Jump to content

Talk:Eocyte hypothesis: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Commentary on article POV needing amending
Line 16: Line 16:
* Eocytes = Asgard + TACK (including Crenarchaeota as a true subset)
* Eocytes = Asgard + TACK (including Crenarchaeota as a true subset)
The article states both, whichcannot betrue.--[[User:Ernsts|Ernsts]] ([[User talk:Ernsts|talk]]) 21:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
The article states both, whichcannot betrue.--[[User:Ernsts|Ernsts]] ([[User talk:Ernsts|talk]]) 21:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

==Two-Domain Hypothesis: A Fusion of Two Ideas==

In science, the most important thing is the scientific method process which allows for revision based on newer information. If the new "two-domain" classification system is accepted then the earlier Eocyte hypothesis is invalidated, as the 1980s Eocyte hypothesis had both archaea and bacteria in the same domain. In short, while the earlier and latter hypotheses have two domains each, the parameters for domain division are different and contradict each other.

Ironically, this is a case whether neither the Eocyte Hypothesis or the Three-Domain Hypothesis are now the leading idea. Instead we have the Two-Domain Hypothesis which combines elements of both. And while the more recent 'two-domain' hypothesis has some origins in the Eocyte hypothesis, the new Two-Domain hypothesis has Archaea and Bacteria as separate domains, not on the same side. If anything, this only strengthened Woese's 1977 discovery that archaea were not like bacteria at all. [[User:Ryoung122|<span style="color:red">Ryoung</span><span style="color:blue">122</span>]] 04:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:04, 3 August 2022

Pronunciation

Please add pronunciation(s) of this group. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.149.238.168 (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom?

The links to Euryarchaeota and Crenarchaeota refer to them as phyla, not kingdoms. It would be nice to get the articles to coincide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.149.238.168 (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are Eocytes?

What is right (if Eocytes = Eocyta):

  • Eocytes = Crenarchaeote
  • Eocytes = Asgard + TACK (including Crenarchaeota as a true subset)

The article states both, whichcannot betrue.--Ernsts (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Domain Hypothesis: A Fusion of Two Ideas

In science, the most important thing is the scientific method process which allows for revision based on newer information. If the new "two-domain" classification system is accepted then the earlier Eocyte hypothesis is invalidated, as the 1980s Eocyte hypothesis had both archaea and bacteria in the same domain. In short, while the earlier and latter hypotheses have two domains each, the parameters for domain division are different and contradict each other.

Ironically, this is a case whether neither the Eocyte Hypothesis or the Three-Domain Hypothesis are now the leading idea. Instead we have the Two-Domain Hypothesis which combines elements of both. And while the more recent 'two-domain' hypothesis has some origins in the Eocyte hypothesis, the new Two-Domain hypothesis has Archaea and Bacteria as separate domains, not on the same side. If anything, this only strengthened Woese's 1977 discovery that archaea were not like bacteria at all. Ryoung122 04:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]