zimm@portia.Stanford.EDU (Dylan Yolles) (10/26/90)
I'm interested in looking at the "forgotten entities" of science--entities which were once considered somehow "real" by some or most scientists but which were later recognized not to exist. The entities could be particles from physics, cells or viruses from biology, and so on. Even entities from psychology (eg. the id, to take a silly example) might be okay. I'm mostly interested in (relatively) recent examples-- say last 150 years. But anything which reasonably well-respected scientists believed in would be good. The *ultimate* example, for my purposes, would be one in which scientists actually thought they were manipulating an entity (in the way that electrons are manipulated by means of an electron gun), but later found they were mistaken (and that, perhaps, the entity didn't exist at all). Any examples or references would be much appreciated. By all means post to the net if you think others might be interested (I suspect that there are some good stories here), but please send me a copy too, as I don't read most of these groups. Of course, I'll summarize any responses if there's interest. Thanks! Dylan zimm@portia.stanford.edu
ee5391aa@hydra.unm.edu (Duke McMullan n5gax) (10/26/90)
Forgotten "entities"? Hmmmm. I kinda 'spect phlogiston is an example of the sort of thing you mean. On the udder hand, N-rays probably aren't...not enough people ever took that seriously. Franklin's "electric fluid" probably falls in between the two. "Make a beginning," d -- "You can't name one business the government has ever been in that it didn't screw up." -- Wayne Green w2nsd/1 Duke McMullan n5gax nss13429r phon505-255-4642 ee5391aa@hydra.unm.edu
delliott@cec2.wustl.edu (Dave Elliott) (10/26/90)
In article <1990Oct25.232546.12357@portia.Stanford.EDU> zimm@portia.Stanford.EDU (Dylan Yolles) writes: >I'm interested in looking at the "forgotten entities" of science--entities >which were once considered somehow "real" by some or most scientists but >which were later recognized not to exist. > >The entities could be particles from physics, cells or viruses from biology, >and so on. Even entities from psychology (eg. the id, to take a silly example) >might be okay. > >I'm mostly interested in (relatively) recent examples-- say last 150 >years. But anything which reasonably well-respected scientists believed >in would be good. > >The *ultimate* example, for my purposes, would be one in which scientists >actually thought they were manipulating an entity (in the way that electrons >are manipulated by means of an electron gun), but later found they were >mistaken (and that, perhaps, the entity didn't exist at all). > ... > >Thanks! > >Dylan >zimm@portia.stanford.edu Dr. Blondel's N-rays (France, early 1900's). Recent work by Benveniste (?) on homeopathy (q.v.)... effect of a biological reagent at dilutions greater than 1 part in a trillion. Phlogiston, of course. Polywater. Probably, Fairbank's europium spheres with charges of 1/3 and 2/3 e. Superheavy nuclei in mica (the large aureole of tracks had a simpler explanation). ... David L. Elliott Dept. of Systems Science and Mathematics Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130 delliott@CEC2.WUSTL.EDU
fax0236@uoft02.utoledo.edu (10/27/90)
In article <1990Oct25.232546.12357@portia.Stanford.EDU>, zimm@portia.Stanford.EDU (Dylan Yolles) writes: > I'm interested in looking at the "forgotten entities" of science--entities > which were once considered somehow "real" by some or most scientists but > which were later recognized not to exist. > > The entities could be particles from physics, cells or viruses from biology, > and so on. Even entities from psychology (eg. the id, to take a silly example) > might be okay. > > I'm mostly interested in (relatively) recent examples-- say last 150 > years. But anything which reasonably well-respected scientists believed > in would be good. > > The *ultimate* example, for my purposes, would be one in which scientists > actually thought they were manipulating an entity (in the way that electrons > are manipulated by means of an electron gun), but later found they were > mistaken (and that, perhaps, the entity didn't exist at all). > > Any examples or references would be much appreciated. By all means post > to the net if you think others might be interested (I suspect > that there are some good stories here), but please send me a copy too, > as I don't read most of these groups. Of course, I'll summarize any > responses if there's interest. > > Thanks! > > Dylan > zimm@portia.stanford.edu POLYWATER! From the 1960's (and maybe carried over into the early 1970's). Someone else hopefully will provide the references, I was wet behind the ears back then. Doug Smith
JAHAYES@MIAMIU.BITNET (Josh Hayes) (10/28/90)
Bathybias: The primeval slime at the bottom of the ocean, under
the hypothesis that life becomes more primitive the deeper you
go: fish and whales at the top, then squids, shrimp, slimy things
that crawl upon the slimy seas (whoops, started Riming there :-).
