Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,912 Year: 4,169/9,624 Month: 1,040/974 Week: 367/286 Day: 10/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Woese's progenote hypothesis
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 191 of 194 (340915)
08-17-2006 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Modulous
08-17-2006 4:09 AM


randman showcased
randman has been showcased (for now)
It certainly seems to me that most comments on this thread are arguing about the same things with different words.
Just my take.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Modulous, posted 08-17-2006 4:09 AM Modulous has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 192 of 194 (341792)
08-20-2006 8:03 PM


Woese's Tree of Life
In looking at the {evolution} entry on wikipedia I noticed a tree of life with the caption:
A hypothetical phylogenetic tree of all extant organisms, based on 16S rRNA gene sequence data, showing the evolutionary history of the three domains of life, bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes. Originally proposed by Carl Woese.
(color yellow and bold mine for empHASis)
When I clicked on the Carl Woese link it led me to
Carl Woese - Wikipedia
(where you can also see the tree)
Carl Richard Woese (born July 15, 1928) is an American microbiologist famous for defining the Archaea (a new domain or kingdom of life) in 1977 by phylogenetic taxonomy of 16S ribosomal RNA, a technique pioneered by Woese and which is now standard practice. He was also the originator of the RNA world hypothesis in 1967, although not by that name. He was born in Syracuse, New York, on July 15, 1928. Woese is currently a professor of Microbiology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Having defined Archaea as a new domain, Woese redrew the taxonomic tree. His system, based upon genetic relationships rather than obvious morphological similarities, divided life into 23 main divisions, all incorporated within three domains: Bacteria, Archaea, and Eucarya. Archaea are neither Bacteria nor Eukaryotes. Looked at another way, they are Prokaryotes which are not Bacteria.
From this it appears that Woese clearly shows a common beginning to the three (for now) domains of life. I've circled the area of contention on this thread:

(click for larger version)
The only real question would appear to be whether he considers the beginning is {biotic\life} or {pre-biotic\material} and the best answer for that would be to ask Dr. Woese rather than make conjectures.
And in the end, this would still just be his opinion, so basing the validity of the whole theory of evolution or abiogenesis (or whatever Randman's point was) on this is just another faulty use of the argument from authority.
His opinion, no matter how well informed, is not necessarily the truth of what occurred. That's my take.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Wounded King, posted 08-21-2006 2:51 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 194 of 194 (345882)
09-01-2006 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Wounded King
08-21-2006 2:51 AM


Woese things have happened
nearly slipped by this
I'm not sre where you get that this is the issue from. It is quite clear from Woese's published work that he considers the 'progenote' population from which the 3 kingdoms arose as biotic.
My lack of clarity\rushing the post. Coming here from the "definition of life" thread ...
While they may not constitute life as we know it they are certainly as alive as any of the pseudo biotic form such as viruses.
yeah, the issue (to me anyway) is whether this fits the definition of life, how Woese defines that, does that agree with other definitions or does his use of 'biotic' extend before 'life' - do virus types qualify, biotic but not life? or are they a fourth domain now? soon?
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Wounded King, posted 08-21-2006 2:51 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024