You posted:
“We cannot expect to explain cellular evolution if we stay locked in the classical Darwinian mode of thinking,” Woese says. “The time has come for biology to go beyond the Doctrine of Common Descent.”I decided to click on the link. What did I find? Well, there's this ...“Neither it nor any variation of it can capture the tenor, the dynamic, the essence of the evolutionary process that spawned cellular organization,”
The driving force in evolving cellular life on Earth has been horizontal gene transfer, in which the acquisition of alien cellular components, including genes and proteins, works to promote the evolution of recipient cellular entities.[Bolding mine; distortions yours].This is the theory of Carl Woese, a microbiologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Woese presents his theory of cellular evolution, which challenges long-held traditions and beliefs of biologists, in today's issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Life did not begin with one primordial cell, Woese's theory holds. Instead, there were initially at least three simple types of loosely constructed cellular organizations.
Oh, no! The TOE is destroyed! Woese says life didn't start with a single cell, but with "at least three"!"
Here's another quote from the site: "Cellular evolution, Woese argues, began in a communal environment in which the loosely organized cells took shape through extensive horizontal gene transfer."
[Bolding mine]. Got that? Woese accepts evolution. He just says it happened in a slightly different way than classical Darwinian theory holds.
Here's more:
Such a transfer previously had been recognized as having a minor role in evolution, but the arrival of microbial genomics, Woese says, is shedding a more accurate light. Horizontal gene transfer, he argues, has the capacity to rework entire genomes. With simple primitive entities, this process can "completely erase an organismal genealogical trace."His theory challenges the longstanding Darwinian assumption known as the Doctrine of Common Descent -- that all life on Earth has descended from one original primordial form.
"We cannot expect to explain cellular evolution if we stay locked in the classical Darwinian mode of thinking," Woese says. "The time has come for biology to go beyond the Doctrine of Common Descent."
That last paragraph is the bit you posted. Did you come up with this obvious distortion all by yourself, are you someone's dupe, or are you part of some conspiracy to increase ignorance?
you know- when you’re a johnny come late to an issue being discussed- it might be good idea to make sure you understand what is going on before deciding to chime in and risk looking foolish.
Did I say Woese didn’t beleive in eovlution? Nope- Did i EVER claim ANYONE didn’t beleive in evolution who attended the symposiums? Nope- Having trouble following? Just chime in and I’ll go slower. Did I state that evolutionsits have trouble with the model of evolution as proposed by Darwin? You betcha- Why did I state this? Because Stultis said he wasn’t aware of even one accredited scientist who had problems with the model of evoluition as proposed by Darwin
Thank you for highlighting the fact that Woese PERFECTLY demonstrates his problems with evolution from common descent- His hypothesis is a MUCH MUCH different one than the old model of evolution and had you understood that you’d have not posted damning evidence that backed up my statements of fact. His assertion is not ‘slightly different’ it’s so radically differentas to be totally asnd wholly unconnected to Darwins hypothesis. I suggest stdying a bit more on what exactly lateral gene transference involves before stating it is ‘slightly different’ as you did. What you state is a massive downplaying of a major issue for the sake of petty arguing.
Apparently you sir are part of a conmspiracy to increase ignorance. And just for the record- I could care less what Weose beleives about lateral gene transference- it’s all biological garbage- the fact that he gloms onto the one last remaining hope for NEW information being introdueced to a species STILL has it’s biological problems associated with it and has NEVER been witnessed in nature EXCEPT within the same species. If you care to go completely OFF TOPIC and continue your rediculous line of arguments that have absolutely NOTHING to do with what I dsaid to stultis, and if you wish to keep deceitfully misrepresenting what I’ve said in hopes of derailing the truth about what I DID say, then perhaps it would be better for you to start a new thread relevent to your points because quite frankly, they have absolutely NO rleevence to what was being discussed here- I apparently gave you more credit in the past thasn I shoudl have for being able to follow and rationally and honestly discuss matters relevent to the topics.
Did I say scientists have problems beleivign in ANY forms ofd evolution? Nope- Got that? Understand it well becausde what I’m abotu to say is apparently difficult to understand judging by the responses of some here to my points- I said “Some Evolutionsits have problem with the model of common descent” - please let me know what it is that is throwing you for a loop concerning that statement. Next time you jump into a conversation late in the discussion- be more civil and you’ll receive a more civil respoinsde explaining your obvious error.