Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Woese's progenote hypothesis
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4609 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 84 of 194 (338486)
08-08-2006 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by randman
08-08-2006 9:53 AM


Re: Woese's world
Isn't it all quite analogeous to the situation in cosmology?
Extrapolation via current physics leads to (explains adequately) Big Bang/Expanding Universe cosmology but breaks down near the "beginning" where physics were wholy different.
Extrapolation via current understanding of descent with modification and natural selection leads to (explains adequately) common descent but breaks down near the "beginning" where other processes were going on because 'life' was closer to pure chemistry.
What is the problem here? Is cosmology and/or the current understanding of physics maybe total bollocks because of what we don't know for sure yet about the very beginning?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by randman, posted 08-08-2006 9:53 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by randman, posted 08-08-2006 12:12 PM Annafan has not replied

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4609 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 117 of 194 (338585)
08-08-2006 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by randman
08-08-2006 3:04 PM


Re: Woese's world
Randman writes:
quote:
a progenote isn't radical.
Well, you can define words however you want, but the process envisioned is radically different.
So what? What in the world is so shocking about this? What is so threatening for the whole common descent concept? It is completely expected since no evolution adherent envisions a perfect hereditary mechanism with completely functional DNA and a natural selection 'routine' to just pop out of nothing. There exists necessarily a grey area from simple self-replicating chemicals to the more complex routine that we observe in function now.
Again, claiming that it invalidates common descent (not necessarily universal common descent) is not much different from claiming that the expanding universe cosmology is a myth, just because it is acknowledged that our current physics don't hold during the first tentothepowerminusquadrillion seconds.
In both cases science is aware of the 'problem', and in both cases it does not affect the validity of the general principles that are observed to be in place from a certain moment onwards.
Sure 'special creation' can also fit the data. It would also fit any other possible data, and thus it is useless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by randman, posted 08-08-2006 3:04 PM randman has not replied

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4609 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 133 of 194 (338667)
08-09-2006 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Quetzal
08-09-2006 12:27 AM


Re: Request for Recap
Quetzal writes:
That's why more recent analogies of the "tree of life" resemble a mangrove with lots of intertwining roots, rather than Darwin's model of an oak tree. It's also why it's so difficult for anyone to point to a "last common ancestor" - because unicellular organisms are so promiscuous with their genetic material.
Exactly my point... There's absolutely nothing revolutionary or unexpected about this. Only some sort of special instant creation assumption would make it possible to uphold the current "form of evolution" down to the absolute beginning. Any hypothesis of gradual evolution from simple self-replicating molecules to the kind of life that we see now, will necessarilly go through a phase that can not be anything else but quite different from the current mechanisms. Nothing shocking there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Quetzal, posted 08-09-2006 12:27 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Quetzal, posted 08-09-2006 9:10 AM Annafan 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