A new kingdom

It’s not every day you discover a new (supra) kingdom, but a Facebook friend has done just that. Based on phylogenetic analysis (that thing that doesn’t tell us anything, heh heh), they differ genetically from known protists more than we do from fungi (which are more closely related to us than to plants).

42 Replies to “A new kingdom”

  1. Alan Fox Alan Fox
    Ignored
    says:

    Wow!

    The fact they can “farm” these organisms, together with their prey organisms gives yuge opportunity for research.

    I’m wondering:

    1. Standard genetic code or variations?
    2. Separate instance of symbiogenesis?
    3. Flagella – homology with Archaea or Bacteria?

  2. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    “There’s nothing we know that’s closely related to them.”

    In fact, he estimates you’d have to go back a billion years — about 500 million years before the first animals arose — before you could find a common ancestor of hemimastigotes and any other known living things…”

    There is nothing closely related to those “microbes” and yet scientists already know they are going to find a common ancestor…
    That’s they way science is done… as it should be…when the dominant thought of evolutionary theory is bullied into the so called “scientific literature” …

  3. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    Awesome. Thanks for that, Allan.

  4. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac,

    Not bad. Just needed a little fix.

    There is nothing closely related to those “microbes” and yet scientists already know they are going to find a common ancestor…
    That’s they way science is done… as it should be …when the dominant thought of evolutionary theory is bullied into the so called “scientific literature” …

  5. Alan Fox Alan Fox
    Ignored
    says:

    On checking the original letter to Nature, I initially got a paywall but then somehow I ended up with a PDF of the complete entry… Oh, I see it won’t download or print:

    You are viewing a complimentary shared article.

    Complimentary shares do not allow printing. If you have another access method, please visit the regular publisher article page in order to print.

    A bit technical but the pictures are fascinating.

  6. Erik
    Ignored
    says:

    Alan Fox,

    You mean this? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0708-8.epdf I’m sure it can be cracked with a little effort.

    As to the news itself, I don’t see how it fits the evolution theory at all when instead of a missing link one finds a new kind.

  7. Alan Fox Alan Fox
    Ignored
    says:

    Alan Fox: 3. Flagella – homology with Archaea or Bacteria?

    Gee, what a pillock! Hemimastigophora are Eukarotes!

  8. Alan Fox Alan Fox
    Ignored
    says:

    Erik: As to the news itself, I don’t see how it fits the evolution theory at all when instead of a missing link one finds a new kind.

    Well, new kinds have to fit the theory or the theory is in peril. That’s the interesting thing about a new find; where does it fit?

  9. Fair Witness Fair Witness
    Ignored
    says:

    Erik:
    Alan Fox,

    …..I don’t see how it fits the evolution theory at all when instead of a missing link one finds a new kind.

    But Erik…. a new kind is the most missing-est of all.

  10. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    Erik,

    Erik:
    Alan Fox,

    As to the news itself, I don’t see how it fits the evolution theory at all when instead of a missing link one finds a new kind.

    It wasn’t particularly about evolutionary theory per we, just something of interest. But it does have relatives, nonetheless, and has a phylogenetic ‘fit’. This is deduced, not assumed as per J-Mac’s drivel above. The headline ‘like nothing on earth’ is misleading.

  11. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    Alan Fox:
    Wow!

    I’m wondering:

    1. Standard genetic code or variations?

    My money would be on variant, and I could hazard a fair guess which codons and what as a perm from 64.

    2.Separate instance of symbiogenesis?

    Doubtful

    3.Flagella – homology with Archaea or Bacteria?

    Archaea, at least if they contain dynein, which I’d lay odds they do.

  12. Alan Fox Alan Fox
    Ignored
    says:

    Allan Miller,

    Do you think they look a little like GuardiaGiardia* at all? At least superficially. They don’t seem to have included them in the phylogenetic analysis.

    ETA* Oops!

  13. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    Alan Fox:
    Allan Miller,

    Do you think they look a little like Guardia at all? At least superficially. They don’t seem to have included them in the phylogenetic analysis.

