Woese's progenote hypothesis

randman makes this misinterpretation in several places, so I'm going to make this a general reply for simplicity.what you think woese is saying, randman, as far as I can tell, is this:it is highly improbable, to impossible, for the three major kingdoms (the urkingdoms, or Fungi, Plantae, Animalia) to have evolved from a single, or common, ancestor.this is what Woese says:it is highly unlikely, to impossible, that Animalia gave way to Fungi and Plantae,or that Plantae gave way to Fungi and Animalia,or that FUngi gave way to Plantae and Animalia.This is what PaulK is saying.oh, and for whoever it was who was wondering when the major urkingdoms came about . . .if I remember from my biology book correctly (reece and campbell)
Animalia, Plantae, and Fungi all appear right around 600 mya. and oddly, to me, Plantae was the last to appear, so long as I remember the chart correctly. being out of high school now, I no longer have that book to check on.another fun tidbit that several of you most likely know--FUngi are more closely related to animals than to plants. again, from the reece and campbell (or is it campbell and reece?) book.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

I thought that lithodid man (it was him, i think) used urkingdom for the eukaryotic kingdoms. stupid changing of classification. I'm more familiar with the term domain for bacteria, archaebacteria, and eukaryote.apparently Woese, and you all in this thread, are using kingdom as I would domain.urgh.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

from what I understand, this paper is old. From what I understand, a creature such as his progenote would have evolved by something already stated on this thread, and I think it was differential reproductive success (actually, that's not the term. close, but not quite. either Lithodid or modulus used the term for how they evolve).
what this means, is that they evolved by known means. So no, known evolutionary processed can account for it. isn't his progenote the more simpler form? especially if the genotype and phenotype aren't so tightly linked.oh, and they are still linked to some degree, so natural selection would still play a part in their evolution, as I understand.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

let me ask you this. if you saw three kids. they all have brown hair, brown eyes, and . . . blue (no, green skin ). and several other characteristics in common.would you guess, that maybe, just maybe their related in some way? or that all three of them are not related in any way? which is more probable?
and you know what, bacteria, archaebacteria, and eukaryotes share some very basic, important characteristics that lead us to this conclusion that we share a common ancestor (never mind the DNA sequencing, or whatever it is they do also--i'm no geneticist, so I generally don't understand what exactly it is their doing)oh, and I'm sure that even if you did somehow manage to prove common descent to be wrong, ToE will be just fine. After all, evolution is more about natural selection on organisms than about everyone being descended from a common ancestor.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

there isn't. randman just likes to think that "oh my god, someone is challenging evolution, and they're a scientist!" "I guess that menas that there's a massive, gaping hole that evolution has that must mean it's wrong!" "yippee, yahoo, we're saved, we're all saved!"it seems that he might not get that science changes, unlike religion.
and that science must change as our understanding gets better. we find problems with the original stuff from new things we learn, we change the original to work with the new. that's how we moved from geocentric to heliocentric, that's how we moved from newton's theory of gravity to einstein's theory of relativity, that's how we moved from "birds are colorful so that we can enjoy God's work" to "birds are colorful for purposes of mating, camoflauge (probably misspelled too)"religion, on the other hand, never has to change. it's explanation's are fixed in not only God did it, but in the bible (or whatever other relgious text you might use). Noah's ark will always be Noah's ark. Saul's meeting with God (or angel? unfamiliar with details here) will always be that. there is no further understanding to be learned, there is no change in the major doctrines of any religion. it is used to explain the world in a supernatural way, not a natural way.which is why science has to change as we learn more. because we further figure out how nature works, and our orginal models jsut don''t cut it. but, God did it covers everything in the past, present, and future. all mysteries solved. it's a miracle, mystery solved. it's god's will, mystery, or question, solved. god did it, mystery, or question, solved.besides, how many christians are going to give up that Jesus really did become ressurrected. Or what about the muslims changing that rule about never depict Mohamed, or the Jews and their kosher food and not eating pork?(sorry for any mischaracterizations of said person being charicturized (i know I spelled that one wrong))

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

never, in all my biology classes, has evolution been defined as from the american heritage dictionary:
a gradual process by which something changes into a different and usaully more complex or better fromthe process of devolopinggradual devolopmentBiologychange in gnetic composition of a population of organisms during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variations of individuals, and resulting in the development of new speciesthe historical devolopment of a related group of organismslast ones deal with math.notice how the only mention of common descent (only hinted at, really, the wrod isn't even used) is in the last one.even IF, the three domains (you all are using kingdom instead) are not related, we still have evolution in each of the three domains.as I said, even without common descent, ToE still holds, and yes, it has more to do with NS than with common descent.the difference between ToE and say, ID, is that ID refuses macroevolution. macroevolution, a term not even really used by scientists except for when dealing with you all, is accepted, and validated by the evidence, by the data, as far as the scientific community is concerned.the only reason ID and creationism have accepted NS is becuase we, byond a shadow of a doubt, proved that speciation occurs, and the NS is a force in biology.and as every one else is saying, you're making a mountain out of a molehill. So what if the common ancestor isn't a genote, it's a progenote. That doesn't change things all that much. There had to be something that lead to the genotes, no?what the topic of this thread is, is this:"the evidence points to there being NO common ancestor, even though Woese says there still is on, even if it's not a genote" and "this is further proof that ID is true, becuase evolution is wrong"you see, Woese's hypothesis isn't a deathblow to ToE. in fact, it would help strengthen it, becuase if anything, it adds a new facet to evolution, explaining how the first genotes would have come along. (or course, WK says that it doesn't add that much explanatory power to begin with, so . . .).