Proposed, then found, by Ernst Haeckel, if memory serves. Brought
up water samples from the abyss, stuck it all in alcohol to preserve
the life, and later found it to be this jelly-like gook: bathybias.
It turns out, unfortunately, that if you take seawater and add it
to alcohol in the proper proportions (which are fairly broad), it
complexes into jelly-like gook. Interesting, but not quite the
solution he expected.....
I KNEW that Biological Oceanography class would come in handy some day.
Josh Hayes, Zoology Department, Miami University, Oxford OH 45056
voice: 513-529-1679 fax: 513-529-6900
jahayes@miamiu.bitnet, or jahayes@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu
"Ain't nothin' worth nothin' that ain't no trouble."
--unidentified gardener, Austin, TXavenger@wpi.WPI.EDU (Samuel Joseph Pullara) (10/28/90)
In article <1990Oct27.093037.2024@uoft02.utoledo.edu> fax0236@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes: >In article <1990Oct25.232546.12357@portia.Stanford.EDU>, zimm@portia.Stanford.EDU (Dylan Yolles) writes: >> I'm interested in looking at the "forgotten entities" of science--entities >> which were once considered somehow "real" by some or most scientists but >> which were later recognized not to exist. >> The ether was thought to exist all the way up to the 1920's... I don't know, maybe someone still believes it... -- /------------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Sam Pullara, Undergraduate Physics Worcester Polytechnic Institute | | avenger@wpi.wpi.edu (c) 1990 Avenger Publications | |______________-All my opinions were expressed or implied.-______________|
bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (10/29/90)
Atoms (as truly atomic particles)?
north@manta.NOSC.MIL (Mark H. North) (10/29/90)
In article <1990Oct25.232546.12357@portia.Stanford.EDU> zimm@portia.Stanford.EDU (Dylan Yolles) writes: >I'm interested in looking at the "forgotten entities" of science--entities >which were once considered somehow "real" by some or most scientists but >which were later recognized not to exist. > How about 'Cold Fusion'? Mark
fax0236@uoft02.utoledo.edu (10/29/90)
In article <1990Oct28.004012.19939@wpi.WPI.EDU>, avenger@wpi.WPI.EDU (Samuel Joseph Pullara) writes: > In article <1990Oct27.093037.2024@uoft02.utoledo.edu> fax0236@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes: >>In article <1990Oct25.232546.12357@portia.Stanford.EDU>, zimm@portia.Stanford.EDU (Dylan Yolles) writes: >>> I'm interested in looking at the "forgotten entities" of science--entities >>> which were once considered somehow "real" by some or most scientists but >>> which were later recognized not to exist. >>> > The ether was thought to exist all the way up to the 1920's... I don't > know, maybe someone still believes it... > > > > -- > /------------------------------------------------------------------------\ > | Sam Pullara, Undergraduate Physics Worcester Polytechnic Institute | > | avenger@wpi.wpi.edu (c) 1990 Avenger Publications | > |______________-All my opinions were expressed or implied.-______________| The ether, for those poor souls who have never read science fiction from the Golden Age, was the "substance" of space through which electromagnetic and other radiation was propagated. Yes, it was also truly believed to exist. The best descriptions and uses of the ether and subether can be found in the writings of E. E. "Doc" Smith in his Lensman series. These are truly classics and should be read not only for the ether, but simply as good literature (although arguably "pulp", these stories are some of the best of that genre) and as good science fiction based on good science of the time. I believe that the original Star Trek series "subspace communications" were also based on the "ether" or "subether" (I seem to remember such terminology used, but I could be mistaken). Doug Smith University of Toledo "Happiness lies in being privileged to work hard for long hours in doing whatever you think is worth doing." Dr. Jubal Harshaw to Maureen Smith, in "To Sail Beyond the Sunset" by Robert Heinlein
ertas@athena.mit.edu (Mehmet D Ertas) (10/29/90)
In article <1990Oct25.232546.12357@portia.Stanford.EDU> zimm@portia.Stanford.EDU (Dylan Yolles) writes: >I'm interested in looking at the "forgotten entities" of science--entities >which were once considered somehow "real" by some or most scientists but >which were later recognized not to exist. How about 'Ether'? (I'm not sure whether I spelled it correctly, but I mean the medium that, in the 19th century, was believed to exist everywhere in the universe, the medium that caused the transmission of "light waves" in space. Deniz Ertas
jgsmith@watson.bcm.tmc.edu (James G. Smith) (10/30/90)
Suppressor T-cells. While the idea of suppressor cells is not completely dead yet, things are looking pretty bad for them. "Suppression" is beginning to look like a very complex interaction between lots of different cells. * (Things would have been so nice if there were just helpers, killers, and suppressors....sigh)
chem63@menudo.uh.edu (Chang) (10/30/90)
How many are old enough to remember N rays? Bernard Chang.
