I think it is a matter of semantics because it seemed like you have a different understanding of the meaning of the word emerge then the person you are responding to. Within the context of the original post, the word emerge has nothing to do with the physical location of mitochondria and the eukaryotic cell. Instead, the meaning of emergence was to come into existence from non-existence. That is to say, your objection relies on a different semantic understanding of the word used. It is unclear to me if you don't understand this meaning or if you understand it but disagree with others using it.
Similarly, I would argue that a "mitochondria" not living in a parent so is not a mitochondria at all. Again, this is a matter of semantics. It relies on the meaning of the word mitochondria and how it is defined.
Bay way of comparison, is a person who buys a house homeless or a homeowner? Are humans prototocells because our evolutionary history can be traced back to them?
> Similarly, I would argue that a "mitochondria" not living in a parent so is not a mitochondria at all.
I'm not sure why you're continuing to try to make it clear to me that you're not wrong when we simply disagree, but your statement here employs nominal fallacy, or naming fallacy. Mitochondria is that same bacteria that it used to be prior to entering into a symbiotic relationship within the cell. It's a relatively new scientific revelation that mitochondrion organelles lived as bacteria discrete from its current function inside a cell. We may call this that and that this, to keep track of function, but it doesn't mean that a spade isn't a shovel.
1) A thing can have a different name depending on where it is - for example, "power converter mounting bolt" and "control panel cover fastening bolt" might both be M8 bolts, and interchangeable. This isn't any sort of fallacy.
2) In any case, mitochondria have evolved, and are now distinct species from their ancestors that cannot survive outside the cell.
3) Fittingly, a spade is pointed, while a shovel is square tipped.
I think it is a matter of semantics because it seemed like you have a different understanding of the meaning of the word emerge then the person you are responding to. Within the context of the original post, the word emerge has nothing to do with the physical location of mitochondria and the eukaryotic cell. Instead, the meaning of emergence was to come into existence from non-existence. That is to say, your objection relies on a different semantic understanding of the word used. It is unclear to me if you don't understand this meaning or if you understand it but disagree with others using it.
Similarly, I would argue that a "mitochondria" not living in a parent so is not a mitochondria at all. Again, this is a matter of semantics. It relies on the meaning of the word mitochondria and how it is defined.
Bay way of comparison, is a person who buys a house homeless or a homeowner? Are humans prototocells because our evolutionary history can be traced back to them?