Woese's progenote hypothesis

Ok, so the Bible is scientific evidence when it agrees with you, but not when it disagrees with you. Makes so much sense.... You can. I just want you to recognize it for what it is. I am not that concerned about your beliefs. I am more concerned about your reasoning process, and believe if we can get some self-awareness of what that is and what it isn't, that you (plural you really) will be more open to truth. This is pretty funny. Yep, and new taxa are not evolving either. If you cannot see the inconsistencies of your position here, I am not sure explaining it to you will help much. I'd love to, but you guys have a hard time separating facts and data from interpretation and theory. You have no evidence for that. That's the problem. If life started, it could be every life-form was and will always be carbon-based, and so saying because all life forms are carbon-based means they had a single living common ancestor is a fallacy. So all three basic kingdoms are the same, eh? Or all species, genera, family, etc,...? Can you try going over those "facts" again. Seems like you have posted a bunch of theories and called them facts, and then say your "facts" which are really theories fit your overall theory, which you probably think of as a fact as well. Your approach is classic myth-making disguised as science. Unbelievable! Not sure if a comment is even needed.

Can you provide a little more detail for this argument? We see evos claiming identical or nearly identical features arose independently all the time, such as the Placental and Marsupial pairs, the emergence of the mammalian ear bones, etc,.... Now, there you guys state that just because there are alternative structures that could work does not mean they shared a common ancestor with those structures, and criticize creationists who point out the improbability of such identical designs evolving into the same patterns.Evos say environmental factors dictate the patterns, which imo, is totally insufficient an explanation, but this is the reasoning given to justify the data and maintain common descent.Now, apparently the environmental factors of chemistry are so wide-ranging that similarities must necessitate a common living ancestor?If abiogenesis occurs, there is a design within chemistry for it occuring, a formula if you would, and this information-set probably dictates, if it is real, what would and can evolve. That, to me, seems infinitely more reasonable than the current evo approach, being inconsistent within itself. Why? If the design for abiogeneis exists within the properties of chemistry, why wouldn't it dictate that the genetic code would arise and even dictate nearly the same genetic code? So on the one hand, abiogenesis is treated as a near certain fact without knowing anything about it, and yet then to make an inference as I have, you insist since we do not know anything about it, your scenario must be the right one. And you, as a scientist, don't see any problem with that?The fact is you guys posit that extremely rare, hypothetical situations happen all the time because of the extreme length of times involved with geologic time. That is a basic staple of evolutionist logic, but to apply that same logic to the beginning of life, all of the sudden is wrong? If it is a rare occurence, given the millions or billions of years involved, it would take a miracle for it to happen only once or for only one lineage to survive, and moreover, there is no reason to think it wouldn't happen approximately the same way multiple times. But imo, advocating miracles is staple of evolutionist thought, but just minus the Miracle-maker.On the cattle argument, the point is interdependence. It's not meant to be a precise example, but to illustrate what should be an unchallenged point, namely that life is an interdependent process. To assume that one lineage would only compete rather than become interdependent of the other is a false assumption. In fact, if the 3 kingdoms arose independently, they clearly demonstrate interdependence and so prove my point.

such misunderstanding, again.I don't use the bible as scientific evidence. I was pointing out that your statement did not make any sense if you follow your own belief. I get the impression you are a creationist, furthermore, one that accepts that genesis is factual. I was poitning out the contradiction in your statment and genesis. genesis clearly implies that life, at one point, did not exist. and then god made life. contrary to your statement, that claimed that life has alwasy existed, which means that there never was a beginnnig, or creation event. in order to have a creation event, you have to have a point at which that which is being created did not exist.I believe I understand my reasoning process. while it isn't perfect, it's pretty damn good. better, at any rate, then your's which lead to the above contradiction. you believe in a creation, but no creation took place?what's inconsistent about my post? and you're right, new taxa aren't evolving. we only have domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species. so you're right, we don't have any quikles. as to they way you probably meant it, you're wrong again. you do accept that speciation has occured, right? I mean, you all consider it microevolution and variations within kind, but species is below kind, right? and species is one of the taxonomic levels. hmm, your statement is false. you're right. We don't have any evidence for multiple lines of creation, particulularly with non carbon based lifeforms. but . . . hmm . . .as to the facts you disagree that this is a fact? you disagree that this is a fact? you disagree that Miller and Urey created said molecules? and that others have repeated the experiment with different possible early erath conditions? are you suggesting you know of life that isn't carbon based and uses DNA/RNA? as to the first part of this statement. it ties in with a creation event. that is, there was a time when the creation of life was possible. you may choose to believe that this was when God created life. you disagree that God did not have the conditions necessary for making life? especially given his omnipotent power, he could make those conditions exist whenever he wants. as to the second part, that about the conditions being around for quite some time, requires you to accept that the earth is roughly 4 billion years, and that the first evidence of life is around 3.6 billion years. that leaves 400 million years for that planet to cool down from initial creation to the early earth atmosphere. granted, you have to accept that this is fact, according to science.I don't think my hypothesis (what you called theory) is fact. it is, at best, a layman's interpretation of what could have happened. it is very difficult for me to travel back in time (as it is for all people) to see these events for my self. but logic tells me there are only a few possibilities based off of the facts at hand. and your's isn't?