chi9@quads.uchicago.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) (10/30/90)
In article <90300.133611JAHAYES@MIAMIU.BITNET> JAHAYES@MIAMIU.BITNET (Josh Hayes) writes: >Bathybias: The primeval slime at the bottom of the ocean, under >the hypothesis that life becomes more primitive the deeper you >go: fish and whales at the top, then squids, shrimp, slimy things >that crawl upon the slimy seas (whoops, started Riming there :-). >Proposed, then found, by Ernst Haeckel, if memory serves. Brought >up water samples from the abyss, stuck it all in alcohol to preserve >the life, and later found it to be this jelly-like gook: bathybias. Well, since slime grows on the bottoms of bathtubs if they aren't cleaned often enough, it stands to reason that it would for sure grow on the bottom of the ocean. . . :-) Actually, we may find the stuff after all. The mid-ocean ridges cover a fair amount of Earth's surface (I forgot the numbers, but I think it was somewhere between 10% and 20% of the area). Mid-ocean ridges are good sources of hot water, and many hydrothermal vents in the mid-ocean ridges have been found to support extensive communities of life whose primary producers are chemotrophs rather than phototrophs. (Unfortunately, the presence of oxygen in the sea water greatly distorts the picture that one can get at the sea bottom, due to the great profitability of conducting reactions of oxygen with chemicals from the vents, but other kinds of chemotrophic communities do just fine without oxygen (and in fact most to all of the organisms in such communities cannot even tolerate oxygen).) At any rate, in two out of the three lineages of known terrestrial life -- bacteria and archaebacteria, and especially the latter -- the trend seems to be that growth at high temperatures correlates to a noticeable extent with the combination of slow evolution and deep phylogenetic divergence, which -- when the deeply-diverging organisms have a lot in common phenotypically, which they do -- implies greater resemblence to ancestral forms of life. The mid-ocean ridges seem likely to harbor great (-: and slimy :-) masses of such primitive organisms, since it seems likely that they have much more hot water under them than comes out of the hydrothermal vents at a time. I was going to redirect followups to sci.bio, but the reactions which many of these (and other) microorganisms perform to get energy may be of sufficient interest to justify keeping a foothold for this thread in sci.chem. -- | Lucius Chiaraviglio | Internet: chi9@midway.uchicago.edu
minsky@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Marvin Minsky) (10/30/90)
Protoplasm. The stuff inside cells. It was a big thing when I went to grade school. Do they still talk about it?
purves@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Bill Purves) (10/30/90)
In article <3870@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> minsky@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes: >Protoplasm. The stuff inside cells. It was a big thing when I went >to grade school. Do they still talk about it? No. About thirty years ago, Garrett Hardin used to campaign against the term, likening it to the word "flame" (in the sense of a candle flame)--something that's there but that isn't an object. "Protoplasm" was a slightly useful term when people didn't know what "protoplasm" consists of. Now we simply speak of its constituents, although the word lingers as a non-technical term, usually in flowery prose. (bill) -- William K. Purves (714) 621-8021 Department of Biology purves@jarthur.claremont.edu Harvey Mudd College PURVES@HMCVAX.BITNET Claremont, CA 91711
afsipmh@cid.aes.doe.CA (Patrick Hertel) (10/30/90)
In article <1990Oct25.232546.12357@portia.Stanford.EDU> zimm@portia.Stanford.EDU (Dylan Yolles) writes: >I'm interested in looking at the "forgotten entities" of science--entities How about humors (sp?) in medicine?
