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 thoughts on “A new kingdom”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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?
“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” …
Awesome. Thanks for that, Allan.
J-Mac,
Not bad. Just needed a little fix.
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:
A bit technical but the pictures are fascinating.
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.
Gee, what a pillock! Hemimastigophora are Eukarotes!
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?
But Erik…. a new kind is the most missing-est of all.
Erik,
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.
My money would be on variant, and I could hazard a fair guess which codons and what as a perm from 64.
Doubtful
Archaea, at least if they contain dynein, which I’d lay odds they do.
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!
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! 🤣).
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…
Your ideas are moronic and tedious, J-Mac.
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.
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…
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
It’s just a new species. We find new species all the time.
ETA: Nothing truly new here. Move along.
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?
Oh… How do you know? You have finally found the definition of species you agree with??? Indulge me!
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.
Or maybe he has found a species of sarcasm that you failed to recognize.
Yes, Darwin was once not the consensus either.
Journals do this to allow authors to share their work without violating copyright, which is typically owned by the journal, not the author.
Because that’s how science works?
J-Mac:
Haha, the pitiful credential mongering of Creationists is quite a theme. The irony being, of course, that these clowns have themselves discovered absolutely zip.
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.
Well, I didn’t expect the Darwinian Gestapo.
Proof is for mathematical statements. Some evidence that
isn’t just inaccurate hyperbolic waffle would be good.
Corneel,
🙂
I was not making an argument relating to any sort of evolution.
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.
I imagine after the years of mental abuse you’ve put them through they say whatever it is you want to hear right now.
I’m not blogging at all. Words and their meanings appear to have some difficulty for you.
That is what scientists live for, to publish supported work that does not fit the consensus
No.
Your fruit is rotten. I know it and you know it.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
People keep gossiping.
🙂
Yeah, just getting you through the door. Cake? Have you heard the News?
Define new.