    That’s surprising-ish, although it certainly ain’t my field. Giardia are pretty deep-branching themselves. They’re curious beasties in their own right, two haploid nuclei driving the cell rather than the more conventional diploid one. That’s of interest given my ‘haploid’s eye view’ of sex (its evolution, not its practice! 🤣).

  14. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Let’s not forget that one of the most respected EXPERIMENTAL SCIENTISTS in the origins, Craig Venter, who not only identified the forth domain of life

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20265-biologys-dark-matter-hints-at-fourth-domain-of-life/

    He also doubts common descent…

    In his words: “…I think we may have thousands of recent common ancestors and they are not necessarily so common…”

    Why?

    Well, one of the reasons is that when him and his team, including Nobel Prize winners, tried to recreate a living cell, they ran into a lot of problems, such as the great variety of genetic codes, different types of metabolism in the supposedly similar organisms… etc.

    More on the theme here… including some easily recognizable but confused scientists…

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/the-mystery-of-evolution-8-common-descent-the-tree-of-life-or-a-bush-an-orchard/

  15. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    Your ideas are moronic and tedious, J-Mac.

  16. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac,

    Venter is a bit of a clown when it comes to evolutionary theory, though not as much of one as J-mac … makes him out to be.

    Lols @ J-Mac’s statement that Venter discovered a 4th domain, when the url says ‘hints’. How can you tell who J-mac thinks is a great scientist? If (s)he appears to doubt evolution.

  17. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain:
    Your ideas are moronic and tedious, J-Mac.

    Omgun!!!
    This your best argument for hellevolution you have ever made… though I have admit I’ve read very few of them or… even just one… My kids enjoyed the 2 stick to 3 stick picture proof though, so … you are not blogging from a totally restricted institution… we think…

  18. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Allan Miller:
    J-Mac,

    Venter is a bit of a clown when it comes to evolutionary theory, though not as much of one as J-mac … makes him out to be.

    Lols @ J-Mac’s statement that Venter discovered a 4th domain, when the url says ‘hints’. How can you tell who J-mac thinks is a great scientist? If (s)he appears to doubt evolution.

    The New Science of Metagenomics: Fourth Domain of Life

    “However, the four domain concept needs to be authenticated by the scientific community.”

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228105775_The_New_Science_of_Metagenomics_Fourth_Domain_of_Life

    Why does it need to be authenticated?

    Well, only Darwin and his faithful know… In other words the data has to fit the evolutionary assumptions and not the other way around…as it should when your beliefs system is above any evidence..right Allan Miller? lol

    BTW: Let’s not forget who is criticizing Craig Venter… Allan Miller’s experimental accomplishments are well know and Venter’s are surly in his shadow… Tell us more Allan.. What have you speculated lately…? lol

  19. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    It’s just a new species. We find new species all the time.

    ETA: Nothing truly new here. Move along.

  20. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel:
    J-Mac,

    Not bad. Just needed a little fix.

    Why? Because you choose to ignore the reality of the so-called scientific community? Try to publish something that doesn’t fit the so-called consensus, which means evolution is right even if your experiments show it is wrong… The Darwinian Gestapo will label you as a creationist, stupid, religion pusher and you are done as a scientist…

    Do you need proof?

  21. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung:
    It’s just a new species. We find new species all the time.

    RTA: Nothing truly new here. Move along.

    Oh… How do you know? You have finally found the definition of species you agree with??? Indulge me!

  22. DNA_Jock
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: Let’s not forget that one of the most respected EXPERIMENTAL SCIENTISTS in the origins, Craig Venter, who not only identified the forth domain of life

    ROFL.
    I’ll go further than Allan did: Venter is a clown.
    How do I know this? Cuz a couple of Nobel Laureates told me so. Your selective credentialism is showing, my dear.
    Also, he doesn’t doubt common descent in the way that you think he does.

  23. Neil Rickert
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: You have finally found the definition of species you agree with???

    Or maybe he has found a species of sarcasm that you failed to recognize.

