|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,916 Year: 4,173/9,624 Month: 1,044/974 Week: 3/368 Day: 3/11 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Woese's progenote hypothesis | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5021 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
randman writes: Why does he propose a progenote, Paulk? Well apparently this is why. Do you fully understand it? I certainly don't because I'm not a biologist.
In 1977 Woese and Fox (1) defined the progenote as a hypothetical stage in the evolution of cells that preceded organisms with typical prokaryotic cellular organization: "Eucaryotes did arise from procaryotes, but only in the sense that the procaryotic is an organizational, not a phylogenetic distinction. In analogous fashion procaryotes arose from simpler entities. The latter are properly called progenotes, because they are still in the process of evolving the relationship between genotype and phenotype." The intention of Woese and Fox was to define an organizational level simpler than and preceding the prokaryotic level. At the progenotic level, genes and encoded proteins were smaller and the accuracy of transcription and translation was lower than at the prokaryotic level. As a result sequence evolution occurred more rapidly. Also bear in mind that this is 30 year old research and current thinking appears to have moved on. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5021 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
randman writes: If abiogenesis isn't the way it happened, or if abiogenesis occured via a creative force (ID), then we have to consider the creative force or Intelligent Designer or whatever it is to be the commonality, There's no evidence for ID. If there's no evidence for ID why must it be considered?
randman writes: But it seems to me the data suggests unaided universal common descent is unlikely That is categorically NOT what Woese was saying. His assertion was that our current understanding of common descent is incomplete. Given the wealth of evidence we have in support of evolution common descent itself is not being questioned.
randman writes: I will though admit that if ID is true, universal common descent is more plausible as this force or Person could overcome obstacles and "help" or cause the process and so common descent could be true. How is it more plausible? Given that evolution has evidence it is far more implausible to assume the existence of a "designer" for which there is no evidence!
randman writes: ..and that is why Woese comes up with a way to introduce a different sort of process than gradualistic evolution (so he can account for the data). No, he was attempting to expand on the ToE. That's science at work. But I am interested in your arguments here, Randman. You seem to be suggesting that God intervened only in the earliest stages of evolution and that established mechanisms continued from there. Are you proposing some form of theistic evolution, or do you reject the ToE in its entirity? Edited by RickJB, : No reason given. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5021 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
randman writes: Actually, there's no evidence for abiogenesis. So if there is no evidence for abiogenesis, why must it be considered? No hard evidence for sure, but our current knowledge of both chemistry and evolution leads in that direction.
randman writes: ID is more plausible because current evo extrapolations of microevolutionary mechanisms are grossly insufficient to account for the appearance of the 3 kingdoms. You totally misunderstand how science works. Just because there are gaps in a given area of science doesn't invalidate the entire field! There is alot we do not know about the emergence of life but we are learning more all the time. Also, even if evolution was debunked, this fact alone would not stand as evidence for an ID "default". ID itelf has abolutely no positive evidence.
randman writes: If, on the other hand, there was a Designer involved, it offers an explanation for how the 3 kingdoms could arise since it makes no sense under unaided evo mechanisms. Goddidit is not very useful explanation. The question of how it was physically done still needs to be answered...
randman writes: ...is faith or anti-faith based assumption. Science, as you will no doubt have been told, is NOT faith. it's built on testible hypotheses derived from observation.
randman writes: Actually I am merely suggesting we stick to the facts, the data itself, and quit trying to make it fit into a preestablished scenario, which I what I think evos are doing. "Goddidit" isn't a "preestablished scenario"? In any case scientists do stick to the facts. That's their job. Data that presents problems for existing scientific theories can arise. You, however, seem to be under the impression that any problem that arises in a scientific theory immediately invalidates it. This is not necessarily the case. If a given theory is still widely consistent and applicable in other areas then then theory must be adapted. The ToE has changed hugely over the years, but it's underlying premise has not as yet been contradicted in any way. Take a field like aerodynamics. The basic concept of flight has been with us for just over 100 years, but when we look at the development of aircraft in that time was can clearly see that our deeper understanding of flight has changed hugely. Your comments on evolution with regard to this paper are equivalent to me arguing that the entire concept of flight is invalid because our deeper understanding of aerodynamics has changed! Edited by RickJB, : No reason given. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5021 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
randman writes: ....basic assumptions are untestable. Simply not true. They have been tested both in the lab and with small animal populations (viri, insects and birds mostly). The result of such work is being used right now track the progress of bird flu and develop vaccinations. Also the wealth of fossils and many other natural observations provide solid evidence.
