Woese's progenote hypothesis

Well apparently this is why. Do you fully understand it? I certainly don't because I'm not a biologist. 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.

There's no evidence for ID. If there's no evidence for ID why must it be considered? 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. 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! 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.

No hard evidence for sure, but our current knowledge of both chemistry and evolution leads in that direction. 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. Goddidit is not very useful explanation. The question of how it was physically done still needs to be answered... Science, as you will no doubt have been told, is NOT faith. it's built on testible hypotheses derived from observation. "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.

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. 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. 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.

They are both the same thing. Science does not use this distinction. "Macroevolution" is simply "microevolution" over a long period of time. Yes it was a mess. The fraud had gone unnoticed by many for years. But truth did surface. 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.

As I said they are both the same thing. Speciation is the key. Some examples:Observed Instances of Speciation
A Site About Technology, Aerospace, Agriculture, AI, Apple Inc., Architecture, Artificial Intelligence, Arts, Astronomy, Biotechnology & More | Technology TrendsHaving 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... Somehow been predetermined? A truly brilliant hypothesis.Can you give me a link to your thread?Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

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.

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.

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.

I asked that very question back in messge 81, if not earlier.

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.