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.

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.

Or convergence. Cmon really?

So we back at only two groups again?

You mean domains? No we are at 3 + 1, with Parakaryon remaining unique and uncharacterised.

Us and them

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.

Really? I guess I don't agree.

With what part?

That a cytoskeleton could only evolve once.

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.

[removed]

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.

Analogies provide the sensation of understanding but without prediction.

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

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?

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

Evolved from, or shared a common ancestor with…

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

This sounds like somebodies medieval dragon fanfic

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

>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.