Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9189 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Michaeladams
Happy Birthday: marc9000
Post Volume: Total: 919,029 Year: 6,286/9,624 Month: 134/240 Week: 77/72 Day: 2/30 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Only 1 Tree of Life?
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 3 of 28 (528537)
10-06-2009 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by tuffers
10-06-2009 11:22 AM


There was a hypothesis proposed recently that there are living things from another tree of life kicking around but we don't find them because we're not looking for them in the right way. I tend to think not, but, hey, the thought is out there.
The problem for any new starting life is that it has to contend with existing life that can, with the greatest of ease, just eat it. The first replicators were fragile, ineffectual things ill-prepared to contend with the streamlined, highly evolved living machines of today - or even 100,000 years after the first replicator.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tuffers, posted 10-06-2009 11:22 AM tuffers has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 10-06-2009 11:56 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 5 of 28 (528545)
10-06-2009 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by NosyNed
10-06-2009 11:56 AM


Re: New Scientist Article
Cheers.
If you want more details I can copy some bits but not too much.
I have full online access to New Scientist through the OU, anyway

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 10-06-2009 11:56 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003


(1)
Message 14 of 28 (529065)
10-08-2009 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Taz
10-08-2009 12:39 AM


I entirely disagree.
Eukarya involves a merging of Archaea and Bacteria. As is entirely obvious from the genetic of DNA transcription and replication, as well as the endosymbiotic origins of mitochondria. Whether they evolved from Archaea, or from a merging of an archaeon and a bacterium (the fusion hypothesis) is not yet determined, although I favour the latter.
Archaea and Bacteria too share common ancestry as is, again, obvious from their systems of DNA transition and replication (in particular there is a 14 nucleotide sequence in rRNA conserved across all life on earth). And, here, in fact things are more complicated because there is a certain amount of horizontal gene transfer between the two domains.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Taz, posted 10-08-2009 12:39 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Taz, posted 10-08-2009 8:46 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 16 of 28 (529147)
10-08-2009 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Matt P
10-08-2009 12:27 PM


Re: Three branches of one tree
Matt P writes:
Just a moment...
What a fascinating paper! Was it the one you meant to link though? It doesn't seem to mention the divergance of the three domains at all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Matt P, posted 10-08-2009 12:27 PM Matt P has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Matt P, posted 10-08-2009 1:17 PM Dr Jack has seen this message but not replied
 Message 18 by Matt P, posted 10-08-2009 1:32 PM Dr Jack has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 20 of 28 (529354)
10-09-2009 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Taz
10-08-2009 8:46 PM


Iunno. I tend to see the three domains as separate trees, considering how much they have diverged even if they shared common ancestry.
So... even though they all share a common ancestor, you're going to view them as different trees of life anyway? o_O
I can only think you're using a different meaning of "Tree of Life" to the rest of us. In any case it's not a particularly useful view (any more than it's useful to view different phyla as different "trees of life"), firstly because the homologies between the different domains mean that discoveries from one domain can be transferred to others (for example, discoveries of certain proteins in Archaea have been used to search for homologous proteins in Eukarya and then, using the archaeon as a model, to understand what the proteins do in the eukaryote) and, secondly, because the borders between the domains are not clear cut: horizontal gene transfer occurs between Archaea and Bacteria, and organelles such as mitochondria and chloroplasts have their endosymbiotic origin in Bacteria, meaning Eukarya cannot be fully understood without investigating other domains.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Taz, posted 10-08-2009 8:46 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Taz, posted 10-10-2009 12:40 AM Dr Jack has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 24 of 28 (530200)
10-12-2009 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by ApostateAbe
10-12-2009 3:01 PM


Somebody mentioned viruses. Viruses have their own trees of life, and for that reason some biologists exclude them from being "life." But I would count them as life.
Most biologists do not count viruses as life, but not for that reason. Rather they're not normally considered life because they have no metabolism and are incapable of reproducing themselves but instead only capable of inducing others to reproduce them for them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ApostateAbe, posted 10-12-2009 3:01 PM ApostateAbe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by ApostateAbe, posted 10-12-2009 7:58 PM Dr Jack has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024