dhf@linus.mitre.org (David H. Friedman) (10/30/90)
. How about phlogiston?
larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (10/31/90)
In article <3870@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU>, minsky@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Marvin Minsky) writes: > Protoplasm. The stuff inside cells. It was a big thing when I went > to grade school. Do they still talk about it? I've got one better: ectoplasm (the "spiritual" variety, that is). While I cannot recall the specific sources, I have seen photographs of alleged ectoplasm in books, replete with a chemical analysis which puported to show epithelial cells. Epithelial cells, my nose! :-) Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. "Have you hugged your cat today?" VOICE: 716/688-1231 {boulder, rutgers, watmath}!ub!kitty!larry FAX: 716/741-9635 {utzoo, uunet}!/ \aerion!larry
minsky@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Marvin Minsky) (10/31/90)
In article <4155@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: > I've got one better: ectoplasm (the "spiritual" variety, that is). That reminds me of an entity that badly needs to be forgotten. It is called "intentionality" and was described by F. Brentano in 1874 as the feature or aspect that distinghuishes mental from physical phenomena. It has been revived in the past few years to explain why machines can never "really think", no matter how convincingly they may eventually behave as though they did, and beg for mercy when threatened with termination, etc. The problem is that this revival is disturbing my colleagues and students, who will not accept my declaration that there simply isn't any such thing. Naturally, no one can produce a test for the presence of intentionality because, by its "nature" it is (1) non-physical, so it can't affect any instrument and (2) it is irreducible (according to Brentano) hence cannot be explained. At least those N-rays could be diffracted by aluminum prisms (until Robert Wood of Johns Hopkins managed to palm the prism without being noticed by the demonstrators).
dd26+@andrew.cmu.edu (Douglas F. DeJulio) (10/31/90)
> >I'm interested in looking at the "forgotten entities" of science--entities > How about humors (sp?) in medicine? But the four humors (blood, mucous and the two biles) exist! They just don't do what old doctors thought they did. -- DdJ
ee5391aa@hydra.unm.edu (Duke McMullan n5gax) (10/31/90)
More occurred to me during my afternoon "creativity" excercises (ZZZZZZ):
Earth, air, fire and water; in their "classical" elemental interpretation.
Of course, they were based on pairings of the four qualities: Hotness, cold-
ness, wetness and dryness.
Then, there are the Platonic "ideals"...still undemonstrated.
Hey! When a tsunami hits a well-constructed seawall, does the wave function
collapse?
d
--
Most self-described "pacifists" are not pacific; they simply assume
false colors. When the wind changes, they hoist the Jolly Roger.
