Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MrDarwin · 06-18-2002, 04:44 AM

<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020618072709.htm" target="_blank">New Cellular Evolution Theory Rejects Darwinian Assumptions</a>

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]

Vorkosigan · 06-18-2002, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrDarwin:
<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020618072709.htm" target="_blank">New Cellular Evolution Theory Rejects Darwinian Assumptions</a>

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]

Much confusion: if unrelated, how were they able to trade genes? How is it that three unrelated groups of animals nevertheless evolved similar genetic/reproductive systems?

Vorkosigan

fando · 06-18-2002, 05:37 AM

How does this invalidate all of evolution? As far as I can tell, the research suggests that the assumption of all life descending from one organism is somewhat inaccurate and should be refined. Now it's possible that there were a few distinct forms of life in the beginning. Big deal. As we go back in time, the convergence towards one organism is more or less identical to the convergence towards several. That's the whole point of that assumption, that the diversity of life increases with time. The initial conditions might change a bit with this research, but in the long run, nothing about evolution and what it explains changes.

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: fando ]

Quetzal · 06-18-2002, 05:56 AM

From reading the press release, it looks like all Woese has done is find additional evidence for something that microbiologists have been stating for awhile - that the roots of the "tree of life" were more like a mangrove than a taproot. IIRC Margulis has been saying something like it for years. I'd need to see the actual PNAS article before I can be sure, however.

In any event, I don't care how good the research is, I think it is totally irresponsible of Science Daily (and the U. Ill. by extension) to put out ANY press release with that kind of provocative title. I give it 48 hours before the cretinists start crowing about how an "evolutionist" has declared Darwinism dead. Yet another stupid statement that we'll be spending the next 20 years explaining. Dammit.

MrDarwin · 06-18-2002, 06:46 AM

I may be wrong, but from reading the press release, what I'm getting is that this is all pre-cellular or proto-cellular; in other words, he is theorizing that the precursors of cellular life had 3 separate origins, which then went on to swap genetic information back and forth, in the process evolving into what we would now call living cells. These 3 separate origins are still reflected in the 3 domains of life, but once they started swapping genetic information, it blurred the lines between them.

hezekiah jones · 06-18-2002, 07:21 AM

<a href="http://www.hbcollege.com/lifesci/bioweb/depts/interviews/woese.html" target="_blank">A Conversation with Carl Woese</a>

Quote:

In college, my love was math and physics and I had little or no interest in biology. But when I went to graduate school, I went as a biophysicist--and here the world of biology began to open for me. The thing that caught me more than anything was evolution. I don't know why, but I love evolution. So, by the time I was in the first decade of my career, I was focusing on the problem of the origin of the genetic code. That was at the time when the code was breaking--back in the early 1960s. I realized that the origin of the genetic code was not a cryptographic problem. It was a problem of the origin of the translation mechanism, which gave rise to the code as one facet of its evolution. I went from the code to the translation mechanism. Then I realized that you can't begin to answer any evolutionary question without having a phylogenetic framework, and lo and behold, none existed for the microorganisms. So, to understand the evolution of the genetic code, I'd first have to create a phylogeny for microorganisms--and that's as far as I ever got. But that was a pretty big step.

I hope the creationists/IDers claim Woese as one of their own. That should be entertaining.

LeftCoast · 06-18-2002, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Morpho:

In any event, I don't care how good the research is, I think it is totally irresponsible of Science Daily (and the U. Ill. by extension) to put out ANY press release with that kind of provocative title. I give it 48 hours before the cretinists start crowing about how an "evolutionist" has declared Darwinism dead. Yet another stupid statement that we'll be spending the next 20 years explaining. Dammit.

Yeah, as I was reading it I was thinking that it would not take long for our quote mining "friends" at ICR, AiG, et. al. to get some really juicy quotes out of this.....

KC · 06-18-2002, 07:59 AM

This all sounds awfully familiar. Didnt some guy named Doolittle publish an article in Scientific American awhile back called 'Uprooting the Tree of Life'? I recall he mentioned Woese's work.

Cheers,

KC

MrDarwin · 06-18-2002, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Morpho:
I give it 48 hours before the cretinists start crowing about how an "evolutionist" has declared Darwinism dead.

I give it less than 24 hours.

scigirl · 06-18-2002, 08:18 AM

I have a pretty dumb question. . .

Did Darwin really spend much time on abiogenesis?

Don't most evolutionary biologists believe that the origins of first life involved more than just natural selection (i.e. darwinism)?

Call me crazy, but the title of that article doesn't make any sense.

scigirl

06-18-2002, 04:44 AM	#1
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	New Cellular Evolution Theory Rejects Darwinian Assumptions <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020618072709.htm" target="_blank">New Cellular Evolution Theory Rejects Darwinian Assumptions</a> [ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

06-18-2002, 05:37 AM	#3
fando Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Los Angeles Area Posts: 1,372	How does this invalidate all of evolution? As far as I can tell, the research suggests that the assumption of all life descending from one organism is somewhat inaccurate and should be refined. Now it's possible that there were a few distinct forms of life in the beginning. Big deal. As we go back in time, the convergence towards one organism is more or less identical to the convergence towards several. That's the whole point of that assumption, that the diversity of life increases with time. The initial conditions might change a bit with this research, but in the long run, nothing about evolution and what it explains changes. [ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: fando ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-18-2002, 05:56 AM	#4
Quetzal Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ecuador Posts: 738	From reading the press release, it looks like all Woese has done is find additional evidence for something that microbiologists have been stating for awhile - that the roots of the "tree of life" were more like a mangrove than a taproot. IIRC Margulis has been saying something like it for years. I'd need to see the actual PNAS article before I can be sure, however. In any event, I don't care how good the research is, I think it is totally irresponsible of Science Daily (and the U. Ill. by extension) to put out ANY press release with that kind of provocative title. I give it 48 hours before the cretinists start crowing about how an "evolutionist" has declared Darwinism dead. Yet another stupid statement that we'll be spending the next 20 years explaining. Dammit.

06-18-2002, 06:46 AM	#5
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	I may be wrong, but from reading the press release, what I'm getting is that this is all pre-cellular or proto-cellular; in other words, he is theorizing that the precursors of cellular life had 3 separate origins, which then went on to swap genetic information back and forth, in the process evolving into what we would now call living cells. These 3 separate origins are still reflected in the 3 domains of life, but once they started swapping genetic information, it blurred the lines between them.

06-18-2002, 07:59 AM	#8
KC Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Narcisco, RRR Posts: 527	This all sounds awfully familiar. Didnt some guy named Doolittle publish an article in Scientific American awhile back called 'Uprooting the Tree of Life'? I recall he mentioned Woese's work. Cheers, KC

06-18-2002, 08:18 AM	#10
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	I have a pretty dumb question. . . Did Darwin really spend much time on abiogenesis? Don't most evolutionary biologists believe that the origins of first life involved more than just natural selection (i.e. darwinism)? Call me crazy, but the title of that article doesn't make any sense. scigirl

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.