This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why is it "extremely sophisticated" and a "finely-tuned system"? These are descriptions that are not cited, and they seems like weasel words 202.78.240.7 ( talk) 22:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
References
I removed the section about the yersinia pestis flagellum. The reference was not from a peer reviewed journal.
Nic's introduction to the article:
Note: The beginning author of this section is new to Wikipedia, and apparently stepped on some toes when he added this material to the flagellum article. The topic of the origin of flagella is indeed something worth having in an encyclopedia, as (1) many people (Intelligent Design fans) claim that no scientific information exists on the topic, and (2) actually there is a lot of such information. Type "flagellum" and "design" into google to see what I mean.
This article looks for my taste far too much like an anti-Behe or anti-ID position statement. It's more something I would expect on http://www.talkorigins.org. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a discussion forum so I would expect under the title "Evolution of flagella" a summary and explanation of the current status of scientific research on this subject. Behe, ID or IC don't come into that and simply shouldn't be mentioned at all. If you want to tell us about the discussions surrounding ID et cetera, I would suggest you write it under the title "Intelligent Design and the evolution of flagella" or something, but then it also shouldn't be a position statement but a neutral description of the discussion which describes its origins, history, current standing, arguments et cetera.
Another thing that could be better is the integration of this article with the rest of Wikipedia. Why, for example, are the links to Lynn Margulis and cilium external links? There's also a whole lot of biological terms that are explained elsewhere in Wikipedia and should be linked to. -- Jan Hidders 05:52 Jul 22, 2002 (PDT)
-adam
(P.S. I don't think there's any risk of anyone deleting an entire article, especially one that obviously had so much good research. I'll move some of your personal comments to the talk page)
This may be somewhat redundant of me to state, but I think the references part of the article is perhaps overblown and could use better organization. Here's what I'd suggest:
I admit that I'm unlikely to get around to this myself; I can only offer the excuse that I don't feel very familiar with the area (and my advisor would prefer if I read other things :-). Hope this helps.
-[[user::zashaw|-zashaw]]
Yikes, the references page is a mess. There's an accessible presentation of the Margulis' theory in one of the papers in Microbial Phylogeny and Evolution (2005). -- Danny Yee 12:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I just did a massive trimming job on the article, hopefully making it into something more Wikipedic that can be more easily edited in the future. Here are all of the references I trimmed out, along with some extensive quotes which might be a bit too detailed or a bit too copyrighted to fit nicely into a general encyclopedic article:
Talk:Evolution of flagella/references
I moved the "creationist controversy" stuff around: Behe rather specifically criticises the cilium (not the eukaryotic flagellum, which I understand is related) and the bacterial flagellum as being irreducibly complex. So it's best to put his criticism as a subsection there. Martin 22:24, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Note cilia is often used to apply to eukaryotic flagella, especially in evolutionary contexts.
Mark J. Pallen and Nicholas J. Matzke. " From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella." Nature Reviews Microbiology 4, 784-790 (October 2006) | doi:10.1038/nrmicro1493
I'll try to add some information from this article in a little bit.
"At present the symbiotic hypothesis for the origin of cilia seems to be limited to Margulis and a few of her associates" - In [1] Lynn Margulis wrote:
"Acquisition of eubacterial motility symbionts into a Thermoplasma-toke archaebacterial host to form the first protists is reconstructed. The thorny issue of the origin of undulipodia is illuminated by the discovery of kinetosome-centriole DNA by Rockefeller University scientists"
citing: Hall J L. Ramanis Z & Luck D J L. Basal body/centriolar DNA: molecular genetic studies in Chlamxdomonas (sic! - this should be read as Chlamydomonas, Ernsts). CW/59:121-32. 1989. See [ [2]]
However, in [3] one finds:
"The evidence is less clear here, since undulipodia probably don't have their own DNA. (Tantalizing evidence for centriolar DNA was found by David Luck and colleagues in 1989, but couldn't be confirmed)" and
"In 2006, Mark Alliegro and colleagues found that centrosomes have their own associated RNAs (called cnRNA). . . one of which codes for a probable RNA-replicating enzyme. Could this mean that centrosomes are endosymbiotic? Stay tuned. . ."
On the other hand:
I just heve learned, thet (DNA free) hydrogenosomes are now wdely considered to be originating from mitochondria since there is a missing link (Nyctotheras ovalis) which has hydrogen producing organella (per definition 'hydrogenosome') *with* DNA.
Now my question:
Are there any recent news about the undulipodia/centrosomes matter?
Any help by a specialist here is highly appreciated!
Thanks & kind regards -- Ernsts ( talk) 18:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Flagellum is famous for irreducible complexity claims made by intelligent design advocates. Therefor I believe the article about evolution of flagella should note this. I would like to create a section for irreducible complexity claims and the counterclaims for this specific organism. But before I start, I would like to hear some other opinions on the subject, do you think it's undue weight to create a section? Also sources we can use... So far I got this book:
[1]
Darwinian Ape (
talk) 06:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
References
Thank you all for commenting, I agree with you and instead of creating an IC claims section, I am thinking of creating eubacterial flagellum as a subsection to bacterial flagellum section where the the organelle is described and explained. After all, the picture in Dembski's book was the flagellum of eubacteria.(the state of bacterial flagellum section was the reason I wanted to edit this article anyway.) Charles, would it be OK to put that refutation articles in see also section? My reasoning for this is that many people who heard of flagellum organelle, heard it because of this IC nonsense. And they would expect information on IC claims. Maybe it would be helpful to point them in the right direction? Darwinian Ape ( talk) 05:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
the scientific community [1] regards intelligent design as pseudoscience and rejects the concept of irreducible complexity. [2]
References
|
---|
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why is it "extremely sophisticated" and a "finely-tuned system"? These are descriptions that are not cited, and they seems like weasel words 202.78.240.7 ( talk) 22:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
References
I removed the section about the yersinia pestis flagellum. The reference was not from a peer reviewed journal.
