Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

UX-Edu t1_j1ghbq4 wrote

Okay, so as somebody with no domain knowledge, I have to ask: Are we not making the obvious Thor joke because we haven’t thought of it, or is it, like, everybody already knows all the jokes and if you make them you’re the guy at the conference that gets his lunch money stolen and his glasses broken?

74

PeyroniesCat t1_j1j1tao wrote

I’m with you. I can’t make the joke without knowing how it will land.

2

vtj OP t1_j1esl1x wrote

This result is a culmination of several years of painstaking lab work in cultivation of an extremely sensitive microorganism, combined with advanced cryo-electron microscopy imaging methods. It has previously been suggested, based on genome analysis, that archaea from the [Asgard group](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asgard_(archaea)) are close evolutionary predecessors of eukaryotes (and hence of all complex multicellular life), but this seems to be the first evidence based on direct observation of cell structure.

Here is the original paper.

52

ohyeaitspizzatime t1_j1gm43n wrote

Don't know what it means, but sounds like Thor is getting ready to kick some ass so I approve.

6

two_fish t1_j1izwiy wrote

This sounds like somebodies medieval dragon fanfic

2

knowyourbrain t1_j1k4omf wrote

>This indicates that elaborate cytoskeletal structures arose in archaea even before the first eukaryotes appeared

Not really. It's also possible that Archaea could have continued to evolve over the last 2 billion years (as they undoubtedly have) and gained these features independently of Eukaryotes in a case of convergent evolution. Of course it's interesting either way since this group of Archaea was already thought to be among our closest relatives in the Archaea/Bacterial. It may be possible to sort this out with with genetics (are our cytoskeletal proteins evolved from theirs?).

They should have said something like "suggests" instead of "indicates" and "might have arose" instead of "arose" unless there is more to this work than is reported here.

2

AutoModerator t1_j1erh47 wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

__System__ t1_j1ewe0u wrote

Or convergence. Cmon really?

−27

Gayiaj t1_j1f2j7c wrote

There's already some genetic evidence that eukaryotic cells may descend from archea, so it makes sense they would want to find supporting evidence in the morphology of the cells. Science exists to study these questions afterall.

18

__System__ t1_j1f5gpw wrote

Really? I guess I don't agree.

−28

Gayiaj t1_j1f5i9c wrote

With what part?

11

__System__ t1_j1f5skl wrote

That a cytoskeleton could only evolve once.

−24

Gayiaj t1_j1f5yvw wrote

I never stated that though. Just that this is more supporting evidence adding on to the pre-existing evidence that eukaryotic cells may descend from archea.

16

Ontheprowl86 t1_j1flm30 wrote

In convergent evolution, the structures serve the same function but came to that function through different means. Like the wings of an insect, bird and bat allow for flight but the wing structures are all different and evolved independently. In this case they did not just find a cytoskeleton, it’s actin, same as what eukaryotes have. It is the same structure and serves the same function. So these are most likely homologous structures.

14

__System__ t1_j1g1xdm wrote

Analogies provide the sensation of understanding but without prediction.

As scientists, all of you, how much are you invested in function?

−18