What would be an acceptable level of evidence that could convince you? Mitochondria even have their own DNA. The hypothesis that mitochondria were originally their own bacteria might not be confirmed via a lab experiment, but I'm not sure why you find it that silly of an idea.

There you go, you just called it "hypothesis" which is what it is.

They don't kind of look like bacteria, there was a lot of gene sequencing and careful examination because it seemed like a very wild theory especially before we've really learned archaea. Quammen's "The Tangled Tree" has a nice writeup on on the process.

Thanks for reminding me why I don't read the comments on science articles on this site

I am sincerely curious about your thoughts on the origins of mitochondria, and how you came to feel so strongly about it.

When she proposed this hypothesis, there was not any molecule tool for this field.

Please read more about a subject before making asinine generalizations. There were many steps between "imagined" and "accepted".

Hello fellow scientism fan. Happy to meet a person who is surely using the word "asinine" in every day conversations. I wonder how many of the "many steps" were imaginations turned "evidence" such as this one. I would go ahead and examine like I did in the past but I'm saving it for a rainy day, when I'm in the need of good entertainment.