← Back to context

Comment by jibal

1 day ago

The article discusses the (highly speculative) hypothesis that eukaryotes arose from a virus merging with an archaeal ancestor to form a nucleus. If the hypothesis is false (it is widely believed that eukaryotes arose from a joining of archaea and bacteria, not archaea and virii) then "an archaeal ancestor" doesn't even have a referent.

The LUCA is the common ancestor of bacteria and archaea. That would have existed far earlier, as neither of those are eukaryotes.

4 comments

jibal

Reply
gus_massa  18 hours ago

> it is widely believed that eukaryotes arose from a joining of archaea and bacteria, not archaea and virii

IIUC the join with the bacteria is the explanation of the mitochondria (and later chloroplast). But it does not explain the nuclei that is weird too. Is it possible something like this?

  Archaeal + Virus = Pre-Eukaryote (extinct?)
  Pre-Eukaryote + Bacteria = Eukaryote (including animals, fungi and plants)
  Eukaryote + other Bacteria = Plants

(Or swap the first two steps.)

  • jibal  18 hours ago

    > IIUC the join with the bacteria is the explanation of the mitochondria (and later chloroplast). But it does not explain the nuclei that is weird too.

    You're right ... my mistake.