Woese's progenote hypothesis

quote:

---

And living biota and since the fossil record matches living biota in neither showing the mythical common ancestors, it's a very powerful argument indeed, and your position is based on a hopelessly untestable argument that the fossil record is so incomplete as to never showthe common ancestor

---

Firslty the inehrent limits of the fossil record make it impossible to exactly identify ancestors except when we have a shortage of candidates (and we have to be sure that it is a real shortage). In other cases poor preservation is expected. Further we can do surveys comparing the number of fossil species known from a period compared to the number of existing species now. So it isn't as untestable as you claim.

quote:

---

Wrong, but as usual for evos, the argument consists for evos not on the facts but on twisted illogic. Woese's identification of the problem is based on actual data, but the progenote is hypothetical.

---

Since you don't understand my point your assessment is completely wrong. My point - as I stated before - is that Woese's assessment of the plausibility of his hypothesis is based on the same expertise. You cannot dismiss his hypothesis out of hand without argument without dismissing that experties and thus the very authority you are relying on. Remember you don't cite any data - just Woese's conclusions.

quote:

---

The issue is not whether Woese is more correct than I, an argument from authority so common among evos (typical logical fallacy), but whether he is correct.

---

YOU are the one arguing based on Woese's authority. I am simply pointing out that you cannot rely on it when it suits you and reject it out of hand when it does not.And the question is not whether Woese is correct - the question is whether you have a better explanation for the data than Woese.

quote:

---

Once you resort to saying we must accept all of the conclusions and comments in a paper or none of it, you have committed a logical fallacy, and that's essentially what you are doing.

---

I am not saying that at all. You could accept the data and reject all of Woese's opinions. You could reject some of Woese's opinions while accepting others if you produced adequate reasons for doing so, independant of Woese's authority. What I say that you cannot do is to arbitrarily rely on Woese's authority when it suits you and reject it when it does not.
o

Which I have repeatedly. Quite simply, another perfectly reasonable explanation is that the 3 kingdoms do not share a common ancestor and such similarities in the 3 kingdoms can be explained via the common design properties in chemistry and/or artistic similarity from a Creator.

quote:

---

You could reject some of Woese's opinions while accepting others if you produced adequate reasons for doing so,

Which I have repeatedly. Quite simply, another perfectly reasonable explanation is that the 3 kingdoms do not share a common ancestor and such similarities in the 3 kingdoms can be explained via the common design properties in chemistry and/or artistic similarity from a Creator.

---

I am sure that Woese considers his explanation to be "perfectly reasonable". But according to you Woese is wrong not because there is anything wrong with what he proposes but because you consider your explanation to be "perfectly reasonable".Unfortunately these are not contraries and so your assertion is not even an argument for saying that Woese is wrong to beleive that is explanation is plausible. Even if you are right in your assessment it need not be the case that Woese is wrong - both explanations could be "perfectly reasonable".


Could someone please explain succinctly what the fuss on this thread is about? Woese's hypothesis appears to only counter the simplistic LUCA idea - something that I personally always felt was problematic, given precisely the incredible amount of lateral gene transfer (or HGT - the terms are synonomous and interchangeable) that has gone on and is going on at the unicellular level. All the paper seems to be talking about is the fact that the deepest roots of life were extraordinarily intertwined. He certainly doesn't discount the possibility of something like a "last eukaryote common ancestor" or a "last prokaryote common ancestor" as far as I can see. Even there, it could be problematic to identify one common ancestor, again because of gene transfer, etc.So could someone explain what the issue is here? Thanks.