randman writes: Biogentic Law, eh? A hypothesis (from 1866!) that was shown to be false. What's the problem? That's science at work, Randman. Not all ideas are borne out. Evolution as a whole, however, has stood the test of time.
randman writes: Or how about claiming mutations are random? What about it? It's where the evidence takes us. Randman this just gets tiresome. Rather than picking around the edges of the ToE for scraps that somehow "prove" ID by default why not just start a thread about POSITIVE evidence for ID. By positive I mean unique observations that clearly point ot the work of a designer, NOT rehashed ToE criticism. Flaws in the ToE do not indicate ID by default. If you reject the ToE then you need to show positive evidence to support a new ID theory. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5021 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
randman writes: microevolution does not equal macroevolution They are both the same thing. Science does not use this distinction. "Macroevolution" is simply "microevolution" over a long period of time.
randman writes: The problem it was shown to be false in the 1880s, 1890s, 1910s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and yet evos still kept on teaching and presenting forged data as accurate. Yes it was a mess. The fraud had gone unnoticed by many for years. But truth did surface.
randman writes: The intermediates are not seen Um, Tiktaalik (amongst others) slip your mind? Also note that Tiktaalik was discovered using predictions made by the existing fossil record. They purposefully searched strata of a similar age to estimates of when such a creature may have lived. It wasn't discovered by accident. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5021 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
randman writes: OK, show me an observed example of macroevolution please As I said they are both the same thing. Speciation is the key. Some examples: Observed Instances of SpeciationA Site About Technology, Aerospace, Agriculture, AI, Apple Inc., Architecture, Artificial Intelligence, Arts, Astronomy, Biotechnology & More | Technology Trends Having read up on Haekel I accept it was a grave oversight. The hoax was apparently widely know on some circles, but this information was simply not propagated. Science moves on...
randman writes: JAD's theory on prescribed evolution JAD writes: I propose that the information for organic evolution has somehow been predetermined in the evolving genome in a way comparable to the way in which the necessary information to produce a complete organism is contained within a single cell, the fertilized egg. Somehow been predetermined? A truly brilliant hypothesis. Can you give me a link to your thread? Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5021 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
randman writes: Known evolutionary processes cannot account for the 3 kingdoms arising, right? So why do you guys insist they arose from a common ancestor at all? It seems akin to mythmaking to me. Woese did indeed say that KNOWN evolutionary processes cannot account for the 3 kingdoms arising, but his point is that the ToE is limited in this area and requires more research. Given the problems Woese produces a hypothesis about progenotes. What's the problem? Again, just because there are known limitations with the ToE doen't invalidate it, especially if the theory is very successful in other ares. A theory is never "proved" for all time, it is simply strengthened by the accumulation of evidence. Your criticism here doesn't detract from the wealth of evidence already gathered in support of the ToE. You make the crucial error of assuming that a gap in ToE knowledge automatically "proves" your defualt postion against it. It does not. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5021 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
randman writes: He doesn't see how observed processes can account for the emergence of the 3 kingdoms. So he proposes his own hypothesis. Science at work. Again, what's the problem here? Message 81 awaits an answer. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5021 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
randman writes: Which hypothesis is the subject of this thread, which you have little substantive comment on. I fully admit my knowledge in this area is very, very limited (as is yours), but my question from message 81 still stands as it is on topic. It's quite clear that you are seeking to repesent the existence of this hypothesis as a "problem" for the ToE. How, therefore, does Woese's hypothesis threathen the ToE? You have consistently avoided this question. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5021 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
quetzal writes: So could someone explain what the issue is here? Thanks. I asked that very question back in messge 81, if not earlier.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5021 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
nemesis writes: What purpose does it serve to figure out how life could have originated at random and also believe in a Creator. A Creator needs 'create' in order to be a Creator. I think you're bright enough to realize that. How about using your imagination? Who is is more powerful, a creator who sets the processes of an entire universe in motion, or one who has to create everything individually? There's an entire universe out there that needed "creating"! For all anyone knows a Big Bang type event could have been God's single act of creation from which all else followed. As far as I'm concerned, the God imagined by scientific theists is infinitely more compelling (and far less parochial) than the God imagined by anti-science literalists. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024