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

"Know" here on this thread refers to the scientific sense of "know." We don't know that life did not exist always in the past. That's a factual and scientific statement. So you arguing from your vantage point that we know life did not exist is sort of silly since you don't know that.You then presented the Bible as the means of knowing; hence my statements to you.But you here are a good example of the typical fallacious arguments of evos. Try to stick evos with a discussion based purely on facts and science, and more often than not they will introduce the Bible, theology, God, etc,...and that's because the facts are uncomfortable for you guys. You really can't figure it out, can you? To say that, hey, we see no examples of abiogenesis occuring today and that means it only happened once is internally inconsitent on several points. First, we see no evidence is just as much evidence it didn't happen as it only happened once. Secondly, the fact that within maybe 50 years of looking or less, considering our levels of technology, we see no evidence of something that could occur quite a lot under evo dating if it occurred once every, say, 1000 or million years, is an incredibly ignorant and fallacious argument on your part. Third, evos are the ones always saying very rare things are probable because of the immense time-scales involved, and yet now you argue the opposite. Not a fact. That is a belief, but probably true. That life exists here is an observed fact. Yep, fact. So what? I don't disagree they can CREATE such molecules, and I bet people today can engineer new life forms too. So what?Note btw, and not that it is relevant, but they did not duplicate conditions of earth's early atmosphere. Once again, so what? First, the experiments done that you referred to were based on a faulty understanding of the earth's early atomosphere, but once again, so what? Organic molecules still exist on the earth, and probably exist elsewhere in the universe as well.If this is your "evidence", you basically have next to nothing.

you called my facts a collection of theories (understadning that theory was being used colloquiolly). I showed them again, asking you if you disagreed with each in or not, in specifics. It seems that you're claim that most of my "facts" were "theories" is falsified by your admission "That life exists here is an observed fact.", "Yep, fact. So what?", "I don't disagree they can CREATE such molecules","Once again, so what?", "but once again, so what? Organic molecules still exist on the earth, and probably exist elsewhere in the universe as well." in all but the first do you agree that they are facts. not a bunch of theories that I think are facts. don't make that claim again, considering you agree with the facts (with the exception of the first one, and I'm calling bull on your part).the reason I used the bible was to show you your inconsistency. the reason we (evolutionists) tend to use the bible for certain things (like the creation of life) is becuase you all (and the theistic evolutionists) are familiar with it. you may not accept abiogieneis, but you do accept that life was made. that sort of deal.as ot abiogenesis. we do not see it happening today. yo're right on that. the reason why? the conditions aren't right. just like you have to have the right conditions for salt to be a liquid, or for magnesium to react with hydrochloric acid, you have to have the right conditions for organic molecules to form. we know what those conditions are, and we know that the early earth atmosphere met those conditions. what is in dispute, as to the conditions, is how much of one thing there was over another. key is, you have to have a reducing atmosphere, not an oxidizing atmosphere to produce organic molecules. guess which one we have today (hint: it's one of the reasons that things decay, rust, etc.) Miller and Urey's experiment had the right atmosphere, but probably just the wrong quatntities of the gases, and yeah, they did create an early earth atmosphere, and their experiment has been repeated by others, to the same effect.I just love how you say evo's are making this claim that rare events are incredibly common, and that this is fallacious. first off, the evos that do this are the ones you consider antithetical to your view. I'm not arguing that it is rare or not--we don't know yet. but, given the time involved, it happened at least once (life being created), and could it happen again, quite possibly. It's rare that yuo'll pull an ace of spades from the top of the deck, but given millions of chances, I'm sure you could pull it at least a few times. Is that argument fallacious? no. I hope you catch the analogy. in refernce to my fact that at one point life did not exist. you state it is also probably true. let me ask you this--do you believe, or not beleive in the account in genesis. Do you beleive, or not believe that God created life. And if you do believe that God created life, do you agree, or disagree, that in order to create, that which is being created cannot have been there? If you agree that God created life, and that for creation to take place the object being created cannot have existed before, you're statement is the one that is wrong, illogical.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