  24. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: Why? Because you choose to ignore the reality of the so-called scientific community? Try to publish something that doesn’t fit the so-called consensus, which means evolution is right even if your experiments show it is wrong… The Darwinian Gestapo will label you as a creationist, stupid, religion pusher and you are done as a scientist…

    Do you need proof?

    Yes, Darwin was once not the consensus either.

  25. Acartia Acartia
    Ignored
    says:

    Alan Fox: On checking the original letter to Nature, I initially got a paywall but then somehow I ended up with a PDF of the complete entry… Oh, I see it won’t download or print:

    Journals do this to allow authors to share their work without violating copyright, which is typically owned by the journal, not the author.

  26. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: The New Science of Metagenomics: Fourth Domain of Life

    Why does it need to be authenticated?

    Because that’s how science works?

  27. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac:

    BTW: Let’s not forget who is criticizing Craig Venter… Allan Miller’sexperimental accomplishments are well know and Venter’s are surly in his shadow… Tell us more Allan.. What have you speculated lately…? lol

    Haha, the pitiful credential mongering of Creationists is quite a theme. The irony being, of course, that these clowns have themselves discovered absolutely zip.

  28. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: Why? Because you choose to ignore the reality of the so-called scientific community? Try to publish something that doesn’t fit the so-called consensus, which means evolution is right even if your experiments show it is wrong… The Darwinian Gestapo will label you as a creationist, stupid, religion pusher and you are done as a scientist…

    Do you need proof?

    I think if someone found good evidence of an exception to universal common descent for example, journals would be falling over themselves to publish. After all, discovering a new kingdom in the dirt on your boots (poetic license) is quite a coup in itself; how much more noteworthy would be a brand new life form?

    If someone found such evidence and publication was denied, I think in the modern age they would find a way to get their work out, threats to family members or bribes by the Darwin Konspiracy notwithstanding.

  29. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: The Darwinian Gestapo will label you as a creationist, stupid, religion pusher and you are done as a scientist…

    Well, I didn’t expect the Darwinian Gestapo.

  30. Alan Fox Alan Fox
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: Do you need proof?

    Proof is for mathematical statements. Some evidence that

    “Try to publish something that doesn’t fit the so-called consensus, which means evolution is right even if your experiments show it is wrong… The Darwinian Gestapo will label you as a creationist, stupid, religion pusher and you are done as a scientist…”

    isn’t just inaccurate hyperbolic waffle would be good.

  31. Alan Fox Alan Fox
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel,

    🙂

  32. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: This your best argument for hellevolution you have ever made

    I was not making an argument relating to any sort of evolution.

    J-Mac: though I have admit I’ve read very few of them or… even just one

    Nice of you to admit you don’t even read arguments given to you. I knew that anyway, however, which is why I don’t even attempt to argue with you. You are not capable of having a proper discussion.

    J-Mac: My kids enjoyed the 2 stick to 3 stick picture proof though,

    I imagine after the years of mental abuse you’ve put them through they say whatever it is you want to hear right now.

    J-Mac: you are not blogging from a totally restricted institution… we think…

    I’m not blogging at all. Words and their meanings appear to have some difficulty for you.

  33. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: Try to publish something that doesn’t fit the so-called consensus, which means evolution is right even if your experiments show it is wrong

    That is what scientists live for, to publish supported work that does not fit the consensus

    J-Mac: The Darwinian Gestapo will label you as a creationist, stupid, religion pusher and you are done as a scientist…

    Do you need proof?

    No.

    Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

    Your fruit is rotten. I know it and you know it.

  34. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: Try to publish something that doesn’t fit the so-called consensus, which means evolution is right even if your experiments show it is wrong… The Darwinian Gestapo will label you as a creationist, stupid, religion pusher and you are done as a scientist…

    Do you need proof?

    I have proof you are wrong: https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080917/full/455281a.html
    The last paragraph is basically what you are doing.

