Woese's progenote hypothesis

I was going to ask Bradcap1 in a differn't tHread, if his insistance contra both RAZD and I was due to his rejecting the CONCEPT of "the cell" in life.Such a rejection of this fairly stable staple of biology (cork generalized) seems the only reason I can fathom Woese's theme while dropping the Woese name. Rejection of the cell is possible to me but only with a lot of attention to the word "organ" while that lingo would not ever concurrently denote 'tissue.'

quote:

---

his progenote the more

simpler form? especially

if the genotype and phenotype aren't so tightly linked.

---

Oh Yea, here we go................Well, the notion of "form" would be MORE complicated even if the object denoted was less IF the genotype and phenotype were less linked than any notes"". Symbolic logicians seem not to worry about this stuff and neither did Wolfram but I think that a junk yard would rather look more like a tornado than a frog.This is the *price* that empiricism PAYS and it has sold it self out to Goethe's ya knew who.....The *reason* the form connoted is not simpler is because a potentially infinte event, the NAMING of a cell or cellular organism, is doubly (once with 'type' and then with the 'note') is doubly finitized on aposterori purpose. I think this is not correct and but is all the university environment tends to say is higher or promote.

quote:

---

It just means that the "last universal common ancestor" may in some sense be ancestors, plural.

---

I think this is probably what Will Provine meant when he said in passing to me, about a conversation he had with L. Margulis in Syracuse this past Spring, that he was personally not dissatisfied with NEVER knowing how the bacteria are properly to have been divided over time.I thought that this was surprising (not in the context of evolutionary thought in general (which I would have had in the same breath with Richard Boyd on another occassion about species selection etc)) but only in reference to Will's comments about USING the chimp/human DNA differences/similarities against creationists without much of a segue in the same event as we/one might posit is available on EvC.

Making the argument that the phenotype and the genotype are precisely linked or linkABLE is perhaps a more tortuous route in the sense I rather than Gould intended (chapter "Species as Individuals in the Herierchical Theory of Selection" in Structure ofEvolutionaryTHeory Page648...)when he was determined to disACCount BOTH (actual footnote page 642) of Eldredrge's economic and Williams' "codical" dualized biologos hierarchies.Woses' loosening of the aggregate geno-phenoTYPEs seems definiatively to me, even phonotically, to be due Williams' lapse nonmaterially of skiped organismic selectivity (as noted by Gould) but I also wish to deprecate in the "architect"(Gould's failure to extend the written design of form-making and translation in space to coherent vs perfect vs adherent" biologic of design" in a discontinuous morphospace) of complex organic adaptibility while an actual adaptation to be argued in group for was... contrary to Gould...There MIGHT be room for the logical connections of Woses' and other breeds but I *suspect*(contra Wolfram as well) the organismic temporal and cyclical nautre of macrothermodynamics BETWEEN the mutation form and niche construction will rule out any dual hierarchy in biology and support Gould's position of a single hierarchy while also putting positive neobiological constraints on the CONCEPT of species selection.