Woese's progenote hypothesis

you realize bacteria do this, you know, what you defined as horizontal evolution?They have this thing called gene transfer, where part of the cell membrane / wall of the baterium extends, pushes into another, and exchange genetic information. generally it deals with their plasmids.
it's the closest they get to having sex, becuase they are asexual, and just make clones of themselves. And that gene transfer is not hereditary. hmm . . .I don't know if this was known when the paper was written. So while it could have possibly been radically new in his paper, it isn't today.oh, and I still find it funny that you defend a paper that affirms something you deny. oh the irony.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

quote:

---

So you refuse to engage the data? Ok,..... I expected that.

---

Your post didn't contain any data. Nor did it contain an argument.I can only assume then, that you realised that the points in my post were fatal for any argument you wished to make - and that you are using false accusations as a pretext to recover your rapid retreat..

Woese' data. You refuse to deal with it, it seems. This is what you were suppossed to be responding to. The data is all in Woese' paper linked to in the OP. Do you care to respond to it or not?Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I know I shouldn't get frustrated with you, but responding to idiocy to someone that seems incapable in terms of intelligence to even discuss this issue can be frustrating. Take this comment. Now, I don't know how old you are, and most likely you never developed the critical reasoning skills to understand how incredibly obtuse your comment above is, which is why I graciously ignored it, but since you repeated it.....Has it occurred to you that I am not defending Woese' paper?I suppose not. What I'd like to do is find an evo or 2 that has some brains that would like to discuss the paper, and one or 2 made a brief appearance, but some other yahoos keep fouling up the thread with ignorant comments, and who don't seem to have the mental ability to assess Woese' conclusions.So which will you be? Bacteria, just so you know, are genotes. Woese is proposing that a genote cannot be the common ancestor to all 3 kingdoms.Does it even pique your curiosity as to why, or are you so threatened by an anti-evo posters comments that you feel the need to try to denigrate someone more knowledgable than yourself on this issue without even bothering to understand what the issue is?

you are defending it. you're saying that we're all misreading it, and this is the way it should be intrepreted. Seems like you're defeinding it to me.as to the bacteria, I know they're genotes. what I'm saying is that the method of evolution, the horizontal one, that Woese proposes to solve what he considers to be the problem of too little time isn't radical. we actually observe bacteria doing this horizontal evolution with their gene exchange that I outlined. So even if a progentoe is the common ancestor, it's method of evolution that Woese proposes isn't radically new. urghgh!

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Insisting that in order to have a good discussion of something, one must first understand it is not the same as defending it.Geesh! It is radical. If it was just horizontal transfer via genotes, then there wouldn't need to be the hypothesis of the progenote, right?Now, one thing you may not be considering is that the discovery of horizontal transfer of genes among genotes is more problematic here when you think about it, for the evo argument based on genote evolution.Think about the claims related to the molecular clock. If based on those, the 3 kingdoms are far too distant genetically to have arisen via the type of creatures we see today, genotes, then recognizing that the rate of changes we see today includes horizontal transfer of genes, then the situation is even worse than Woese initially described.

[quote] Woese' data. You refuse to deal with it, it seems. This is what you were suppossed to be responding to.
[/quite]But you didn't mention any data from WOese's paper. All you mentioned were Woese's conclusions.

quote:

---

PaulK, let's first deal with the data Woese says is there, which is the topic of the OP. Woese' data is that no vertical evolution, as WK put it, can explain the emergence of the 3 kingdoms, but that the universal ancestor had to be a progenote.
Right?

---

You are utterly wrong to call that data. It is not. It is Woese's view - a conclusion derived from the data, not the data itself.I can see now why you didn't answer my post (Message 101). The asnwer to my question:

quote:

---

Do you understand the difference between data and Woese's opinions ?

---

Is "no"

quote:

---

So what data is there that Woese brings out to discount vertical evolution?

---

If it's part of your case, shouldn't YOU be presenting that data ?Or do you want me to tell you what your argument is ?

a progenote isn't radical.the probelm is merely time, the distance between the relations. that doesn't mean that evolution is wrong.just recently, there was an article about how the hubble constant might be off by about 15 percent, and that the universe is 15 percent older and bigger then we think it is.
does that throw out the foundations of physics and astronomy?does getting the distance inbetween the last common ancestor we shared with the other domains throw out the foundation of biology and evolution?answer to all those questions--no.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

So do you agree or not agree that Woese says the data rules out a genote as the ancestor to all 3 kingdoms?Basically PaulK, it's time for you to engage the data and conclusions, to put up, or shut up.I provided Woese's comments on the data, the overview, and the paper that discusses those comments at length. If you disagree with the progenote hypothesis, then please state why. What about the data do you agree with or not?If you think vertical, normal evolution does explain the emergence of the 3 kingdoms, then tell us why.My own conclusions are amply stated in that I don't disagree with Woese's "problem" here, only his solution. If you disagree with me and Woese on the problem, then tell me why, and we can discuss that.

