Talk:Eocyte hypothesis

Please add pronunciation(s) of this group. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.149.238.168 (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The links to Euryarchaeota and Crenarchaeota refer to them as phyla, not kingdoms. It would be nice to get the articles to coincide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.149.238.168 (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is right (if Eocytes = Eocyta):

• Eocytes = Crenarchaeote
• Eocytes = Asgard + TACK (including Crenarchaeota as a true subset)

The article states both, whichcannot betrue.--Ernsts (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In science, the most important thing is the scientific method process which allows for revision based on newer information. If the new "two-domain" classification system is accepted then the earlier Eocyte hypothesis is invalidated, as the 1980s Eocyte hypothesis had both archaea and bacteria in the same domain. In short, while the earlier and latter hypotheses have two domains each, the parameters for domain division are different and contradict each other.

Ironically, this is a case whether neither the Eocyte Hypothesis or the Three-Domain Hypothesis are now the leading idea. Instead we have the Two-Domain Hypothesis which combines elements of both. And while the more recent 'two-domain' hypothesis has some origins in the Eocyte hypothesis, the new Two-Domain hypothesis has Archaea and Bacteria as separate domains, not on the same side. If anything, this only strengthened Woese's 1977 discovery that archaea were not like bacteria at all. Ryoung122 04:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of the core tenets of Wikipedia is that articles should be NPOV. A few counter-points to consider in this discussion:

1. When Carl Woese proposed the idea that Archaea were 'separate' from Bacteria in 1977, the favored model at the time was Prokaryota/Eukaryota. Thus, if anything he was focused on adding to the existing model a 'third' domain...Archaea. If anything, the newer two-domain model actually strengthens his initial assertion that Archaea were different enough from Bacteria to warrant splitting into a separate domain. 2. The original Eocyte hypothesis in this article is clearly, flatly, incorrect as it used the WRONG methodology for the classification of division and also incorrectly placed Archaea and Bacteria into the 'same side' of the family tree. 3. In short, it should be recognized that both the three-domain model and the original Eocyte models had some assertions that were incorrect or likely incorrect and that the new "Two-Domain System" is actually a merger of the better parts of both ideas. Woese himself came up with the "Domain" idea, whereas the Eocyte hypothesis had the 'correct' number (two) it had the wrong rationale for division. If anything, neither side was completely right and science now takes the better parts of both hypotheses for a new hypothesis. 4. Yet, this article is written POV as if it were some "Big Ego" battle of who was 'right' when in the end, neither side was totally correct. It's also ironic that the Eocyte hypothesis used Woese's testing methodology... 5. Science, by definition, is tentative. I find it ironic that Carl Woese spent decades to overthrow the old "Procaryota/Eucaryota" model in favor of his domain system. Woese got everything right except the number...and the number TWO instead of THREE actually STRENGTHENS his 1977 assertion that Archaea were not even Bacteria but something completely different. If Woese erred, it was extending a political olive branch to recognize Eucaryota as one of the 'three' domains. The two-domain system is a more radical assertion that strenghthens further Woese's arguments against critics such as Ernst Mayr. 6. Yes, we need to recognize that the Eocyte hypothesis, while holding some errors such as putting Archaea and Bacteria on the same side and still over-emphasizing the Pro/Eu split, also got some ideas right. As such, the Two-Domain Hypothesis is a HYBRID of the two earlier, competing hypotheses...neither side was entirely right or entirely wrong, but both sides had made major contributions. Woese's contributions, however, are more seminal as he was the first to develop the methodology for the phylogenetic differentation testing.

https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/sotsog/carl-woese

Ryoung122 04:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the discussion is polluted by the notion that valid groups may not be polyphyletic. Polyphyletic groups can be useful, and for practical purposes, Archaebacteria having evolved from Eubacteria (as promoted, for instance, by Cavalier Smith) does not invalidate Eubacteria. Grade can be more useful than clade. --RichardW57m (talk) 10:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rất hay , bổ ích và thú vị. 2405:4802:3EB7:4310:B1CC:344:11F8:8C82 (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]