I am not attacking his paper but dealing with the facts he raised. You seem to want to avoid those facts.
what facts? the ones that he answers HIMSELF in the paper?, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill, if you read the paper he clarifies what he means without problems, other than you nitpicking quotes to make it look like he doesn't
Then why does he propose a progenote? I am not misrepresenting him at all here. You seem to not understand that what he proposes is that that there is no way at all for the universal ancestor to be a creature that reproduces like the creatures that descended from it. The gist of his paper is certainly not that this theoritical common ancestor simply was a mix of all 3 kingdoms, and in fact, the gist of the paper is the exact opposite in proposing a progenote!
i guess my eyes jumped over the last bit, must have been tired when i read it, but i still don't see where he said its a problem, you only quote part of what he said, and it seems that you have a problem with the idea of progenotes not him
I don't think that is possible considering your earlier misreading of his claims. Do you realize that a progenote is by definition a creature that lacks "precise linkage" as he says between phenotype and genotype? Isn't it obvious then why natural selection is an issue?
no, you don't seem to understand what he is saying at all, when he says "precise linkage" between phenotype and genotype, that the replication of gentics is not very developed in comparision to later life, this has very little to do with NS, this has to do with mutation and gentic make up
Rev, to be frank with you, your comments are just ignorant. Read the OP again carefully and pay attention this time. Woese raises a problem and offers a solution. You seem to be denying several things, that he raises a problem and solution and that there is a problem or solution, and so your entire post is wholly without any substantive comment whatsoever.
i guess when all you have is to ad-hom me for pointing out that you are reading selectively..
now you are making claims that i never did, your quotes that i challeged only show the problem and not the solution he came up with, maybe if you were more honest about it, you could read my post without jumping to conclutions.
i deny nothing. i said, that you are making him out to claiming this is a problem for NS and the ToE, you just continue to conflate his research and hypothosis as somehow being damaging to the ToE
being that this is fairly old by todays standards, i think we can find a lot more about this now
Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