    Yet there was no sense at Altenberg of a desire to attack evolutionary theory from the left. Quite the reverse — the dominant political concern was a fear of attack from fundamentalists. As Gould discovered, creationists seize on any hint of splits in evolutionary theory or dissatisfaction with Darwinism. In the past couple of decades, everyone has become keenly aware of this, regardless of their satisfaction or otherwise with the modern synthesis. “You always feel like you’re trying to cover your rear,” says Love. “If you criticize, it’s like handing ammunition to these folks.” So don’t criticize in a grandstanding way, says Coyne: “People shouldn’t suppress their differences to placate creationists, but to suggest that neo-Darwinism has reached some kind of crisis point plays into creationists’ hands,” he says. It is tempting to say that it’s not just genes that express themselves in an environment that responds and reshapes itself around them, feeding back and complicating matters beyond simple cause and effect; the same applies to ideas. And if that seems a bit self-referential — well, that’s postmodernism.

    But it’s clear that any idea can be on the table, supported by the consensus or not. We’re all familiar with the tactic of claiming that a cabal prevents any ideas not supporting “Darwinism” from being published. It’s why you tell yourselves that no scientific work that supports your viewpoint exists. The truth of the matter is quite different. Don’t you ever wonder why KF, gpuccio et al don’t publish their ideas?

    The fact is that there is no “darwinism gestapo.”. It’s just something you’ve made up to explain the lack of published support for IDC. You can’t or won’t accept the idea that there is no such work that can be published, so you invent excuses for the lack of it.

    In the past I’ve asked for rejection letters from journals that note the work is not being published because of the viewpoint (ID/C) rather then the science. In the decade I’ve been asking for such, nothing has ever been proffered.

    Do you have proof you are right?

    In any case, there is nothing stopping you from publishing your own journal right?

    https://www.evoinfo.org/publications.html
    http://www.biologicinstitute.org/research

    Out of interest, which experiments is it you are referring to that show evolution is wrong?

    But of course, I can guess your “answer” before you even say it. And, for bonus points, how come nobody seems to have published any work in any of those journals for years?

  35. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    How do we know there’s a Darwin Gestapo? Because we never hear about the Darwin Gestapo. If that’s not proof of its existence, I don’t know what is.

  36. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: Try to publish something that doesn’t fit the so-called consensus, which means evolution is right even if your experiments show it is wrong

    https://deskarati.com/2011/08/17/scientific-revolutions-or-paradigm-shifts/
    When the profession cannot evade anomalies undermining the existing tradition a new basis for the practice of science is needed. Those shifts are known as scientific revolutions. They are the tradition-shattering complements to the tradition-bound activity of normal science. The most obvious examples of scientific revolutions are those major turning points associated with the names of Copernicus, Newton, Lavoisier, and Einstein. More clearly than most other episodes in the history of the physical sciences, these display what all scientific revolutions are about.


    I realize this is all new to you J-Mac, having been fed a passel of lies by your pastor since birth, but I’m happy to get you to a point where you can have a rational discussion about all this.

  37. Entropy Entropy
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain:
    Out of interest, which experiments is it you are referring to that show evolution is wrong?

    Haven’t you heard? J-Mac continues putting frogs in a blender and then waits to see if the frog comes back reassembled. Since none of them have so far, J-Mac concludes that such non-reassembly is evidence that evolution is wrong. How frogs in blenders resemble evolutionary processes, J-Mac never manages to explain. The most (s)he does is pretend to laugh, maniacally, and write incoherent phrases with the occasional “random this, random that, chance this, chance that” bits.

    I’d wonder if creationists would think that if J-Mac waits three days and no frogs come back reassembled, then that’s evidence that there’s no resurrections after three days. Would J-Mac publish such a conclusion?

  38. Entropy Entropy
    Ignored
    says:

    When I read the title of this OP I thought it was going to be some preaching about Jesus’ kingdom.

  39. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    Entropy: When I read the title of this OP I thought it was going to be some preaching about Jesus’ kingdom.

    🙂

    So you’ve heard about that.

  40. Entropy Entropy
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung:
    So you’ve heard about that.

    People keep gossiping.
    🙂

  41. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    Entropy:
    When I read the title of this OP I thought it was going to be some preaching about Jesus’ kingdom.

    Yeah, just getting you through the door. Cake? Have you heard the News?

  42. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    Define new.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.