The evolution of complex life

C

Cypress

Well-known member
Very cool; thanks for posting. I was struck by the name "Asgard" and then what they named the new organism, "Lokiarchaeum ossiferum." Can Thor be far behind?
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Very cool; thanks for posting. I was struck by the name "Asgard" and then what they named the new organism, "Lokiarchaeum ossiferum." Can Thor be far behind?
Click to expand...

:)

I was kind of hoping they would start naming scientific phenomena after cartoon characters!
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
:laugh: Really. I guess "Asgard archaeon" is the biologists' naming equivalent of the "God particle." ;)
Click to expand...

Science geeks are pretty eccentric with naming things.

The word quark never struck me as sounding very scientific, but as of today you are only one of about eight thousand people on the planet who know that 'quark' comes from an obscure line in James Joyce's novel Finnegan's Wake.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Very cool; thanks for posting. I was struck by the name "Asgard" and then what they named the new organism, "Lokiarchaeum ossiferum." Can Thor be far behind?
Click to expand...

One idea is that two billion years ago a bacteria cell enveloped and encased an archaea cell, and the relationship somehow became symbiotic, with the archaea transitioning to becoming a cell nucleus, and thus the first eukaryote cell originated.
 
Cypress said:
One idea is that two billion years ago a bacteria cell enveloped and encased an archaea cell, and the relationship somehow became symbiotic, with the archaea transitioning to becoming a cell nucleus, and thus the first eukaryote cell originated.
Click to expand...

Yes. And even today the organelle in our cells that supplies us with energy and which has its own DNA, the mitochondria, is the result of a eukaryote that engulfed another bacterium and began the symbiotic relationship.
 
Cypress said:
One idea is that two billion years ago a bacteria cell enveloped and encased an archaea cell, and the relationship somehow became symbiotic, with the archaea transitioning to becoming a cell nucleus, and thus the first eukaryote cell originated.
Click to expand...

amusing.......
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Yes. And even today the organelle in our cells that supplies us with energy and which has its own DNA, the mitochondria, is the result of a eukaryote that engulfed another bacterium and began the symbiotic relationship.
Click to expand...

It seems like one of the most exciting areas of scientific research because we have a lot of hypotheses, but there is a whole lot we don't know about his this happened
 
Ive' always been amazed at the way Cells and Solar Systems relate! Just an observation.

The sun is like the nucleus of a cell because it is the source of power for everything in the solar system just like the nucleus is the source of power for every process in the cell. membrane controls what goes in or comes out of the cell.

It is an interesting analogy if nothing else!

https://prezi.com/jeugum9gkoql/the-solar-system-animal-cell-analogy/
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
actually, it isn't an hypothesis......you should have stuck with calling it an idea.....
Click to expand...
I accept your tacit confession that my hypothesis of a symbiosis of an archaea cell and bacteria cell to create a eukaryote is less laughable than your idea that an old guy in a white robe waived a magic wand and created eukaryotes.

Testibility is sufficient to qualify a hypothesis as scientific, but not necessary in the short run if a proposed hypothesis is attractive on explanatory grounds and is fertile in stimulating new lines of research which promise testibility and falsifiability in the long run.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...nism-basically-finished&p=5475473#post5475473
Click to expand...
 
PostmodernProphet said:
in the study of science there are additional requirements.........
Click to expand...

The qualifying characteristics of a hypothesis is they can't invoke the supernatural, and they have to have a mathematical or physical basis, and they have to be make predictions, at least in principle in the long run.

--> Testibility is sufficient to qualify a hypothesis as scientific, but not necessary in the short run if a proposed hypothesis is attractive on explanatory grounds and is fertile in stimulating new lines of research which promise testibility and falsifiability in the long run.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...nism-basically-finished&p=5475473#post5475473
 
PostmodernProphet said:
in the study of science there are additional requirements.........
Click to expand...

Not really.

An hypothesis is really just your "starting guess". You have to have an hypothesis before you can start.

Of course it needs to be "falsifiable" but there really isn't any "requirements".

Scientists don't go into the lab and check off a list of things and say "Now, David, this is officially an 'hypothesis', let us proceed to step #756A"

I speak from 30+ years experience as a lab scientist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top