Talk:Eukaryogenesis

PNAS paper by Margulis et al is mainstream science

An editor has seen fit to try to remove a brief mention of a research article in PNAS in 2006, asserting it's "fringe". However, PNAS is a (highly) respected mainstream journal with a robust scientific peer-review process. Now it may well be that the paper's proposal is incorrect: science goes like that. The appropriate response for mainstream science mistakes, if such it be, is not editorial censorship ("we know best"), but the addition of later sources that question or refute the proposal made. Since "once notable, always notable" is a correct Wiki-slogan, we do not go about deleting relevant accounts of an idea's history; instead, we update them from the latest sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

There are several issues with this point of view.

1)The hypothesis posited in that paper never met academic consensus. This is well known by molecular biologists (incidentally, I a former mol biologist). See this obituary of Margulis on Science: "She championed the idea that eukaryotes gained their flagella (which differ from the prokaryotic flagella) by the acquisition of a motile bacterium, a spirochete, a view that has few subscribers today."; the obituary on PNAS itself "Throughout her life, Lynn maintained as well that the flagellum, the whip-like structure responsible for locomotion in many eukaryotic cells, also originated as a symbiotic bacterium, but this theory has never garnered strong support from other biologists"; this historical analysis paper on Margulis' ideas (accessible via Wikipedia Library) states multiple times that the hypothesis was never accepted; also this other obituary clarifies that " While the termite gut microbial community presented many intriguing questions regarding the relationship between the myriad of spirochetes in the gut and the symbiotic flagellates, no molecular or biochemical data were ever developed to support the idea that these motility symbionts evolved into cell organelles."

2)PNAS was actually infamous, in the past, for publishing extremly sketchy papers via the "contributed submission" route, where NAS members or people endorsed by NAS members could basically skip peer review (they picked up their own reviewers and submitted themselves the reviews alongside the paper). The system has been basically abolished in the last years, but the 2007 source in the article has been, unsurprisingly, gone through this route (see the note "Contributed by Lynn Margulis" right above the abstract). In general, "contributed" PNAS papers, especially older than 10-15 years, should never be considered WP:RS unless other academic sources consistently support them as reliable.

3)Notability has zero to do with this issue. If one were to write an article on Margulis' hypothesis on the role of spirochete in eukaryogenesis, that would be entirely correct to point that a discarded or fringe hypothesis could be notable (and it is). Here however, unless we want to present a paragraph on past hypotheses on eukaryogenesis (which could be a good idea,incidentally), we have to deal with WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE: that is, not giving undue weight to fringe hypotheses and, most importantly, presenting them as if they were not fringe. Therefore, we definitely do delete outdated or fringe research when it is out of context, while of course we present it in sections or articles that give it the correct context. Whatever is the place for Margulis' spirochete hypothesis in this article, it is not in a section where it is presented as scientifically accurate information. cyclopia^speak! 10:51, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

This is just anecdotal, but I have been in conversations with several evolutionary biologists that knew Lynn Margulis in person and they mostly agree that several of her hypotheses that later would be crowned as achievements were not (or were rarely) researched, and many, like the flagella and her phylogenetic framework from her published books, were extrapolations that barely reflected actual research. But she was a great spokesperson. I understand that the popularity she gathered due to her publications and general charisma warrants a place in this article, but like Cyclopia says, we should be careful in assigning her proposals as "mainstream science". — Snoteleks (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Margulis had an amazing intuition and the stubborness to put it forward, but then, as it happens to many brilliant scientists, she became enamored with her own theories and did not accept to let them go even when evidence was overwhelmingly against. The endosymbiotic hypothesis for the flagellum etc. was a very good and intriguing hypothesis; too bad data never supported it. cyclopia^speak! 11:22, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Then we need to find some words that express caution about her proposals, noting that her core suggestion that symbiogenesis occurred is accepted as correct. This article isn't really the place for that as the symbiogenesis section is just a summary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

That symbiogenesis occurred is obviously well established, but that paper and that proposal should not be cited there. If anything, it belongs to a section on historical views on eukaryogenesis. cyclopia^speak! 12:17, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes. The "main" link here needs to be accompanied by a short "summary style" paragraph representing the Symbiogenesis article's contents, which might resemble that article's lead section. It would be far better

1) to update that article, complete with an account of Margulis's errantry and reliable refutations of it, and with "new" papers like the one you added today,

2) to update that article's lead section to summarize its "main points", and

3) to update the very brief summary here from the above (in that order). This article probably isn't the place for the new paper, either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I replied below but before seeing your comment. The symbiogenesis article briefly cites the flagella/spirochete issue, but indeed it's not well sourced. I'm not sure of what you mean by the "main link", summarizing main points there etc. cyclopia^speak! 12:33, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The short paragraph-length section here in Eukaryogenesis#Symbiogenesis is a summary with "main" link of the Symbiogenesis article; additions should go *over there* per the 1-2-3 procedure just outlined. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense, thanks. cyclopia^speak! 14:50, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

For now, I've put the hypothesis in a footnote, along with the abovementioned papers that describe its scientific status. If we manage to make an historical section, then it can go back to main text there. cyclopia^speak! 12:30, 25 June 2026 (UTC)