Nic's introduction to the article:
Note: The beginning author of this section is new to Wikipedia, and apparently stepped on some toes when he added this material to the flagellum article. The topic of the origin of flagella is indeed something worth having in an encyclopedia, as (1) many people (Intelligent Design fans) claim that no scientific information exists on the topic, and (2) actually there is a lot of such information. Type "flagellum" and "design" into google to see what I mean.
This article looks for my taste far too much like an anti-Behe or anti-ID position statement. It's more something I would expect on http://www.talkorigins.org. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a discussion forum so I would expect under the title "Evolution of flagella" a summary and explanation of the current status of scientific research on this subject. Behe, ID or IC don't come into that and simply shouldn't be mentioned at all. If you want to tell us about the discussions surrounding ID et cetera, I would suggest you write it under the title "Intelligent Design and the evolution of flagella" or something, but then it also shouldn't be a position statement but a neutral description of the discussion which describes its origins, history, current standing, arguments et cetera.
Another thing that could be better is the integration of this article with the rest of Wikipedia. Why, for example, are the links to Lynn Margulis and cilium external links? There's also a whole lot of biological terms that are explained elsewhere in Wikipedia and should be linked to. -- Jan Hidders 05:52 Jul 22, 2002 (PDT)
-adam
(P.S. I don't think there's any risk of anyone deleting an entire article, especially one that obviously had so much good research. I'll move some of your personal comments to the talk page)
This may be somewhat redundant of me to state, but I think the references part of the article is perhaps overblown and could use better organization. Here's what I'd suggest:
I admit that I'm unlikely to get around to this myself; I can only offer the excuse that I don't feel very familiar with the area (and my advisor would prefer if I read other things :-). Hope this helps.
-[[user::zashaw|-zashaw]]
Yikes, the references page is a mess. There's an accessible presentation of the Margulis' theory in one of the papers in Microbial Phylogeny and Evolution (2005). -- Danny Yee 12:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I just did a massive trimming job on the article, hopefully making it into something more Wikipedic that can be more easily edited in the future. Here are all of the references I trimmed out, along with some extensive quotes which might be a bit too detailed or a bit too copyrighted to fit nicely into a general encyclopedic article:
Talk:Evolution of flagella/references
I moved the "creationist controversy" stuff around: Behe rather specifically criticises the cilium (not the eukaryotic flagellum, which I understand is related) and the bacterial flagellum as being irreducibly complex. So it's best to put his criticism as a subsection there. Martin 22:24, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Note cilia is often used to apply to eukaryotic flagella, especially in evolutionary contexts.
Mark J. Pallen and Nicholas J. Matzke. " From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella." Nature Reviews Microbiology 4, 784-790 (October 2006) | doi:10.1038/nrmicro1493
I'll try to add some information from this article in a little bit.
"At present the symbiotic hypothesis for the origin of cilia seems to be limited to Margulis and a few of her associates" - In [1] Lynn Margulis wrote:
"Acquisition of eubacterial motility symbionts into a Thermoplasma-toke archaebacterial host to form the first protists is reconstructed. The thorny issue of the origin of undulipodia is illuminated by the discovery of kinetosome-centriole DNA by Rockefeller University scientists"
citing: Hall J L. Ramanis Z & Luck D J L. Basal body/centriolar DNA: molecular genetic studies in Chlamxdomonas (sic! - this should be read as Chlamydomonas, Ernsts). CW/59:121-32. 1989. See [ [2]]
However, in [3] one finds:
"The evidence is less clear here, since undulipodia probably don't have their own DNA. (Tantalizing evidence for centriolar DNA was found by David Luck and colleagues in 1989, but couldn't be confirmed)" and
"In 2006, Mark Alliegro and colleagues found that centrosomes have their own associated RNAs (called cnRNA). . . one of which codes for a probable RNA-replicating enzyme. Could this mean that centrosomes are endosymbiotic? Stay tuned. . ."
On the other hand:
I just heve learned, thet (DNA free) hydrogenosomes are now wdely considered to be originating from mitochondria since there is a missing link (Nyctotheras ovalis) which has hydrogen producing organella (per definition 'hydrogenosome') *with* DNA.
Now my question:
Are there any recent news about the undulipodia/centrosomes matter?
Any help by a specialist here is highly appreciated!
Thanks & kind regards -- Ernsts ( talk) 18:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Flagellum is famous for irreducible complexity claims made by intelligent design advocates. Therefor I believe the article about evolution of flagella should note this. I would like to create a section for irreducible complexity claims and the counterclaims for this specific organism. But before I start, I would like to hear some other opinions on the subject, do you think it's undue weight to create a section? Also sources we can use... So far I got this book:
[1]
Darwinian Ape (
talk) 06:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
References
Thank you all for commenting, I agree with you and instead of creating an IC claims section, I am thinking of creating eubacterial flagellum as a subsection to bacterial flagellum section where the the organelle is described and explained. After all, the picture in Dembski's book was the flagellum of eubacteria.(the state of bacterial flagellum section was the reason I wanted to edit this article anyway.) Charles, would it be OK to put that refutation articles in see also section? My reasoning for this is that many people who heard of flagellum organelle, heard it because of this IC nonsense. And they would expect information on IC claims. Maybe it would be helpful to point them in the right direction? Darwinian Ape ( talk) 05:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
the scientific community [1] regards intelligent design as pseudoscience and rejects the concept of irreducible complexity. [2]
References
|
---|
|