Talk:Carl Woese

message: Such famous figures as Salvador Luria and Ernst Mayr found the idea that prokaryotes were not all of one kind absurd, and did not restrict their mockery to the scientific level.
This is a badly stereotyped view of Woese's critics.  Actually, one of Mayr's criticisms of the three-domain system was that prokaryotes may be of more than two kinds, i.e. that the Eubacteria and criticism of him was restricted to the scientific level.''
which leaves a lot to be said, but I think does more justice.''
===Pronunciation===
Can somebody please include how the name Woese is pronounced correctly?
I say Woe-Zee, you say what? (He sends his power tools to my shop for repair, but how to pronounce, I can't really say.)
M dorothy 05:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevant paper was published in November 1977 - changing the article to reflect this. Dooky 19:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Can somebody please include how the name Woese is pronounced correctly?
I say Woe-Zee, you say what? (He sends his power tools to my shop for repair, but how to pronounce, I can't really say.)
M dorothy 05:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: Can someone please check the date that Woese identified Archaea? This article says 1976, but Archaea says 1977
Thank,
GabrielF 00:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevant paper was published in November 1977 - changing the article to reflect this. Dooky 19:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date inconsistency 

message: The distinction "discovered" vs "defined" is not what you seem to make it out to be. Originally, the article said "discovered", but somebody changed it to "defined" -- I suppose for philosophical reasons arising from the idea, held by some systematists, that higher level taxa cannot be "discovered" but only "defined". But in any rate "archaeabacteria" circa 1977 is exactly the same group as "archaea" circa 1990. It is simply playing silly linguistic games to suggest otherwise.
Secondly, while there certainly exist criticisms to this day of the three domains, they are hardly in the "mainstream of science" -- all major references of prokaryotic systematics such as Bergey's Manual and Barlow's "The Prokaryotes" firmly support the three domains, and Woese received the Crafoord Prize in Bioscience (the Nobel Prize of evolutionary biology, awarded by the King of Sweden on the advice of a board of scientists) for the discovery quite recently in 2003. This doesn't mean that he has to be correct, of course -- but it is pretty clear that at this point in time the mainstream opinion includes the three domains. If and when Bergey's Manual abandons the concept, and people like Gupta win the Crafoord, then it would be reasonable to argue that the mainstream opinion has changed. And arguing that a society of protistologists dislikes the concept of Archaea is pretty irrelevant because prokaryotic systematics is no more their field than is the systematics of fishes.
If anything, the article as written already bows too far in the favor of critics, IMHO.
However, personally, I would agree with your criticism about the line "Prior to Woese, Archaea were thought to be extreme organisms..." -- however, that wasn't a section you changed.
By the way -- why don't you sign your discussions?
-- Jonathan Badger, The Institute for Genomics Research
xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
I was just an accidental visitor who looked for a year when Woese was born and I was surprised by the one-sided (and ironical) way the opinions of His critics were presented.
An example. Woese seems to distinguish domains and kingdoms clearly, isn't it? What about "four Eukaryotic domains" of his critics? Many people use four kingdoms, but who uses four domains? Or, if taxonomy of Eukaryotes is irrelevant to his system, why bother to criticize them here?
Unfortunately, Woese do not limit his tree to Prokaryotes, but includes various eukaryotic lineages as well. The phylogenetic tree is well known, the famous author calls it "universal" or "ultimate", and people publish it in biology textbooks as the last word of taxonomy of life. Let say them somehow that the tree does not necessarily strictly reflects phylogenesis, at least in the case of Eukaryotes (protistologists seem competent there). Otherwise the spread of new ideas will be hindered.
And well, I think it is a pity one should not mention other critical opinions for another many years. You know Bergey's taxonomic outline cannot change radically every 5 or 10 years, and for Crafoord prizes one has to wait even longer.
And I simply did not know how to sign my remarks. Sorry: Witold, 84.10.114.174 10:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to anonymous critic 

message: Phillip E. Johnson quoted Woese saying "the time has come for biology to move beyond the doctrine of common descent" (no citation) in the magazine Salvo, issue 4 pg 40. My guess is this is a intelligent design proponent taking him out of context to twist the meaning. If not, tho, it seems to change Woese's whole career. Any insight is appreciated. --Ephilei (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rejection of common descent? 