There is a difference between similar structures arising effectively arising independently in different lineages and the same structures with the same genetic basis arising in distinct lineages. Common placental and mammalian body forms follow function but there is nothing to suggest a common genetic basis for the similarities. In contrast the similarities we are discussing in terms of cellular architecture are either inherently genetic or very tightly coupled to the genetic mechanism. Well, yes! Obviously without knowing every possible chemistry of life we are pretty much in the dark as to the chances of any particular type arising, but there is an awful lot of potential chemical interactions out there and a lot of highly varying environments. So without some compelling evidence that DNA and the genetic code as we see it today are the only possible forms for life it is reasonable to posit a common origin for those elements. This seems a completely unwarranted assumption. There is a capacity within chemistry for abiogenesis to occur that does not mean it is designed to occur. There is a capacity for cars to flip over and kill their drivers, but they are not designed to do so. This assumes your inital unevidenced asserion is true and then compunds it with a similar flight of fancy equally without evidence. Why would it do so? How would it do so? Given that there is life on Earth it seems a given that it must have arisen at least once, by whatever means. That done we have no way of knowing if other possible bases for life have temporarily existed nor what other forms of life might exist beyond Earth.To the best of our ability to determine we only have one example of life arising and 1 is a crappy sample size to derive probabilities from.On the other hand we have a large number of repeatable experiments showing the capability form primitive forms of organic matter associated with life to be generated from inorganic matter in an atmosphere consitent with our best estimates of the atmosphere on pre-biotic Earth. I'm not saying we can't say anything about abiogenesis I'm just saying that we can't say anything about the probability for abiogenesis beyond knowing that it is not impossible as it appears to have occured at least once.Yes this does make a materialist assumption, but then science does that and there is considerably more evidence for the materialist scenario than a supernatural one. Mutation is not rare. Any specific given mutation may be rare but evolution does not rely on specific given mutations. That probability argument does not work unless you insist that the current conformation of life on Earth was the intended goal from the outset.None of these points seem to be new or particularly relevant to Woese's paper, you seem to be drifting back to a familiar set of tropes Randman, we already have threads for discussing morphological and genetic homology and some sort of chemical/genetic frontloading.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

It's a theory and a wrong one, that the Miller experiments duplicated earth's atmosphere, and that's not your only argument either. First, you don't know if it is happening today or not. Secondly, you don't know what conditions are necessary for it to occur, and third, you don't even know if sponteneous generation has ever occurred at all. Now, those are 3 facts, not theories mind you. First, you don't actually know what those conditions were and secondly, what you think you know is apparently out of date and wrong. Uh huh? Not having time to look in-depth, note these comments: http://www.carm.org/evolution_archive/life_origins.htmThis guy thinks it could still happen but would get eaten before too long. Maybe, just maybe, what you think you know, kuresu, you never knew in the first place.But what is mainstream opinion today anyway? Just a moment...Seems to me like your facts were never facts in the first place and never correct either. I know this is hard for you guys because you assert your beleifs as synomous with facts at times, but beliefs and facts are not the same thing. Now, do I think the facts suggest that an Intelligent Designer created the universe? Sure. But as far as science goes, that is a theory.Is science the basis for my religious belief that God and Jesus Christ exist? No, but I doubt science is the basis for your personal relationships either.

