Woese's progenote hypothesis

quote:

---

In other words, he cannot see anyway that is feasible or reasonable for a common ancestor to evolve into what he classifies as the 3 primary kingdoms, at least if their shape and characteristics are handed down by their genes and so mutations are selected via natural selection and sothe creatures' features evolve via gradual change into different creatures. This is important. He says the changes "are too drastic and disruptive to have actually occurred."

---

This is a clear example of taking a quote out of context. Woese refers only to one of the three Kingdoms evolving from another. Accordingly Woese proposes that all three Kingdoms evolved from a significantly simpler ancestor. Naturally any such ancestor will be "hypothetical", because all currently existing life that we know of does fit into the three Kingdoms.Even the question on reliability is answered in Woese's text. In the end it may be that the relationship between genotype and phenotype is not that weak. Woese propo ses that the progenote had disconnected genes, existing in multiple copies and that a simple (relative to modern organisms) mechanism would remove flawed copies. Let me add one more quote: That was written in 1987. It is now nearly TWO decades later. From the authors ow n words we know that this work is well out of date.aaaEdited by PaulK, : Corrected first quote to refer to the part of the post I had in minfEdited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Look at the statement that he is arguing that "the last alternative", that "the universal ancestor was very unlike any of them," is his position. Do you deny this is his argument?

---

No. I disagree with your assertion that Woese:

quote:

---

...cannot see anyway that is feasible or reasonable for a common ancestor to evolve into what he classifies as the 3 primary kingdoms, at least if their shape and characteristics are handed down by their genes and so mutations are selected via natural selection and so the creatures' features evolve via gradual change into different creatures

---

quote:

---

Woese refers only to one of the three Kingdoms evolving from another.

​

Wrong. Woese states:

​

In my opinion the changes in overall cell structure, organization,etc., required to change one of the three phenotypes into either of the others are too drastic and disruptive to have actually occurred.
Accepting all this, the only solution to the problem is for the universal ancestor to have been a progenote.

---

This support my statemement. It shows that the "drastix and disruptive" changes Woese has in mind are those "required to change one of the three phenotypes into either of the others". They are NOT as you would have it, those required for a the three phenotypes to share a common ancestor.

quote:

---

Undeniably woese is not arguing that one kingdom spawned the other 2, as you claim

---

I made no such claim.
I

Without a context your comment is practically meaningless. The existence of the work, for instance could still be relevant even if the entirity of the contents were superceded. Even then, not all of it will be superceded. So the readers of this thread have no way of knowing if there is any substance to your implied complaint.Not that it raises any major problems for evolutionary models (for instance the fact that the basic mechanism for translation is largely conserved supports the idea of a common ancestor).)

quote:

---

Specifically, what doeshe mean when he says a progenote is the only possibility?

---

He means that it is, in his judgement, the only option that fits well with the evidence. However he argues that on the basis that the mechanisms of high-fidelity reproduction themselves appear to have largely evolved since the common ancestor. He does not argue against the evolution from a common ancestor.

quote:

---

Are you arguing that a progenote is merely a collage of all three? If you are, then you disagree with Woese here.

---

I have posted nothing which even suggests such a possiblity.

quote:

---

I have taken nothing out of context.

---

Do the "drastic and disruptive" changes referred to Woese refer to evolving one of the 3 Kingdoms from another or for "a common ancestor to evolve into what he classifies as the 3 primary kingdoms" as you would have it ?

quote:

---

You are simply avoiding his argument completely.

---

This is false. I am not disagreeing with anything Woese states.a

I notice that you do not address the content of my post at all. That shows who is really evading.The more so since you did not even allow me sufficient time to reply to the post where you first asked the question.-

quote:

---

You are not answering. Why does he propose a progenote, Paulk?
A general answer that he did so in his judgement based on the evidence, blah, blah, blah,....is simply an evasion of engaging the facts here.

---

I have answered. The reason is because most of the mechanism for high-fidelity reproduction seem to have arisen after the division between the three kingdoms. Giving an answer you do not like is not an evasion.

quote:

---

And no one claims that he doesn't argue for common descent. Obviously he does or he would not propose the hypothetical or perhaps mythical? construct of a progenote

---

Now this is an evasion. Do you accept that Woese's "drastic and disruptive" changes referred only to evolving the ppheotype of one kingdom from that of another or do you still insist that Woese meant: As you claimed in the OP ?

quote:

---

I am addressing your posts

---

Your Message 14 is a reply to my Message 13 It does not address the points raised there. Instead it accuses me of evasion apparently on the grounds that I had not instantly answered your Message 12 which I had not even seen at the time I wrote Message 13.

quote:

---

You claimed I was taking something out of context

---

But NOT in Message 13 which is a reply to your Message 10, which does nto deal with that issue at all.

quote:

---

I asked you why he proposes a progenote to get you to deal with the facts and arguments presented in the paper.