-- Robert A. Heinlein
Duke McMullan n5gax nss13429r phon505-255-4642 ee5391aa@hydra.unm.eduronald@uhunix1.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Ronald A. Amundson) (10/31/90)
In article <90300.133611JAHAYES@MIAMIU.BITNET> JAHAYES@MIAMIU.BITNET (Josh Hayes) writes: >Bathybias: The primeval slime at the bottom of the ocean, ... >Proposed, then found, by Ernst Haeckel, if memory serves. > >Josh Hayes, Zoology Department, Miami University, Oxford OH 45056 >voice: 513-529-1679 fax: 513-529-6900 >jahayes@miamiu.bitnet, or jahayes@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu Proposed by Haeckel under the name "Monera", dredged up in the Atlantic and examined by Thomas Huxley, named "Bathybius Haeckelii". For more on this good poop see Steve Gould's "Bathybius and Eozoon" in _The Panda's Thumb_. Other references to the episode are listed in the bibliography. Ron Amundson Philosophy Univ. of Hawaii at Hilo ronald@uhccux.bitnet
ronald@uhunix1.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Ronald A. Amundson) (10/31/90)
In article <3879@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> minsky@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes: >In article <4155@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: >> I've got one better: ectoplasm (the "spiritual" variety, that is). > >That reminds me of an entity that badly needs to be forgotten. It is >called "intentionality" and was described by F. Brentano in 1874 as >the feature or aspect that distinghuishes mental from physical >phenomena. It has been revived in the past few years to explain why >machines can never "really think", no matter how convincingly they may >eventually behave as though they did, and beg for mercy when >threatened with termination, etc. > >The problem is that this revival is disturbing my colleagues and >students, who will not accept my declaration that there simply isn't >any such thing. ... Prof. Minsky's nomination of intentionality as an entity which "needs to be forgotten" is, shall we say, tendentious. I've got some sympathy for his view, but modern advocates of intentionality are not worried about spiritual entities, nor about whether Minsky's computers are about to beg for mercy. Were I not the broadminded fellow whom I be, I might suggest another supposed entity which many think deserves defunctitude: Artificial Intelligence. Ron Amundson Philosophy Univ. of Hawaii at Hilo ronald@uhccux.bitnet
mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) (10/31/90)
Some controversial tools which purport to measure a real thing are Rorschach and IQ tests. Not recognized as disproven, yet. I remember reading a book which was considered an important reference on bacteriology back in the 1940's, which speculated that some unexplained growth effects might be caused by unknown rays emitted by the bacteria.
throop@cs.utexas.edu (David Throop) (11/01/90)
Pink Adreniline. (it was also called adrenechrome and something else, too...) In the '50's it was believed that schizophrenia was caused by a metabolic error - that some failed metabolic pathway in the brain caused some toxin to accumulate, and that toxin caused the schizophrenia. The putative toxin was named, and there was much searching for it. One of the candidates was "Pink Adreniline." It had been reported that when adreniline solutions were stored too long, they turned pink, and that when such tainted solutions were injected, they induced a temporary schizophrenic state. Building on this observation, it was proposed that schizophrenia was caused by this decomposition product accumulating in the brain. LSD was reputed to be an analog of this compound - and psychiatrists ingested LSD in order to better understand the experience of their schizophrenic patients. The compounds we now call "hallucinogens" were called "psychomimetics." Well, it didn't pan out. They never found "pink adreniline," the intoxication induced by LSD and other hallucinogens was shown to be distinct from schizophrenia, and (eventually) the neuron growth patterns in schizophrenics were shown to be abnormal. This is all from memory, so I'm asking for help. It seems to me that there was a name for the putative toxic metabolite *before* the "pink adreniline" was proposed. Anybody remember? David Throop
kurtze@plains.NoDak.edu (Douglas Kurtze) (11/01/90)
