus, then you get his heat, which is bad. This usually involves running for your life and laying low for a while.

On a global scale however this is not feasible. There are too many people for everyone to effectively lie low. As a result it is important to avoid global warming.

My post here clearly shows that there is much confusion in the world about global warming, so I have decided to enhance your quest for knowledge by further delving into the world of global warming for the next several posts.

Why can't geneticists bring back extinct animals?

Actually they already have.  In fact there was a documentary released on it in 1993.  Two additional follow ups were also made, in 1997 and 2001.  They were called Jurassic Park 1, 2, and 3.  Highly educational. 

Most scientists working on that type of research were shown that film and after wards decided it was a bad idea.  When a scientist talks about being consumed by their work it is meant to be a figure of speech. 

The problem is marketing.  A dinosaur park is cool and all, but some what dangerous.  People need to work on animals that humans have killed.  That way if things get out of hand we can just threaten them "we killed you all once, don't make us do it again!" 

I am currently in negotiations for the creation of "Dodo World."  I figure people pay thousands of dollars to go to Africa to kill animals, they would pay much more to go to a small island near Africa to kill an entire species.  What a thrill!

Think about it.  $20 million US to go to space, or just half that to eradicate a species.  We are just sorting out some legal issues about how long it needs to be dead before we can unextinct it.  We are hoping for a one week turnaround, if its monthly the rates would need to go up. 

If this goes through I will soon be blogging, sharing my vast stores of knowledge, from a tropical beach.  Feel free to e-mail me questions and offers of venture capital, I will give you my offshore bank account information you can transfer it to.  I also use PayPal.

How does evolution work?

There are differing opinions on the subject, but generally there are two takes.  First, evolution is slow, it takes a long time, a long long time, perhaps even longer.  The other theory is that it is quick.  Something happens that radically changes the species.  This is often called "Punctuated equilibrium," or "evolution by jerks."  The former is sometimes referred to as "evolution by creeps."

So, how exactly does it work?  Evolution either way takes time.  You can't predict when evolution by jerks will occur in nature, so it is hard to observe.  Evolution by creeps in nature is even harder to observe, it relies entirely on the so called "fossil record."  So, I will use an example from modern science, namely computer operating systems.

Take Windows for instance.  Every 5 years or so a new OS is released, this is evolution by jerks.  (It must have been a jerk who came up with "windows genuine advantage."  Advantage my eye!)  In between these large jumps small changes occur, these are called windows updates.  These updates provide variation in the population, and are generally good.  For example, my other computer is running windows 98 sp1, and this has sp2.  This variation weeds out weaker computers.  For example, computers without updates to fix all the problems windows has will become infected with viruses and spy ware and stuff and stop working.  That person then gets a new computer, ditching the old one on the side of the road.  Some of these jerks in the development don't work and leave the now generation worse than the previous generation, such as Windows ME. 

Evolution by creeps is typified by Linux.  All those creepy people living in moms basement working on computers making constant updates.  I run Ubuntu at times, and every 6 months a new version is out.  Don't know what is different, but I am told it is much better than before.  But at least I don't have to pay out the nose for it (see Jerks above).  Linux has much more variation than Windows.  Each "distribution" has different features and accessibility options.  This is better than then the "themes" used by some.

Mac OSX is also out there, but I haven't really used a Mac since the Apple 2e in school.  I miss playing Oregon Trail. 

But anyway, how do these changes in nature occur?  The genes of a given species change by several methods.  The first is random mutation, this leads to corrupt files 99% of the time.  This is like the auto correct function in word processing programs.  How often do they actually get the write word, rarely.  Sometimes they do.  The remaining percentage of times it changes the word to something even better.  Personally I have never seen that happen, but statistically it could.

There is also "horizontal gene transfer" where genes move from one species to another different species.  This is currently being done with genetically modified crops around the world.  It can also be seen in the computer world.  For example, compare OSX with Windows Vista and Windows 98.  There seems to be a lot of things which have moved to Windows in this last evolutionary jerk from OSX. 

There are other modes as well, such as hybridization (running Windows on Mac Hardware), and migration (running Linux on your XBox), and selection (asteroids killing dinosaurs). 

Thanks for the Questions, and comments.

Tommy P asks: What is Endosymbiosis?

According to one definition it is a: 'Theory that attempts to explain the origin of the DNA-containing mitochondria and chloroplasts in early eukaryotes by the engulfing of various types of bacteria that were not digested but became permanent additions to the ancestral "eukaryote".'

That definition is easier to find than my obscure blog, so I can only assume you are asking because you intend to plagiarize my wisdom.  Just be sure to cite your source, at least to your friends.

The previous theory is full of lies and falsehoods.  Lets look at the proposed theory objectively.  An early eukaryote did not digest the bacteria, and they both were OK with this.  Seriously, they were OK with this!?  Bacteriums are successful because they divide rapidly, doubling every hour or so.  What happened, the bacteria just got cozy, didn't want to share with anyone else so stopped dividing?  That makes no sense.  The bacteria just wouldn't go along with it, no how.  What did the eukaryote think, he would keep the bacterium like a little puppy.  Puppies didn't exist yet, stupid one celled organisms were all there was back then.

The theory also ascribes benefit to the host cell as a result of the symbiotic relationship.  I won't deny that that the host cell benefits from mitochondria or chloroplasts, but have these scientists looked at what would have been involved in initially obtaining the deal?  I doubt it.  The eukaryotic cell would have needed to tame the bacterium, much like humans tamed wolves so we can feed them and pick up their poop.  It is not an easy task, or one readily undertaken.  Now honestly, does a cell too lazy to fully digest its dinner really seem ambitious enough to tame a bacterium?  Not likely.  In addition to that the cell then went on to form all different types animal life composed of lots and lots of cells.  Is this the ambition of a cell too lazy to chew?  That type of cell would have stayed at home and lived on welfare, not gone out hunting and taming vicious bacteria.

Eukaryotic cells actually came into existence due to the ambition of prokaryotic cells.  At one point some bacteria, actually archaea seem more the ambitious type so lets just say prokaryote, decided he wanted to work smarter, not harder.  He developed a system of encapsulating himself in a lipid bi layer composed of phosolipids, this is the human equivalent of air conditioning.  As work progressed he added many other features.  Exocytosis for example is the equivalent of the our septic systems; except we don't then swim in it, well, most of us.  Endocytosis is like home grocery delivery, that is so great.  And as several failures at doing this online have proven that it is not easy to accomplish.  Again, not for the lazy eukaryophyte.  Eventually he lost the ability to live independently and could no longer leave his home.  This could have been due to pressure from squatters.

Later he created the now all powerful "Nucleus."  This is currently like the modern computer of probably 2103 AD.  Not long after forming the nucleus things got out of control, similar to "I Robot."  Actually exactly like that.  The nucleus started to take over completely.  The bacterium was was unable to defeat the hostile takeover. 

The bacteria hate us, that is why they always try to kill us, making us sick.  They long to once more rule the earth.

So there you  have it.  You are the result of an accident by a race of ambitious bacterial who now want you dead.  Have a happy day!