Talk:Evolution of flagella

message: 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)
replies: text: Removed. Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction bias 

message: 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:
* Highlight the key references.  For example, if I'm interested in Margulis's theory about flagella, what are the 2 or 3 key papers I should read, e.g. a seminal paper, and a recent review paper?  IMHO as a Wiki-newbie, it seems reasonable to also give the extensive list of references that the article currently contains (on the "disk space is cheap" theory), but I think the key references should be highlighted, ideally with a brief statement about what's in those key papers.
* Separate the editorializing.  I think an annotated bibliography is great.  At the same time, much of the references section seems to be a relatively blow-by-blow review of how the various players in this research areas have argued with each other in the literature.  I found this difficult to get through, and it could perhaps be summarized by saying that different researchers have different viewpoints, debate each other in the literature, and sometimes don't solidly answer others researchers' charges (which is kind of what you'd expect to see given any controversy).  I'd propose one of: (1) separating this part of the article into another one titled something like "Evolution of flagella, debate in literature", and leaving the current article with a more brief list of references, (2) separating it into a different section of the current article with its own heading, (3) dare I say, remove it, or convert it into a simple annotated bibliography that states in a sentence or two what each paper cited is about.
* Organize the editorial content currently in the references.  Assuming the reference content stays, I think it needs some organization.  Part of it is giving references, part of it seems to be summarizing the call-and-response pattern of debate through the literature, part of it seems to be trying to synthesize the argument that the evolution of flagella is plausible without a notion of intelligent design.  These should be separate sections (or articles), and should start with a statement of what the section is doing, e.g. something like "Although debate continues, the scientific community broadly finds it plausible that flagella could evolve through natural selection.", and discuss what Behe and ID friends says, and then what the non-IDers claim.
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.
--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)
thread_title:  references 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ID stuff 

message: "At present the symbiotic hypothesis for the origin of cilia seems to be limited to Margulis and a few of her associates" - In  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 []
However, in  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)
thread_title:  Symbiotic/endosymbiotic/exogenous models