Genady

Einstein said that nationalism is a disease. He didn't say nations.

Thank you. I'm very glad to hear this, because I don't like the sensationalistic hint in the original report about a possible discovery of a "missing link" between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Although, I have to clarify, this "missing link" speculation appears only in the pop sci report, NOT in the primary report in bioarxiv.

Yes, however until this recent discovery they all were less than 1 mm in size and didn't have a DNA pouch. The new one is almost 1 cm long, has DNA pouch, and has been discovered in some Caribbean mangroves.

Genetic adam and eve are accepted terminology in evolutionary biology.

"Adam" and "Eve", since they have never met, did not have children together.

The "Adam", i.e. a male ancestor of all living humans, and the "Eve", i.e. a female ancestor of all living humans, have never met and lived tens of thousands of years apart. The "Eve" lived long-long before the "Adam."

Don't hold your breath.

I wondered how fast this bacterium reproduces considering its size. But anyway, their evolution occurring faster they could evolve this feature really recently. How about in the last million years, for example?

Yes, 75 million years I consider not long at all on the 3-4 billion years scale. Mostly, after the dinosaurs. Of course they have changed their habitat many times. This is evolution. The unknown we are talking about is, when during this evolution they evolved this peculiar compartmentation.

Yes, not enough data. The only knowledge is that they evolved some time during the last 3-4 billion years. At any time during this window. They live on mangroves. How long do mangroves exist? Not very long.

As a former Soviet citizen with a part of the family coming from Ukraine I have to say that I never thought I will have such a high respect to the Ukrainian people and to their president (whose last name rhymes with mine.)

We don't even know that it remained unchanged or changed very little. Maybe they evolved relatively recently.

They have had the same billions of years to evolve to what they are today as the eukaryotes. Isn't it just another line of evolution from whatever common ancestor we share? The bacterial DNA is not actually distributed throughout the cell. Their DNA is arranged in chromosomes, which differ from eukaryotic chromosomes in being circular rather than linear. Curious, what is a shape of chromosomes of these new organisms? BTW, the article says that their ribosomes are in the same pouch, with the DNA. This is crucially different from the eukaryotes whose ribosomes are outside the nuclei. This pouch doesn't resemble the eukaryotic nucleus functionally. Looks more like a superficial resemblance to me.

What do they mean when they call an extant organism a "missing link"?

They are interchangeable in some languages in some cases, but even then they mean different things. Here is one analysis:

Except the Dutch: (Natural Selection May Help Account for Dutch Height Advantage - The New York Times (nytimes.com))

Let's try "reverse engineering". The trigonometric solution gives an exact angle, x=12 degrees. It still seems to hint to a geometric solution. Here is another "conspiracy": 12+18=30, 48-18=30. Any new ideas?

Unfortunately, in spite of noticing that angles' "conspiracy", I don't see how to use it in a drawing /construction. On the other hand, the "analytical hints" from @studiot's post above lead to the solution quite directly.

I don't know. I hope for the latter.

Yes, of course. As long as we're clear about the RFs.

In my reference frame you don't have free will, and I know that in your reference frame you do. In my RF I have free will, and I know that in your reference frame I don't. There is no paradox as long as we are clear about the reference frames in question. I can talk about your free will when I refer to your RF and about my free will when I refer to my RF. It is very similar to Alice watching Bob falling into a black hall. In Bob's reference frame he passes the event horizon in a definite time. In the Alice's RF he never does. Alice knows that in his RF Bob crosses the EH, although in hers he does not. Bob knows that in Alice's RF he doesn't cross EH, although in his he does.

As to so many other questions in physics, an answer to the OP question depends on a reference frame. In this case, there are two types of reference frames with different answers, external and internal. An external observer can, in principle, observe a neuronal machinery working according to the laws of physics and leading inevitably to a decision. There is no room for free will in this reference frame. On the other hand, an internal observer, who is busy with making a decision and thus who even in principle cannot be occupied at the same time with observing the neuronal machinery, makes the decision according to their free will. Just another instance of "Alice and Bob".

I have been following this "invasion" for many years as well, starting with the very first appearance of the very first lionfish in our waters in 2009. Our Marine Park management got seriously involved in the research and in the population control attempts of lionfish. They organized many presentations by scientists as well as by other parties interested in this development. And I have witnessed the process directly under water over the years. "Long term" is the the only issue because there is no stability or balance state of the ecosystem in short term. Every year is different, with or without lionfish. One year, there are unusually many barracudas, other year - "flamingo tongue" snails cover soft corals everywhere, yet others - lobsters, ctenophores, floating sea weed, mass moray die off, etc. etc. There is no base line to compare against in a short term. The ecosystem is highly dynamic and "disruptions" is a norm. That lionfish got from Florida to Carolinas is understandable. The Gulfstream pushes them that way. But how did they get to the Southern Caribbean? It's a long swim against current...

I think this problem can be solved by geometrical constructions rather than generically using sine rule, because the numbers, 48 and 18 degrees, have a specific property: on one hand, 48+18=66, on the other hand, 180-48=132=66x2 could be two angles of 66 degrees of an isosceles triangle with one angle of 48 degrees.

This is not a caterpillar. This is a sea cucumber, about half a meter long. I don't know if it is poisonous, but the coloration might suggest so. Or, mimicry.