---

Which again avoids the primary issue - which is that the paper itself indicates that it would likely be outdated within a decade. A point which you failed to "deal with" in your OP. And a point you are still failing to deal with.

Yes, Woese's claims are in thw OP, and it is quite clear that the "drastic and disruptive" changes refer only to evolving the phenotypes of two Kigndoms from another one. (emphasis mine)While mey researches have yet to find a clear answer on the status of the progenote hypothesis I have found statements that suggest that Woese has significantly modified his view and that the hypothesis is not widely accepted. Of course since you are the one pushing the paper it is your responsibility to show that it is not outdated, when even the author anticipated that it would be superceded some years ago.As for the question of why it is futile to discuss things let me remind you that in a previous encounter you tried to argue that an essay that explicitly stated that universal common descent should not be considered a fact really claimed that univewrsal common descent WAS a fact. And that you used such rational arguments as quoting another article with a different author that happened to be on the same site. Or the argument that you had used the quote from the other essay earlier in the thread. Neither of which are even relevant, let alone adequate to override an explicit statement within the essay under discussion. And you accused me of not answering your points then, too. Even though I had. You, on the other hand never offered any reason whe we should disregard the explicit statement in the text, even though it was quoted for you more than once.
Edited by PaulK, : Add emphasis to quotei

quote:

---

PaulK, you are still misreading what Woese is saying. Maybe you would accept it more from Lithidid-Man?

---

Not at all. The phrase "drastic and disruptive" occurs in relation to deriving two of the Kingdoms from a third, as I have shown. It appears nowhere else in the text quoted in the OP. Thus to use it in reference to anything else - as you did - is to take it out of context. QED.

quote:

---

Maybe you would accept it more from Lithidid-Man?

---

As you recognised early on, the point under issue is Woese's reasons for proposing a progenote. You asserted in the OP it was because "drastic and disruptive" changes would be required in more conventional scenarios (taking Woese's words out of context). Lithodid-man says that Woeses reasons for proposing a progenote lie in the molecular clock data Message 24, Message 35. Since you tell me to accept his posts - where he clearly disagees with you - citing molecular clock data instead - you are apparently admitting that you were in error.Thus it seems that I was correct in pointing out that you had taken Woese's words out of context and as a result misrepresented his argument.

quote:

---

PaulK, you seem unable to connect the dots here.

---

As I will demonstrate the problem is on your part.

quote:

---

The fact that such changes would have to be drastic and severe is an argument Woese makes not just of one kingdom evolving into the other

---

Lets look at the relevant section of your OP again The phrase "too drastic and disruptive to have actually occurred" appears - as I showed - in an argument against the idea that one of the three kingdoms represents the ancestral state of all three.Thus you took it out of context.

quote:

---

The reason that he doesn't think a genote could have been involved is that the changes are too drastic and severe.

---

As has already been demonstrated this is a misrepresentation. Woese says no such thing.

quote:

---

You just aren't grasping what Woese is talking about, and so ignorantly insist things are taken out of context.

---

No, I am truthfully pointing out that Woese only uses the phrase "too drastic and disruptive to have actuall y occurred" in arguing that the common ancestor cannot have been a membe of one of the 3 Kingdoms. I produced the quote where the phrase actually appears in my previous post and it is absolutely clear that you are misrepresenting Woese by taking that quo te out of context.

quote:

---

Keep in mind Woese is not just arguing that one kingdom could not evolve the other 2 He deals with that because that is one attractive scenario. He is arguing that no genote could evolve the 3 kingdoms of genotes.

​

Do you get that?

---

Of course I do. I haven't denied it. The issue is where the phrase "too drastic and disruptive to have actually occurred" appears in the text. As I have shown it appears in the section arguing that the ancestor cannot have been a member of one of the 3 Kingdoms and nowhere else.Just because Woese uses that phrase in one of his arguments, it does not automatically become part of any other argument he happens to make.Do YOU get that ??tEdited by PaulK, : Provide reason for edit here.A

quote:

---

Paulk, you just aren't accepting the point that the argument related to the inability of one kingdom to evolve into another is part of a larger argument that no genote, not even one outside of those kingdoms, could evolve into the 3 kingdoms. You have been told this but refuse to acknowledge the basics of Woese's argument

---

This is a complete falsehood.

quote:

---

Let me ask you this. If Woese' argument is merely than one kingdom could not evolve into the other 2, then why does he propose a progenote?

​

Please answer.

---

That is not Woese's argument. Nor have I said that it is Woese's argument.

quote:

---

Please back this up, Paulk.

