It seems that there is a major disconnect between my post and your reply which is indicative of some kind of communications problem. It could be you, me, or as is more commonly the case partially the fault of both parties. For example:
randman writes:
Woese definitely proposes a non-vertical evolutionary process (you may want to read WK's comments)
Is the kind of comment one might expect to see in reply to a post that says something like
quote:
Woese does not propose a non-vertical evolutionary process
which I certainly did not say. In
Message 80 you questioned how natural selection can work if there is not precise linkage between phenotype and genotype:
randman writes:
Please show me where a progenote is and how it evolves, and how natural selection works if the phenotype is not precisely linked to the genotype.
I merely commented that natural selection works fine with modern organisms and in modern organisms the genotype is not precisely linked to the phenotype. I assume you agree that genotype and phenotype are not currently precisely linked and that natural selection works now.
randman writes:
As far as your comments, the thread is fairly narrowly defined. Woese proposes a hypothetical creature and process, non-observed, in order to counter specific problems he feels are insurmountable any other way.
This is precisely what I was discussing, so you must excuse me if I am confused as to how you missed this. Nevertheless accept my apologies if my posts were confusing or unclear. Let me try to rectify this. I am specifically discussing the 'hypothetical'/'non-observed' creature. Woese has done nothing inherently new in discussing these hypothetical entities.
That the early replicating entities were fundamentally different from modern and observed life is not a new concept - even at the time of this paper. That Woese proposes this entity is not the point, it's irrelevant! It's common sense that an entity fundamentally different from current life must have existed if the consensus opinion on common descent were to be true.
The only thing that makes Woese's ideas different is that he is specifying certain things - the temporal point before which life worked differently and one part of the nature of difference (less connect between genotype and phenotype).
Has my clarification succeeded? Are you now clearer on what I am trying to communicate to you?