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

The idea Woese presents in the paper is fairly straightforward. He claims existing modes of evolution cannot acccount for the emergence of the 3 kingdoms. Rather than try to discuss that. Most evos here have steadfastly avoided, sometimes even denying that.Woese proposes as a solution, a radically different sort of evolution based on a different type of creature, a hypothetical organism he calls a progenote.Woese' paper was originally put forward by anglagard here at EvC with the idea it should be read, and yet he has next to nothing to say about it. A couple of evos made some educated and fruitful comments, such as WK, but have not decided yet to weigh in to the discussion. Most of the evo comment, imo, have been garbage and a waste of time dealing with.I will probably propose a progenote II thread with a request to the moderators that all evos that wish to make claims actually are forced to back those claims up and stick to dealing with the OP rather than, as usual, making baseless charges.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I'm not sure I read it the same way. Woese claimed that there was no way that one or more of the urkingdoms could have evolved from any of the others (the prokaryote to eukaryote idea, for instance). This pretty much puts paid to the LUCA idea. On the other hand, whether or not he's proposing a "radically different form of evolution" isn't clear from the article or subsequent discussion. Would you mind expanding on that part?In any event, whether the progenote idea is true or not, there's been quite a bit of evidence amassed since that paper was published concerning the origin of the different domains. For instance, it appears that eukaryotes are the result of genomic fusion of different prokaryote clades (see, for instance, Rivera MC, Lake JA, 2004, "The Ring of Life Provides Evidence for a Genome Fusion Origin of Eukaryotes", Nature 431:134-137). Fusion is one of the methods for gene transfer between unicellular organisms. It is, in a way, sort of Lamarckian. Like you hugged a tree and woke up one morning with the ability to photosynthesize, and were able to pass it on to your lineage. That's why more recent analogies of the "tree of life" resemble a mangrove with lots of intertwining roots, rather than Darwin's model of an oak tree. It's also why it's so difficult for anyone to point to a "last common ancestor" - because unicellular organisms are so promiscuous with their genetic material. However, that doesn't mean the mechanisms of natural selection, etc, don't apply. In fact, several studies seem to indicate that selection can favor stability in operons and functional protein sequences, regardless of genome or lack thereof (see, for example, Omlechenko MV, et al, 2003, "Evolution of mosaic operons by horizontal gene transfer and gene displacement in situ", Genome Biology, 4:R55).In short, rand, I'm sorry but I still don't understand where the problem lies. You seem to be arguing about a paper where parts have been largely superceded and parts of it confirmed. Fill me in, here, please.

That's one claim. It's certainly not his primary claim. He first claims that no common ancestor that reproduced and evolved as we see organisms do today could evolve all three. Well, here is the quote in the OP. So he is saying a more rudimentary organism, meaning a genote that is simpler, rather than a "very different" entity cannot account for the emergence of the three kingdoms.Note he also states quite clearly earlier what his argument is. basically he is saying that although in principle the universal ancestor could have been a simpler genote or resembled one of the existing kingdoms, that the data suggests this could not be the case.That's his point. I think before deciding if his point has been superceded or is relevant, you ought to at least recognize what the point is.

The real issue is that randman claims that the paper is evidence against common ancestry of the three domains (or whatever you call them). Although a lot of the thread has been concerned with randmans attempts to deny his misrepresentations I have tried to get himn to produce an actual argument.This proved to be an exercise in futility. Despite claiming that he had data randman only referred to Woese's conclusions. The nearest he got to referring to actual data was a vague reference to data in the paper but he refused to say what data he was referring to. The fact that he didn't actually have any data in mind didn't stop him from accusing me of "failing to engage the data". His only argument so far is that he considers his opinions to be "perfectly reasonable" which is neither a good argument nor one that has any basis in Woese's paper.

Please substantiate your argument, PaulK. No, you have steadfastly ignored the OP, made false representations of my argument and refused to engage the debate here, and so you are just fouling up the thread.What, for instance, do you make of Woese' claims that a progenote is a necessary invention to overcome the problems he depicts with normal, vertical evolution producing the 3 kingdoms?Do you agree with Woese or not?Do you have an alternative to his theory?Do you think it feasible to consider there was no common ancestor at all?Will you address any substantive point of this thread?

quote:

---

The real issue is that randman claims that the paper is evidence against common ancestry of the three domains (or whatever you call them).