In message <1990Oct28.004012.19939@wpi.WPI.EDU>, avenger@wpi.WPI.EDU (Samuel Joseph Pullara) writes: >The ether was thought to exist all the way up to the 1920's... I don't >know, maybe someone still believes it... In message <1990Oct31.015907.17684@cbnewsd.att.com>, jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com (joseph.f.baugher) writes: >How about "caloric", the substance which was imagined to be responsible for >thermal phenomena? Heat was transferred from one object to another by means and in message <85178@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>, loren@tristan.llnl.gov (Loren Petrich) replies: > I would not laugh too hard at "caloric". Thermal energy is now >known to be present in any of several forms. Some forms are >"stationary", like the vibrations and rotations of molecules, while >some forms are actually fluid-like. These include phonons (sound >quanta) in most condensed materials, the excitations of electrons in >conductors, and the motions of molecules in gases. > However, there is no "law of conservation of heat", as Count >Rumford had successfully demonstrated -- heat can be produced by >(large-scale motions) --> (small-scale motions) -- the heat itself. This brings up a more subtle category of "forgotten entities": those which return in a more refined form, with some of their (more or less) incidental properties changed, and possibly under new names. Ether is an example -- we now talk about the QED vacuum, which is the medium in which elecromagnetic waves propagate (I'm willing to ignore QCD or TOE effects for the sake of argument here). The old concept is less sophisticated, assuming properties of the ether which are like those of air, but the concept of an "ether" is back. Caloric may be another example, as in the quotes above -- the key point here is that the idea of heat as a fluid dragged along the excess baggage of a presumed conservation law. Once that idea is rejected, the "heat as fluid" idea can become useful again (think of ballistic heat propagation, for example). Of course, there's atoms -- the Greeks were thinking about indivisible particles of matter (hence the word "atom"), and we've been thinking about elementary particles ever since. They just keep getting less and less like pebbles. Seems I had more of these in mind last spring when I was reading Kuhn and Bronowski on airplanes (I was on the airplanes, not Kuhn and Bronowski writing about airplanes) and if I ever remember them I'll post them later. Anybody else care to volunteer any? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Doug Kurtze kurtze@plains.NoDak.edu Physics, North Dakota State "Patience is its own reward" -- Flann O'Brien ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
skelly@gara.une.oz.au (Shane Kelly STPG) (11/01/90)
No one has mentioned the two which immediately occur to me: 1) Ether The medium through which light travelled. 2) Phlogiston (sp) The substance released from a body upon burning. Shane Kelly skelly@gara.une.oz Physics Dept. University of New England Armidale N.S.W. 2351, Ph:(067) 73 2408 FAX:(067) 73 3122
osborn@ultima.socs.uts.edu.au (Approx...) (11/01/90)
Tumo(u)rs attract a blood supply when they become malignant. A substance named Tumo(u)r Angiogenesis Factor has been named as the agent which attracts arteries - it has never been identified. (As far as I know...). Other entities (I wish you hadn't called them that) would include: fun, love, guilt, vital spirit, truth, certainty, accident, ... Of course, some of these "entities" are marvelous for developing an appreciation of something else (which also may not "exist" -go back to school...). Tomasso. -- Tom Osborn, "Make everything as simple School of Computing Sciences, as possible, ... University of Technology, Sydney, ... but not more so." PO Box 123 Broadway 2007, AUSTRALIA.
wrp@biochsn.acc.Virginia.EDU (William R. Pearson) (11/01/90)
In article <18502@ultima.socs.uts.edu.au> osborn@ultima.socs.uts.edu.au (Approx...) writes: > >Tumo(u)rs attract a blood supply when they become malignant. >A substance named Tumo(u)r Angiogenesis Factor has been named >as the agent which attracts arteries - it has never been >identified. (As far as I know...). > This substance has been cloned from several organisms. Here is a reference from the Protein Identification Resource. (It is my understanding that "factors" that people do not believe in are cloned surprisingly frequently.) ENTRY NRHUAG #Type Protein TITLE Angiogenin precursor - Human DATE 13-Aug-1986 #Sequence 13-Aug-1986 #Text 31-Dec-1989 PLACEMENT 332.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 SOURCE Homo sapiens #Common-name man ACCESSION A00835 REFERENCE (Sequence translated from the DNA sequence) #Authors Kurachi K., Davie E.W., Strydom D.J., Riordan J.F., Vallee B.L. #Journal Biochemistry (1985) 24:5494-5499 REFERENCE (Sequence of residues 25-147 and disulfide bonds) #Authors Strydom D.J., Fett J.W., Lobb R.R., Alderman E.M., Bethune J.L., Riordan J.F., Vallee B.L. #Journal Biochemistry (1985) 24:5486-5494 COMMENT It is not known if Met-1 or Met-3 is the initiator. COMMENT Angiogenin induces vascularization of normal and malignant tissues.