message: According to the book by Stryer titled Biochemistry sixth edition page 3 shows that Eukarya branches off frm the Archaea and not as it is shown in the diagram of this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.55.129 (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That diagram of the Phylogenetic tree needs to be redrawn placing the Bacteria and Eukaryota on one branch, and the Archaea on another. Also the spelling errors in the diagram need correction. Rotational (talk) 07:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The tree of life 

message: Isn't it kind of strange to use the term prokaryote in an article about Woese since both he and his closely-connected colleagues (like Norman Pace) have explicitly written that Woese did the experiment that disproved its existence? See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19258530 for the free article. There is no prokaryote, there is just bacteria and archaea and the archaea are more closely related to the eukaryotes than to bacteria. Prokaryote is a term that holds no evolutionary significance and can only mean, not a eukaryote.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gene_Godbold (talk • contribs) 19:40, 8 January 2013‎ (UST)
: I think the use of the term here makes sense because it is placing it in historical context, that is, how did 'prokaryote' cease to be a term with any phylogenetic meaning? It might be hard to describe how that occurred without using the term. While the sentence ending the lead paragraph of the 1977 article ("They can be viewed as prokaryotes that are not bacteria.") does use it in its organizational sense, the linked article discusses that it has no evolutionary meaning, which should also become clear in the discussion that follows. I think as people work the article over the next few weeks this will become a bit more explicit.— James Estevez (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  On prokaryotes and Woese 

message: Today, I emailed the Communications director at IGB in hopes that they'll release an official portrait under a suitable license. As I understand it, with CW's passing an exception for a non-free image may be made, but a free image is always preferable. However, while I wait for a response I think it would be OK if an editor adds an interim non-free image. Suggestions welcome. James Estevez (talk) 02:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Forwarded permission to OTRS and added image to article. James Estevez (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image request pending (31 Dec 2012) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Carl Woese. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100213210457/http://mcb.illinois.edu:80/faculty/profile/1204 to http://mcb.illinois.edu/faculty/profile/1204
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100224074131/http://astrobiology.nasa.gov:80/articles/carl-woese-and-new-perspectives-on-evolution to http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/articles/carl-woese-and-new-perspectives-on-evolution/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Carl Woese. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130102225304/http://www.igb.illinois.edu/news/carl-r-woese-1928-%E2%80%93-2012 to http://www.igb.illinois.edu/news/carl-r-woese-1928-%E2%80%93-2012
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110112174319/http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AWARDS_waksman to http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AWARDS_waksman
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article says Woese "was also the originator of the RNA world hypothesis in 1967", but the link to "RNA world hypothesis" says "Alexander Rich first proposed the concept of the RNA world in 1962". Do not these two articles contradict each other?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:C000:2177:841C:BFAB:E289:CBCC (talk) 04:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:   RNA world hypothesis inconsistency? 

message: "Interest among physicists and molecular biologists had begun to coalesce around deciphering the correspondence between the twenty amino acids and the four letter alphabet of nucleic acid bases in the decade following James D. Watson, Francis Crick, and Rosalind Franklin's discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953."  I detect an attempt to frame a point of view here.  Watson, Crick and Maurice Wilkins were awarded the Nobel Prize (Physiology or Medicine) in 1962 for the structure of DNA.  No-one, least of all those three, disputes Franklin's role in the discovery.  Had she lived to the early sixties, by which time the structure proposed by Watson and Crick in their 1953 paper was confirmed, it is probable, in my view but shared by others, that the Nobel guys would have given Watson and Crick the Physiology or Medicine award and the Chemistry one to Franklin, Wilkins and (possibly) Gosling who took the famed Photo 51. 
I think that the most accurate rendition of this sentence would be EITHER "Interest among physicists and molecular biologists had begun to coalesce around deciphering the correspondence between the twenty amino acids and the four letter alphabet of nucleic acid bases in the decade following James D. Watson and Francis Crick's discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953." OR (and I prefer this) "Interest among physicists and molecular biologists had begun to coalesce around deciphering the correspondence between the twenty amino acids and the four letter alphabet of nucleic acid bases in the decade following discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953 by James D. Watson, Francis Crick, Maurice Wilkins, Rosalind Franklin, and Ray Gosling."
I will give this a week or two for reactions and I may make changes accordingly.Cross Reference (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure of DNA