We've gone over this before, and it seemed any conclusions were premature, but that you suspected that analogous structures were indeed based on similar or identical genetic patterns.If the same structures can arise without and do arise without a common genetic basis, then why should we assume similar structures represent common descent in the first place? I think you are missing the point. Genes must have evolve, right? So if evos think the environment can dictate common patterns via convergent evolution, then why discount that the chemical environment does and did the same? Well, let's look at what we do know then, and what we know is that life is carbon-based and shares similarities. There is no reason to assume that this is all the result of a common ancestor when it could be that life, or life on earth, could only possess these factors as this is the only way for life to have evolved. We don't even have evidence really that this happened, and so speculating that there may have been other types of life is sort of silly. We have no evidence that any other type of life is possible. So the same pattern could emerge, again and again, and with the same similarities and yet no common ancestor. Hmmm....so without compelling evidence that aliens did not plant life on earth, aliens must have planted life on earth....same sort of logic WK. All the evidence WE DO HAVE is that all life must be carbon-based, genetic, etc,.., and so any occurence of abiogeneis should repeat the same pattern. is this really an unwarranted assumption. If a car flips once, there is a good chance another car of the same make and model has flipped, no? If life can evolve from chemistry and happened once, there is every reason to expect given the billions of years involved, that it has happened a lot, unless you are advocating the action of a Designer. I am not the one out here claiming abiogenesis is likely or a fact. I actually think it's unscientific to believe in spontaneous generation, but if it did happen, it's likely to have happened more than once. Uh, and so you rule out a priori God as having done it, and then claim abiogenesis as a fact even though you have really no way to know that life spontaneously generated, but you are certain if it did, it would not have resulted in the same design, but the same designs occur with convergent evolution, but somehow the same could not happen with abiogenesis, and you really think the evo position here makes sense? But you are saying more. You are saying that if it happened multiple times, it wouldn't always produced DNA, etc,...and I am saying that's bogus. In other words, even if God does something, science must insist that a lie be true and God did it because of the artificial boundary secular scientists have created between natural and supernatural. The only reason for the drift is that you guys won't censer kuresu and to a lesser extent PaulK. You want to the discussion to stay on-topic, but allow all sorts of off-topic comments, arguments, baseless assumptions, etc,.....from the evo-side of things.TTFN,

I love how you avoided my questions in regards to your contradiction of believing in a creating event and saying that life might have always existed. and you still got me wrong with why I'm referencing the bible, as evidenced by Again, I ask you. Do you accept that God created life? (I know you do). Do you accept that life, at one point, did not exist? (based off of "A belief, not fact, but proabably true" lends me to think that you consider the possiblity that life has always existed. which leaves you with a contradiction. why do I think that you consider the possiblity that life has always existed? Let's take a look, shall we. You claim Woese identifies a major problem with ToE, provides solution of common descent. But you want to consider the possibility of no common descent, never mind the evidence against that position. Yet you still consider it. Now, we have the question of life existing. Evidence tells us life didn't exist. But when you state that that's a belief, you give yourself the way out and allow the possiblity that life may have always existed. which gives you a glaring contradiction between your belief in creation and life having always existed.)as to the rest,
do you not know what a theory is? or rather, a scientific one? after all this time on the board, I would think that yuo could have learned something about it.Do I know what the conditions were of the early earth atmoshere? No, I personally don't, but the scientists who study this subject have got some damned good estimates of what it was like. Good enough, that they feel safe enough to repeat experiements like Miller and Urey's. Especially the reducing part I mentioned. why? Check out our iron that we mine. It's been reduced, not oxidized. That'll only happen in a reducing atmoshpere. Today, iron rusts becuase of oxidation, not water, per se.as to miller's experiment. he still got it right. he had his best approximation of early earth atmosphere. And while today's models favor a lot more carbon dioxide, what he proved still holds true. Inorganic molecules can become organic given the right conditions. The chemistry isn't too horrendously difficult, is it?I learned something new thanks to you today. The possibility of life starting anew at those underwater vents. But as you always ask us, so I'll aks you. where's your concrete evidence that life is being started anew there all the time. You ask us for every fossil, I'll ask you for every life creation event at those vents. Like it when we play the same damn game?