Ellington@Frodo.MGH.Harvard.EDU (Deaddog) (11/02/90)
In article <1990Oct30.030717.8923@midway.uchicago.edu> chi9@quads.uchicago.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes: > combination of slow evolution and deep phylogenetic divergence, > which -- when the deeply-diverging organisms have a lot in common > phenotypically, which they do -- implies greater resemblence to ancestral > forms of life. This is somewhat disturbing. First, isn't the fact that only a few, deep phylogenetic divergences have been found between the *known* Archaebacteria a function of the relatively small number that have been catalogued? Wouldn't you say exactly the same thing if only one Gram-positive and one Gram-negative organism was known in the eubacterial ur-kingdom? As the Archaebacteria lineage is fleshed out, I believe that intermediate forms will show up along all the branches (this is already true for the sulfur-utilizing Archaebacteria). Second, while the Archaebacteria have some traits in common, their phenotypic resemblances are immaterial to what a primitive life form looks like; it is only those traits that are held in common by each of the three ur-kingdoms (or at least two out of three) that give us a logically valid picture of the common ancestor of modern life (what I like to call the progenote, but Woese has disagreed). Also, what makes you think that Archaebacteria are more phenotypically similar within their ur-kingdom than eukaryotes or eubacteria; what traits are you referring to? Finally, the idea that the evolutionary rate of archaebacteria has been slow seems unsupported: aren't the ribosomal RNA sequences within the archaebacterial lineage at least as divergent from each other as those within the eubacterial or eukaryotic lineages? Doesn't the wide variety of metabolic adaptations seen for different archaebacteria (halophiles, thermophiles, acidophiles, chemolithotrophs, chemoautotrophs) demonstrate that the rate of evolution has been at least as quick as in the other lineages? I may be misreading your intent, but it seems as though you want to classify archaebacteria as 'living fossils'--and there just ain't such a thing. A.E. Dept. Mol. Biol. Mass. General Hospital Non-woof
joan@ocean.med.unc.edu (Joan Shields) (11/02/90)
I read this years ago: Definition of Intelligence Quotient test: a test that measures intelligence Definition of Intelligence: that which is measured by an IQ test Joan Shields UNC-CH "Please don't turn around"
cam@aipna.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) (11/04/90)
God -- an entity who made the Universe and is responsible for the good in the world. Devil -- a naughty entity who tries to spoil God's plans, and is responsible for the evil in the world. -- Chris Malcolm cam@uk.ac.ed.aipna 031 667 1011 x2550 Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK
lc2b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Lawrence Curcio) (11/04/90)
How about Freudian anxt - the kind that causes all manner of totally unrelated problems like schizophrenia and obsessive convulsive disorders. I remember when anti-psychotics were called "Major tranquilizers" because they were thought to calm "Real" anxiety, not just superficial tension in the muscles. Actually, I think some people still *BELIEVE* this horseshit! They should get professional help. Regards, -Larry C.
shenkin@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Peter S. Shenkin) (11/05/90)
In article <cbAo9My00UhBM1yGlm@andrew.cmu.edu > lc2b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Lawrence Curcio) writes: >How about Freudian anxt - the kind that causes all manner of totally >unrelated problems like schizophrenia and obsessive convulsive >disorders. I remember when anti-psychotics were called "Major tranquilizers" >because they were thought to calm "Real" anxiety, not just superficial >tension in the muscles. > >Actually, I think some people still *BELIEVE* this horseshit! They should get >professional help. > >Regards, > >-Larry C. OK, what's your explanation, and why are you so angry? -P. ************************f*u*cn*rd*ths*u*cn*gt*a*gd*jb************************** Peter S. Shenkin, Department of Chemistry, Barnard College, New York, NY 10027 (212)854-1418 shenkin@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu(Internet) shenkin@cunixc(Bitnet) ***"In scenic New York... where the third world is only a subway ride away."***
mcguire@aerospace.aero.org (Rod McGuire) (11/06/90)
A vanishing entity I've been intrigued by is "germs." They still exist but their name/concept is being displaced by more scientific terminology. Active discussion of germs only occurs in linguistic backwaters such as: (1) talk with and among 4 year olds about why they shouldn't share lollipops, and (2) advertisements for Lysol which try to scare consumers into buying the product. In fact germs, in the concerns of 4 year olds, seem to have taken over the role previously played by cooties (head lice.) But in other areas of discussion, more advanced terminology is favored. Even the military now talks about "biological warfare" rather than "germ warfare". So my questions are: does anybody still seriously talk about germs, and what is the scientific usage history of this term? Was it well accepted and then fell into disfavor for legitimate reasons or just because children had appropriated it. -- Roderick McGuire - mcguire@aerospace.aero.org PS: Yes I was implying an analogy between 4 year olds and consumers of Lysol, so there is no reason for followup postings to point this out. PPS: Please note the newsgroups line and edit followups so that only appropriate groups get sent information on how to make a cootie catcher.