Well, you can define words however you want, but the process envisioned is radically different.

quote:

---

So do you agree or not agree that Woese says the data rules out a genote as the ancestor to all 3 kingdoms?

---

I haven't changed my mind, I still agree with it.

quote:

---

Basically PaulK, it's time for you to engage the data and conclusions, to put up, or shut up.

---

I AM engaging Woese's conclusions - as far as is possible when you won't tell me what your argument is. I can't engage the data until you tell me which data you want to talk about.

quote:

---

I provided Woese's comments on the data, the overview, and the paper that discusses those comments at length. If you disagree with the progenote hypothesis, then please state why. What about the data do you agree with or not?

---

I neither agree nor disagree with Woese's hypothesis. As for the data we're supposed to be considering your argument not Woese' but you seem reluctant to tell me anything much about it.

quote:

---

My own conclusions are amply stated in that I don't disagree with Woese's "problem" here, only his solution.

---

Is that the extent of the argument. That you disagree with Woese's solution ? You need more than that. I don't agree with your solution but I don't think you would accept that as an argument.f

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.

Then it is difficult to engage you too much on it, but....Imo, the fact that the data does not support the common ancestor via microevolutionary means we see today is not surprising, but shows a common pattern, repeated over and over again in living biota and in the fossil record, namely that we just don't see the mythical? common ancestor....ever.So I see the data as very consistent in this regard, and not very consistent with the claims of mainstream evos. So from a science perspective, I think looking for alternative approaches are in order.For example, one might conclude that the 3 kingdoms emerged separately from chemical properties, but that the shared features are simply the result of necessitating similarities based on the design of chemicals that "evolved" into life. Now, part of the problem is we have no real evidence abiogenesis has ever or can ever occur, but if we are to assume it did occur, then we should have to assume those same properties embedded into the design of chemistry might lead to certain common design features and perhaps even common mutations at certain points along the way.Another approach is to consider that there was some meddling by intelligent life, whether a Creator or alien, seeding the planet as it were, and another approach is special creation by the biblical Creator.

quote:

---

I neither agree nor disagree with Woese's hypothesis.

Then it is difficult to engage you too much on it, but....

---

Why should that matter ? We are supposedly discussing the data and argumentation that supports your idea that we should reject common descent of the three domains (see Message 99). My opinion of Woese's hypothesis is not really relevant to that.

quote:

---

Imo, the fact that the data does not support the common ancestor via microevolutionary means we see today is not surprising, but shows a common pattern, repeated over and over again in living biota and in the fossil record, namely that we just don't see the mythical? common ancestor....ever.

---

So it fits a "pattern" which is in fact based on the limitations of the fossil record. That isn't much of an argument.

quote:

---

So I see the data as very consistent in this regard, and not very consistent with the claims of mainstream evos. So from a science perspective, I think looking for alternative approaches are in order.

---

So essentially you are arguing that we should agree with the opinions of scientists when they are convnenient for you, but not when they contradict your beliefs. I don't find that a sensible idea.If you are not arguing that then what is there distingushing Woese's views that you agree with and the massive scientific consensus that the evidence supports evolution ? Surely the consensus view should be accorded more weight than the views of one researcher.

quote:

---

For example, one might conclude that the 3 kingdoms emerged separately from chemical properties, but that the shared features are simply the result of necessitating similarities based on the design of chemicals that "evolved" into life. Now, part of the problem is we have no real evidence abiogenesis has ever or can ever occur, but if we are to assume it did occur, then we should have to assume those same properties embedded into the design of chemistry might lead to certain common design features and perhaps even common mutations at certain points along the way.

​

Another approach is to consider that there was some meddling by intelligent life, whether a Creator or alien, seeding the planet as it were, and another approach is special creation by the biblical Creator.

---

This is speculation, not argument. In case you have forgotten you are meant to be arguing FOR an alternative view, not just suggesting possibilities.As I pointed out before, if we give weight to Woese's opinions on the problem then Woese's opinion on the solution must carry more weight than speculation on your part. If we say that Woese's opinion carries no wieght then we may side with those scientists who reject the existence of the problem. Since both options leave us rejecting your views, you need to present data and arguments to show that your views explain the data better than Woese's.i

And living biota and since the fossil record matches living biota in neither showing the mythical common ancestors, it's a very powerful argument indeed, and your position is based on a hopelessly untestable argument that the fossil record is so incomplete as to never show the common ancestor. Wrong, but as usual for evos, the argument consists for evos not on the facts but on twisted illogic. Woese's identification of the problem is based on actual data, but the progenote is hypothetical. Someone that actually believed ToE should be empirical would recognize that there is a difference in the data and hypothesis.The issue is not whether Woese is more correct than I, an argument from authority so common among evos (typical logical fallacy), but whether he is correct. Once you resort to saying we must accept all of the conclusions and comments in a paper or none of it, you have committed a logical fallacy, and that's essentially what you are doing.Edited by randman, : No reason given.