---

Here's the proof again There we have the phrase "too drastic and disruptive to have actually occurred" in context. And it applies to the idea that of evolving "one of the three phenotypes into either of the others".There is the proof - yet again - that you misrepresented Woese in claiming that it refers directly to evolving the three kingdoms from a simpler genote.S o I have proved my point.

quote:

---

Why does Woese propose a progenote?

---

In the quoted text it is because: and Woese states that:

quote:

---

If you are saying his argument is not that the changes are too great to have evolved from a genote, then why is the molecular clockrelevant?

---

The molecular clock is relevant becaise Woese says that th e changes arose too quickly.But it ISN'T relevant to the point I am making.The point is that you took the phrase "too drastic and disruptive to have actually occurred". I have proved that by quoting the context that it does appear in. More than once.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Since you have edited your postI will deal with your major addiiton her

quote:

---

Furthermore, if you read the quote in the OP, it is clearly evident that I am not taking his comments out of context. Note this:

​

It is hard to avoid concluding that the universal ancestor was a very different entity than its descendants. If it were a more rudimentary sort of organism, then the tempo of its evolution would have been high and the mode of its evolution highly varied, greatly expanded.

---

Well then IF this quote proves that you are not taking the phrase "too drastic and disruptive to have actually occurred" out of context, then that phrase must actually be in there. It isn't. So in fact your quote supports my claim that you did take it out of context.

quote:

---

Woese is clearly arguing that the universal ancestor could not be a "more rudimentaty sort of organism" of the 3 kingdoms, and so asserts that it had to be a progenote and so possess a different sort of evolutionary process.

​

Why is that so hard for you to get?

---

Since I used the exact same quote before even reading this eidt of yours it is apparent that I do "get it".So this is just another false accusation, concocted to try and divert attention away from the fact that you took a quote from Woese out of context.e

quote:

---

So Woese is arguing that the changes needed are so drastic, or as he says here containing "far more novelty", that a genote doesn't work.

---

To say that he meant "drastic" is strained. To say that he meant "drastic and disruptive" is an outright falsehood. There is nothing stating or implying that the necessary changes would be disruptiveIt is not even the magnitude of the changes that are the issue here - but the speed. Woese explictly refers to "tempo".

quote:

---

He then says the same thing about the idea that maybe one kingdom evolved the other 2, thus trying to get around that problem.

---

The problem is that he DOESN'T say the same thing. What you need to recognise is that there is a significant difference between making major changes to existing functions (which, according to Woese is required to evolve one of the kingdoms from another) and developing them independantly from a simpler state. Woese recognises the difference which is why he argues that the former case - and only the former case - requires "drastic and disruptive" change.

quote:

---

Nothing is being taken out of context here. You are just ignoring his argument for some reason.

---

A complete falsehood. I've already proven that you did take the reference to "drastic and disruptive" changes out of context.

quote:

---

...you fail to acknowledge that the argument about one kingdom evolving the other 2 is itself within a specific context of arguing for a progenote, and so not taken out of context at all.

---

So lets get this straight.1) Woese is arguing for the common ancestor of the 3 Kingdoms being a progenote2) He has several subarguments for that. One is a general argument based on the tempo of evolution he believes is needed and the second speciically deals with the possibility that one of the three kingdoms is an ancestor of the other two.3) According to you if we take part of one subargument and say that it applies to another subargument it is not taking it out of context.Of course this is false. An argument has to be rationally connected. A statement that is true when considering the case of (a branch of) one of the three kingdoms evolving into another, may not be true when considering the case of all three kingdoms evolving from a simpler genote. Thus the fact that Woese uses it in the former context is no reason to claim that it applies in the latter context. Asserting that they appear within a larger context in no way changes this.Thus it is clear that your position simply provides an excuse to misrepresent Woese. e

quote:

---

There is absolutely no misrepresentation in the OP whatsoever. Nothing you have written shows that.

---

You mean that conclusive proof isn't good enough for you ?

quote:

---

In fact, what you seem so blissfully ignorant of is what he means by "tempo.

---

Of course this is a laughable attempt at an insult given that I notived and understood the reference while you did not.

quote:

---

The argument on tempo is directly related to the argument that the changes are too great because what he is saying is that in order to evolve such large changes, the tempo would have to unusually accelerated

---

More accurately the changes are (in Woese's view) too great FOR THE TIME AVAILABLE. That is why tempo is an issue.

quote:

---

I mean how can you claim an argument about tempo is not an argument about the changes being too great?

---

By understanding the difference between the concepts of rate and magnitude. Tempo refers to rate, not to absolute magnitude. You fail to make that basic distinction which iaccounts for your error. No doubt you will insult me again for understanding more than you.