The following will provide an explanation to two seemingly unconnected processes: the emergence of eukaryotes (and within it, plants) and the domestication of the dog. (And also, based on analogies, I state the existence of relationships, which is an addition to our present knowledge.)
According to the widespread theory, a larger prokaryotic cell swallowed a smaller prokaryotic cell of a different type, from which the nucleus was formed, and then another prokaryote entered the cell the same way and became the mitochondrion, and in some cases also chloroplasts.
According to a different theory, a parasite entered the cell. I will not consider it further, because – as far as I know – it was not explained how the parasite achieved all that we can see in these relationships. It is by no means obvious that such a long coexistence can occur (more than a billion years in the case of the mitochondrion and the chloroplast).
According to a more recent theory, the prokaryote that became the nucleus and the prokaryote that became the mitochondrion produced the plasma surrounding them and the cell membrane. I will not consider it further because in order for this to happen, all the prokaryotes that would turn into mitochondrion would have had to gather around the prokaryote that was to turn into the nucleus, they would all have had to cooperate in making the eukaryote, stayed together and multiplied. These acts together – without any acceptable cause – cannot be considered the basis of a serious theory.)
The widespread “explanation” for the domestication of the dog (I will explain the quotes later) is that for some reason, at some time, puppies found were not eaten but brought up instead.
- There is no logical explanation as to why the adopter deviates from the usual procedure. Why did they not digest the adoptee? (For example the most delicious puppies.)
- There is also no logical explanation as to how the adoptee got to the appropriate place in the adopter. (This, of course, applies mostly to cells.)
- There is also no logical explanation as to why, if a single adoption occurred, the resulting new creature multiplied, and multiplied to such a number that would ensure its survival, it would not die out due to some influence. How could it survive? And if more than one adoption occurred, point 1 is even more valid.
- Neither is there an explanation as to why the cell adopted these and in this order. And concerning the domestication of the dog, why weren’t other animals, which were domesticated later, domesticated earlier than the dog? Unlike the ancestors of dogs, these animals were hunted by man, and therefore man came into contact with them and their young far more often.
- Finally, nothing explains how a long-term cooperation of many stages could result from an entry into the cell that took only a short time.
Based on the above, there is no real explanation for the process started by the adopter.
The reverse direction, however, seems far more logical – the adoptee initiated the process, penetrated the adopter cell, or joined man in the case of the dog!
This probably happened in a way that the adoptee – or more precisely, the penetrator – initiated a first occasional, then regular outside connection with the adopter by not just getting or taking (parasitically) but also giving something valuable to the adopter (symbiosis). Due to the success of this process, the adopter allowed first partial, then complete penetration, and finally allowed the penetrator to get to the best place.
This – as opposed to earlier theories – is a rather long explanation but none of its steps is irrational. For example, the dog joined man because man’s leftovers (bones with a little meat on them) and even excrement were easily obtained food for it. This was advantageous for man because the ancestor of dog had far more sensitive senses and perceived possible prey or danger earlier. First man noticed this from the change of behaviour of the dog ancestor, later dogs – not ancestors now – signalled themselves (e.g. with barking). In return for this, “as a reward”, man not only left the bones for “well-behaving” dog ancestors but gave the bones to them, and perhaps even left more meat on the bones. This was how their symbiosis gradually developed. This also explains why dogs were domesticated first, and why man waited so long to domesticate the next animal – its domestication was initiated by man and executed forcefully.
Viruses perform partial infiltration of cells. They only spend part of their “life” in the cell. However, they are parasites, therefore they take important, what is more, essential materials from the cells.
In addition to dogs, many other living beings joined man and other living beings that were “worth joining”. “Worth” means that joining is easy, in other words, the adopter is easy to find, and also, there is something important that the “joiner” can use, and this important thing is easy enough to access.
Examples of living beings associating with man are many arthropods (many spiders and ants), of the vertebrates many birds (sparrows, blackbirds, golden orioles, pigeons, the black kite in tropical areas but not in the temperate zone, seagulls, and recently the grey heron – which avoids humans elsewhere – in Amsterdam as seen in photos), and mammals (e.g. the black rat and the domestic cat). Some of these live in symbiosis with man (e.g. domestic cat), others are parasites (e.g. the black rat). Some of these animals only exist in domesticated form now (e.g. house cat), others exist in forms independent of man (most of the above listed animals).
The process of association also works backward, toward independence. Such is the case of the Australian dingo, dogs becoming wild and rats getting to islands of oceans. And perhaps this is the case of viruses!
In the above, only the initiator of association was different from those found in widely used explanations. In what follows, even the claim of association is new.
I think electrons joined the nucleus and the nucleus itself formed from various heavy particles similarly to the way eukaryotes formed.
But what does the initiator of association gain from the process?
It partly receives energy for its movement, since, for example, electrons do not need energy to orbit the nucleus. (I cannot, however, answer the question why an electron “wants” to move.)
This analogy suggests that a negative particle that has never been in an atom – let us call it a real electron – is not identical to an electron orbiting the nucleus in an atom, and the negatively charged particles in the various atoms are different according to the type of atom they are in. In other words, there are iron electrons, hydrogen electrons, etc.
And also, atoms must have a virus, in other words a particle that is in the atom only temporarily, uses the atom and destroys it upon leaving, taking essential things (such as energy) with it.
And finally, these are real particles, not just some probabilities of occurrence.
So far, I have only focused on one reason of association: material gain (including gaining energy).
There is, however, another reason: giving and receiving help.
A common form of this is the provision of protection or defence for the other party.
This can be one-sided. For example, sparrows like to make their nest in the nest of an eagle or stork.
However, it can also be mutual. For example, antelopes, which have a keen sense of smell and ostriches, which can see very well, can associate occasionally, or the above mentioned association of man and dog.
These are well-known examples. However, I claim that the atom is also such an association, which provides some protection for both the nucleus and the electrons against the pull of an electrical field.
Of course, the two reasons can combine, as well.
In addition to the examples of man and dog, and nucleus and electrons, such cases are for example, the cattle egret and the African buffalo, where the cattle egret removes ticks, larvae and flies from the buffalo and consumes them. It can alert the buffalo to danger due to its good sight if a predator approaches, but by removing parasites that can make the buffalo ill, the cattle egret also protects the buffalo’s health. In return, it is safe on the back of the buffalo from small predators on the ground.
Dr Simonyi Endre