In article <badger.766075571 at phylo>,
Jonathan Badger <badger at phylo.life.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>As a microbiology graduate student at the University of Illinois (Woese's
>home turf), I'm curious as how the detractors of the Three Kingdoms
>explain evidence such as the presence of TATA-binding proteins in the Archea
>that appear to be part of a eukaryotic-style TF IID complex (Marsh, et al.,
>1994). If the Archea are not more closely related to eukaryotes than bacteria,
>what do you suppose occurred? Horizontal gene transfer?
>>I have no explanation for this observation. But perhaps, as a presumed
zealot of Three Domains, you can explain away all of the characters that
make archaebacteria a bacteria and not a eukaryote?
You may be missing the point. I am merely pointing out that the Three
Domain hypothesis is not the only game in town and that it is wrong to
pretend that the hypothesis is proven.
Why not pass these postings along to Woese and see if he can enlighten us?
Laurence A. Moran (Larry)
P.S. I'm sure you are aware of the fact that the Three Domain proponents
frequently use horizontal gene transfer to explain away embarassing