tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post1180992951800093442..comments2024-03-28T00:36:36.460-07:00Comments on The Tree of Life: When is a worm a microbe? When it is in the New York Times (in 1996)Jonathan Eisenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07953790938128734305noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-51518108341604994952007-07-15T07:24:00.000-07:002007-07-15T07:24:00.000-07:00well, yes, but this worm is not invisible to the n...well, yes, but this worm is not invisible to the naked eye ... it is just something they did not see because the worms were dead.<BR/><BR/>that would be like calling the yeti a microbe because nobody has really seen itJonathan Eisenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07953790938128734305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-38253153850690282632007-07-15T05:29:00.000-07:002007-07-15T05:29:00.000-07:00Actually, does it? I think technically a "microbe"...Actually, does it? I think technically a "microbe" is just an organism too small to see with the naked eye. (from Greek: mikros=small and bios=life). <BR/><BR/>In practice, true, it evokes mental images of single celled organisms, but there is nothing in the origin of the word that implies that.Jonathan Badgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04921990886076027719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-27635826507476332312007-07-15T04:23:00.000-07:002007-07-15T04:23:00.000-07:00Well, that may be the case, but "microbe" clearly ...Well, that may be the case, but "microbe" clearly implies a single celled organism. And this thing really is a worm. So saying "the microbe turned out to be ..." implies it is a microbe.Jonathan Eisenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07953790938128734305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10781944.post-71276162462031592182007-07-14T23:47:00.000-07:002007-07-14T23:47:00.000-07:00Worm is a junk phrase describing nothing. At least...Worm is a junk phrase describing nothing. At least from a biologist's point of view.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com