---

If you do not feel that your solution to this supposed problem is better than Woese's then what is the point of the thread ? Woese blieved that he had found a problem and proposed a solution based on his understanding and expertise. That was nearly 20 years ago and things have changed since then.And why continually refer to the idea that there was no common ancestor unless you wish to promote itFrom the OP From Message 75Now if you were simply suggesting that since we don't know what happened we ought to consider your idea as good as Woese's without actually considering the evidence you would just have an argument from ignorance as I suggested in Message 95. You vehemently rejected that possiblity (Message 96)

quote:

---

No, you have steadfastly ignored the OP, made false representations
of my argument and refused to engage the debate here, and so you are just fouling up the thread.

---

This is a complete falsehood. Most of the "fouling up" is due to your refusal to admit the truth. I proved that you had misrepresented Woese in several places including Message 48, Message 50 and Message 61 to pick out those that stand alone best.

quote:

---

What, for instance, do you make of Woese' claims that a progenote is a necessary invention to overcome the problems he depicts with normal, vertical evolution producing the 3 kingdoms?

---

I think that it is an interesting idea

quote:

---

Do you agree with Woese or not?

---

As I have already told you I neither agree nor disagree. I would have to do a better survey of the scientific consensus (or lack of it) before I came to a conclusion. I am certainly not going to come to a conclusion based on this paper when the author himself expected it to be thoroughly outdated within a decade of its writing - nearly twenty years ago.

quote:

---

Do you have an alternative to his theory?

---

Why would I need one ? I'm not an expert in this field.

quote:

---

Do you think it feasible to consider there was no common ancestor at all?

---

I don't think it likely. I can't see any plausible scenario in that vein that explains what we see without making too many ad hoc assumptions.

quote:

---

Will you address any substantive point of this thread?

---

I already have. I

PaulK, no you proved nothing. You refused to admit that Woese was arguing the changes were too great for a genote to be the common ancestor or misunderstood what that means, and so even though I would like to discuss the alternative of no common ancestor since you refuse to engage the data, no discussion has really taken place with you, and yet you have fouled up the thread with baseless charges. in other words, you have chosen to make asinine comments on a thread in which you have no intention of doing the necessary work to find out what the thread is about and so be able to discuss it intelligently. So, on the one hand, you admit your ignorance, and yet you assert here sufficient knowledge to dismiss an alternative. Sounds like willful belief, as usual for evos I might add, without having knowledge of the facts.

Exactly my point... There's absolutely nothing revolutionary or unexpected about this. Only some sort of special instant creation assumption would make it possible to uphold the current "form of evolution" down to the absolute beginning. Any hypothesis of gradual evolution from simple self-replicating molecules to the kind of life that we see now, will necessarilly go through a phase that can not be anything else but quite different from the current mechanisms. Nothing shocking there.

quote:

---

PaulK, no you proved nothing

---

False.

quote:

---

You refused to admit that Woese was arguing the changes were too great for a genote to be the common ancestor or misunderstood what that means

---

This is badly wrong. Firstly it is not the misrepresentation I referred to as having proved as can easily be seen by anyone who bothers to check the links. However it is ANOTHER misrepresentation of Woese since he did not make this argument.

quote:

---

even though I would like to discuss the alternative of no common ancestor since you refuse to engage the data, no discussion has really taken place with you,

---

This is an outright lie. I did not refuse to engage the data - you refused to present any ! The reason no discussion has taken place is because you keep refusing to present any data or any reasonable argument.

quote:

---

and yet you have fouled up the thread with baseless charges.

---

No, you have. I've simply caught you in misrepresentations and falsehoods galore.

quote:

---

in other words, you have chosen to make asinine comments on a thread in which you have no intention of doing the necessary work to find out what the thread is about and so be able to discuss it intelligently.

---

Since you have not done the "necessary work" either, it would seem that it is not needed to post to this thread.

quote:

---

So, on the one hand, you admit your ignorance, and yet you assert here sufficient knowledge to dismiss an alternative

---

I beleive that I am sufficiently aware of the details to have an opinion on this issue. You clearly know no more, since when I asked you to present data or argument supporting your alternative you had none other than to say that you considered it "perfectly reasonable" and even that took you several posts. In short my one comment itself is more than you have managed to produce in that at least it states a reason. So to dismiss it as you do simply illustrates how completely hopeless your own position is.

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.