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

from modulus.
something tells me this isn't a totally new, radically different, evolution.what you want us to say is that we accept that Woese believes that evolution happened. umm . . . duh!it's like asking a bunch of Christians to admit the Jesus is their lord and saviour.the problem you have, is that you dress this evolution up as someting that is incredibly detrimental to ToE.
that's like saying that, hey, Jesus wasn't caucasian is completley detrimental to the christian worldview, and thus invalidates it.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

unfortunately, sarcasm just doesn't travel well over the net.that was for the whole "something tells me . . ."if I've been calling you ignorant directly, please tell me where. so I can bold it.I read your OP. I read that section of the paper that you feel is so important to discounting evolution.you seem to want to convert a lot of people who accept evolution to accept evolution. odd, no?in my honest opinion, I think you goofed. you thought you had someting absolutley amazing for invalidating common descent, because it seems that you want to move this thread in the direction of--there is no common descent, all the while you defend Woese's statement advocating common descent. you're confusing rand, and a touch inconsistent.trust me, I know lamarkian evolution. that's the whole use, disuse. Or rather, don't use, lose it. Like, a man with large muscles will have a son with large muscles, never mind that the size, or rather strength, or one's muscles are acuired in your life, and can't be passed on.I'm going to guess that vertical evolution deals with what we observe today. Or that it has something to with the phylogenies, which have a tendency to be depicted like a tree. other than that, it could mean that we have one common ancestor, as compared to horizontal evolution, which would mean several root organisms in the tree. it's not too hard to figure out what some of this stuff means when you look at it in context.and no, Woese isnt' introducing a radically new type of evolution. Just like punctuated equilibrium wasn't radically new when it was introduced. The two who came up with merely put a pattern everyone was seeing into words.ANd I find it absolutley hilarious that you are definding a paper suppporting common descent, when what you want to say is that there is no such thing. way to go rand, way to go.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

wrong.
Lamarkian evolution had traits being passed on, Lamark just got the wrong kind of traits, and the wrong reason as to why they were passed on(did he even have a reason?). Turns out, it's traits linked to your genes that are passed on, because the genes are what is passed on to hte next generation, and it turns out that the ones that get passed on on the more succesful at reproducing.
2 + 2 + 4 is not radically different from 3 + 1 = 4.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

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

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

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

randman wants to make a case against common descent, by using a paper that supports common descent. at least, thats how it seems. of course, he hasn't moved on to his argument for disproving common descent, but he continually brings up his belief that the evidence is better acounted for by having no common descent--something about if abiogenesis (or creation) is right, then it should have happened many times, and if the chemistry dictates the molecules so that they have to be what they are, then we should expect to see several lines of organisms that appear similar, without them having a common ancestor. as to creation, he says no common descent becuase the same artist made the three lines of life.yeah . . .ABE:
oh, and the usual, "hey, this paper has something against evolution (becuase it introduces what he calls a radical solution, progenotes with HGT, which isn't really all that radical) so this means that evolution has a serious flaw and isn't right" routine.Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

what if our common ancestor, or ancestors, were the ones to make it, and all other attempts failed. keep in mind, the earth is large, a million plus years is a damn long time. it isn't too mind boggling to think that there could have been other successful attempts. just, our ancestors were the best.after all, there still is survival of the fittest.there may have been non-carbon based life, using heavier atoms. there imagining something similar might be possible of Titan, one of saturn's moons (if it's not titan, its the one with the volcanos and methane ocean). life using methane instead of water.the only thing we know for sure is that there was no life at one point. and then, there was life. and we are the only living things left. we, as in all of us DNA, carbon based lifeforms, are all that's left.oh, and just because Woese couldn't, or still can't, see how a genote could evolve into the three domains with vertical evolution does not make it so. he could be completely wrong. quetzal already mentioned the symbiosis theory (name right?) where eukaryotes were formed by the synthesis of a couple to several bacteria into one unicellular organism. that knocks out one kingdom. the other thing, is that as far as I know, we know the chemical pathways, the cell structure, etc of archaebacteria, uebacteria, and eukaryotes of today, and we're fairly certain of what they were millions of years ago. question is, when they first split, were bacteria and archaebacteria really that different? or has that difference come along? does he have any data for this? is their any new data as to this?

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

like the handwaving Behe did just recently, in regards to a reconstructed (Hox1 ?) gene?

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences