bluefugue

Did Darwin spend any time on abiogenesis, apart from his comment in the Origin about life having been "breathed" into one or a few initial forms?

Valentine Pontifex

That a lot of swapping has occured is really old news and I don't see how any of this is not "Darwinian." But this particular hypothesis, if described here accurately is just not believable. The only way the genetic swapping could happen is if there was a common ancestor since if the was no common ancestor the three forms of life would not have compatible genetic
codes, molecular machinery, etc.

This article has simply has got to have mistated what the real article says. Possibly a PR person, who does not really understand the issues, who is trying to hype the research of his organization. More and more, press releases in science are an unreliable source of information. Look how much egg in the face Jonathan Wells go into for relying on one earlier this year.

lpetrich

I've seen this quote from Charles Darwin on this subject:
(letter to J. D. Hooker, [29 March 1863])

However, since then, the origin of matter has been much clarified, so we may reasonably expect that of the origin of life.

Dr.GH

I just sent this to Woese, and the news hack. Woese made some hugely over that top statements about his importance.

Dear Sir,

I congratulate you on your news article, “New cellular evolution theory rejects Darwinian
assumptions.” It will soon become a creationist favorite. I find no fault with the concept
that primitive microbial life was strongly shaped by horizontal genetic transfer. Indeed
the problem of lateral, and horizontal transfer in molecular phylogeny is widely
discussed. But the statement that we ought to dispense with common decent is not only
extremely self aggrandizing, but is insupportable

If you have ever read Darwin you should know that he made very little comment about
the origin of the cell, or the precise number of original living things. From the
conclusion of the Sixth Edition of The Origin of Species;

“... I believe that animals are descended from at most only four or five
progenitors, and plants from an equal or lessor number.

Analogy would lead me one step farther, namely, to the belief that all animals and
plants are descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide.
Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their
cellular structure, their laws of growth, and their liability to injurious influences. ...”

And, from the book’s last sentence;

“There is grander in this point of view of life, with its several powers, having
been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one ; ....”

So I note that Darwin was consistent in his opinion that there were few first life forms,
and merely a possibly that there could have been only one.

Wild sound bite science reporting makes the job of careful scientists who have a
responsibility for public education much more difficult than it already is. So again,
congratulations for your stunning gift to fundamentalist creationists everywhere.

Gary Hurd, Ph.D.
Director of Education
Orange County Natural History

The Lone Ranger

I found the article completely unimpressive.

Dr.GH, good letter! Please let us know if you get a response.

Cheers,

Michael

Dr.GH

Gary,


Dr. Woese doesn't reject all things Darwin, and he (Woese) is certainly not a creationist. He IS an evolutionist. This is NOT a victory for creationists. I suggest you read the PNAS paper thoroughly. A reprint in not up yet on the PNAS web site. You also could look at Woese's comments to USA Today, page 8D of today's issue. Woese's argument is that primitive cells intermingled widely and often long before any became organized enough to represent a species; it is at a certain point of organization where a line of descent, the origin of a species, begins. At UPI.com, you also will find an interesting story; look for UPI's science section.


Thank you for writing. It appears our headline on our release is too encompassing in its reference to Darwin; we may change the head, but the story is based on Woese's theory as published and his comments to me.


Jim
News Bureau/Office of Public Affairs
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign


My reply:


The point of my email to you was not the PNAS article but your news piece. Your presentation has already been picked up by creationist propagandists and is being touted as "proof" that scientists such as Woese are deserting the Darwinist conspiracy: <a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000056" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000056</a>

By Wensdsday there will be dozens if not hundreds of similar postings.

Dr. G. S. Hurd

Dr.GH

Barlow's final response 1:53PM PDST

Gary,


hmmm. interesting. Dr. Woese approved my news release and even contributed to it. USA Today got the message correctly. Sorry if some find it to say something it does not. We have changed our headline, but Woese does indeed challenge some basic Darwinian assumptions. Thanks for the feedback ... really.


Jim

Jerry Smith

I really don't see where there is much room for controversy in the creation/evolution debate based on this information. An evolution-denier is constrained to also deny the conclusions of this paper, because the research relies on basic evolutionary principles in order to arrive at them.

Therefore, you can offer the creationist a choice: accept evolution, and accept the possibility that there were three ancestral groups, or deny it as they have already been doing, but without any support from this paper.

I'm sure they will look for a way to weasel out of it, but in the end these are their only options.

ishalon

? Whoever said creationists quote in context?

Coragyps

Do you mean one DID?