Biologist Battles Conventional Wisdom for Thirty Years

The Leader of the Team that Discovered a Third Kingdom of Life on Earth to Discuss His Thirty Year Battle

Are there really three forms of life on the earth? For years, scientists have classified organisms into one of two superkingdoms, prokaryote and eukaryote. For thirty years, a group of scientists from the University of Illinois have said there are three, fighting up an uphill battle
Biologist Battles Conventional Wisdom for Thirty Years
Date: November 2, 2007
Urbana, IL
United States of America
 against conventional wisdom which is akin to Gallileo telling the Church that the earth was round.

What distinguishes a prokaryote from a eukaryote is the cell structure and organization. Prokaryotes have no nucleus, they are basically a bag filled with structured organic chemicals. Eukaryotes, on the other hand, have a distinct nucleus as well as a variety of other organ-like structures (organelles) in which discrete functions are carried out.

In 1977, a team of researchers under the leadership of Microbiologist Carl Woese were working with methanobacters, attempting for to be the first group to effectively grow cultures to determine how this strain of bacteria makes methane. The researchers created a means of sealing and voiding test tubes, then refilling them in an atmosphere somewhat akin to that which existed about 3.5 billion years ago in the Archaaen Era, when there was no free oxygen in the air. Methanobacters will not reproduce in an oxygen-rich environment, and require large amounts of hydrogen and carbon dioxide.

This gave the scientists an abundance of this bacteria for the first time, enough to study their entire structure, including the RNA in their ribosome-like structures. Ribosomes in eukaryotes are organelles which help in the transcription of DNA into proteins as well as 'oversee' the actual production of certain materials.

The scientists' surprise, the RNA in the methanobacters did not "match up" with the RNA from other types of bacteria, to a similar extent as the RNA from prokaryotes differs from that in eukaryotes. The researchers then set about the task of testing and comparing a variety of bacteria, and discovered that certain families shared the same characteristics with the newly-named archae organisms, and had the same level of differentiation from more advanced bacteria.

 
Comments 1 - 2 of 2  
Comments
Type in Your Comments Below

It's news, not an op-ed piece.

Posted on 10/25/2007 at 11:10:00 AM

I always wonder when I read about scientists describing something that they believe existed or happened millions or billions of years ago, how can they possibly know? Doesn't good science require the ability to reproduce a condition or reaction? And doesn't good science also require observable and measurable factors? In other words, aren't they stacking a guess upon a large pile of guesses, assuming that the previous ones (or at least those that agree with their hypothesis) are accurate? Your article was intelligently written, informative, and objective. Maybe I'm way offbase here, but isn't it lacking any personal perspective?

Posted on 10/22/2007 at 9:10:00 AM

Comments 1 - 2 of 2