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

we have a sample size of one. all life we know of is carbon based. does that mean that all other abiogenesis events should occur like this?no. it's flawed thinking at best. if you flip a coing once, and it lands on heads, it is safe to assume that all other flips will be heads? no. and guess what you're doing here.did you happen to know that on saturn's moon titan, one without water, they are contemplating that life there used methane (or CH4) inplace of water. And yes, they are seriously considering that life could have started on Titan, becuase you've got the right conditions.now then, what happens if they find life on Titan? that'll be an interesting question for you answer, depending on how it applies to you faith.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Kuresu, .....well let me say it like this, you are not the brightest tool in the shed if you still think that is a contradiction. A quick, dumb error is understandable, but .....let's review it. Believing something and stating something is a scientific fact are not the same thing. You appear not to know how to distinquish between the 2.As to the rest of your post, you are just dodging the issues here.You erroneously insist you knew what the atmospheric conditions of early earth were, and in fact, failed to understand even current theories of what the earth's early atmosphere were, much less actuall knew for a fact what it was, and also failed to realize that Miller and Urey didn't even have it right on that point. You have consistently mistated opinions as facts, and not only that, but didn't even realize your ideas on things have been outdated, and yet you post in a deragotory manner as if your argument and reasoning is educated and informed or more educated and informed when clearly that's not the case.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

To be frank, you can't be serious. I cannot believe you are not able to see the fallacy in your post, but maybe circular reasoning is the primary mode of evolutionist thought?But let's give you a chance. Please explain the mechanics of abiogenesis and why those mechanics would allow for non-carbonbased life forms to evolve on earth.

I'll deal with this one first.A)life did not exist at one point
B)life did exist at one point, whether through God's creation or abiogenesis (aGod, to be simple)C)creation happened--life came to be.now let's look at what's required for creation to have happened.A)in order to be created, that something must be made
B)that something that must be made cannot have existed previously. other wise, what's the point of creation?You mean to tell me that your God, the one who you feel created life, after creating the universe, is so powerless that he's copying someone else's work?your position, so far as I can tell, is that life could have always existed, while at the same time your God created life into existence, from where there had been no life. can you tell me how this isn't contradictory?

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

How can life be non carbon based? let's take a look at what carbon is.It is a light atom. It can bond with 4 other atoms to make a stable molecule. It can make a bond in about any position. You can have carbon rings, tetrahedrons, cubes, spheres (though none in life processes, you basically need a star for that last one).It terms of bonding, it's a really good choice, becuase it's stable, there's a lot of it, and you can do a lot with it. But just how many other atoms are there like it?Let's look at silicon, in the same group (column) as carbon. Those in the same column share the same basic characteristics. First, it can also bond with 4 other atoms. It could concievably bond in the same shapes, but I'm not sure--I need the electronegativity numbers and a few other things. It's also relatively abundant on earth. after all, the largest group of rocks are the silicates, and they make up a very large chunk of the crust. so no problems with availability. Only problem with it is that it's more than twice as heavy, so you're more restricted.you can have a silicon based life form. probably not a germanium, tin, lead, or ununquandium based on--their metals, carbon and silicon aren't. all organic molecules are non-metals, but none are noble gases. We have Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorous. If you move to a silicon based on, it's possible to keep those same ones, or have a few different ones, or maybe more than those.what determines abiogenesis is chemical reactions. what we have is a very good estimate of what the early atmosphere was, and so long as the conditions are right, you could end up with a silicon based, instead of carbon based.what's wierder, is that it might, but in my opinion is not very likely, is have life based of other non-metal atoms.what would be even wierder, is if we found a metallic based lifeform.I can get back to you on abiogentic processes.oh, and just so you know, I'm not as stupid as you think. why?
I'm just about to start college. graduated from high school last may.
I'm already a sophomore, and will most likely be a junior after my first semester. how did I do this? AP (advanced placement) and IB (international bacaluareate)(I hate french words--none of the mmake any sense spelling wise) tests. I passed almost every single one I took--only failed computer programming and government. So don't be so quick to call me stupid. ignorant, on some things yes, but stupid, no.abe:
as to your circular reasoning comment, how is stating that
"one case of A does not mean that all cases are A" circular?
now, if you say that A is B and B is A, or that becasue of one case A all will be A, those are closer to, if not, circular reasoning. one without letters is this "the bible is true because the bible says it is true"Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

And that estimate is not what Miller and Ulrey thought. Do you realize that?On smarts, etc,....didn't realize your age. Doing well in AP and IB is commendable. Takes a lot of hard work. But on the stuff we are talking about, you have some more work to get up to speed. I think you are getting too far ahead of your knowledge on that one....do some more research on this stuff.The relevant point here though is that there is no reason to think if carbon-based, genetically based life arose from chemistry, that it would only happen once and that it would produce a radically different concept that the genetic code.