Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Cellular Evolution Theory Rejects Darwinian Assumptions (Actual Title)
University of Illinois News Release ^ | 6/17/02 | Jim Barlow

Posted on 06/17/2002 4:40:34 PM PDT by Nebullis

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-276 next last

1 posted on 06/17/2002 4:40:34 PM PDT by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: crevo_list, donh
FYI
2 posted on 06/17/2002 4:40:56 PM PDT by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

"My love, my love, my love is chemical (it's much more than physical baby)." --Lou Reed
3 posted on 06/17/2002 5:16:49 PM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis
Thanks for the ping.
4 posted on 06/17/2002 5:21:24 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis
This poor scientist/prof - his career is over now....for violating the Darwinian faith tradition.
5 posted on 06/17/2002 5:25:55 PM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis
His argument is built around evidence "from the three main cellular information processing systems" – translation, transcription and replication – and he suggests that cellular evolution progressed in that order, with translation leading the way.
Oops! Darwinians will even like that less. Replication is supposed to have the honored position. That also implies something on the order of RNA world.

6 posted on 06/17/2002 5:29:17 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis
I find it really hard to reply to this without getting really nasty.

It's just amazing that some people here really don't get it.....

7 posted on 06/17/2002 5:45:21 PM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narby
I find it really hard to reply to this without getting really nasty.

Oh, come on, narby. Don't hold back!

8 posted on 06/17/2002 5:50:10 PM PDT by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
And if he were to speculate where this perfectly oppurtune DNA soup/nutrient rich environment came from...
9 posted on 06/17/2002 6:49:57 PM PDT by Loc123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis
The three primary divisions of life now comprise the familiar bacteria and eukaryotes, along with the Archaea. Woese argues that these three life forms evolved separately but exchanged genes, which he refers to as inventions, along the way. He rejects the widely held notion that endosymbiosis (which led to chloroplasts and mitochondria) was the driving force in the evolution of the eukaryotic cell itself or that it was a determining factor in cellular evolution, because that approach assumes a beginning with fully evolved cells.
I would have guessed that truly separately-evolved (no common descent) organisms couldn't really do lateral transfer with any hope of compatibility. I gather that the soup takes the place of the usual common ancestor in this case. Same soup, three lines of "offspring," lateral transfer works.

Woese doesn't address the point, unfortunately. Nor does he explain here what his theory does better, or even differently. What are the consequences, the tests?

10 posted on 06/17/2002 7:03:56 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
The June 18 issue of PNAS is not online yet.
11 posted on 06/17/2002 7:22:01 PM PDT by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — Life did not begin with one primordial cell. Instead, there were initially at least three simple types of loosely constructed cellular organizations. They swam in a pool of genes, evolving in a communal way that aided one another in bootstrapping into the three distinct types of cells by sharing their evolutionary inventions

And now for the old 64 million dollar question........were did all that stuff come from? ...and were there deck chairs beside the pool?

Mel

12 posted on 06/17/2002 7:26:20 PM PDT by melsec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis
Mathematically impossible.
13 posted on 06/17/2002 7:30:34 PM PDT by ibme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; jennyp; longshadow; general_re; Gladwin; ThinkPlease; JediGirl
New abiogeneis theory. Or three new ones. Whatever.
14 posted on 06/17/2002 7:34:15 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis
>>>Woese argues that these three life forms evolved separately but exchanged genes, which he refers to as inventions, along the way.<<<

I exchanged jeans once, but it was in high school.

Matter of fact, we did evolve differently...
One became a business owner, another a lawyer and alas the third has passed on to her final reward.

15 posted on 06/17/2002 7:38:34 PM PDT by Tourist Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tourist Guy
You forgot your picture


16 posted on 06/17/2002 7:48:37 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
The controlling assumption is that relations, material and immaterial, are only possible on the basis of similarity or identity. Is that uniquely Darwinian?
17 posted on 06/17/2002 7:51:28 PM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis
Such a transfer previously had been recognized as having a minor role in evolution

Then in fact it is nothing new. Shhh. Don't tell the creationists -- they'll be all disappointed that science already knew about this.

18 posted on 06/17/2002 7:59:50 PM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tourist Guy
I exchanged jeans once, but it was in high school.

That's interesting - I had a roommate in college who was trying to get his jeans to evolve. Basically, all his clothes went in a giant pile on the floor of the closet, apparently in hopes that they would evolve bacterial cultures that would eventually walk themselves to the laundry and jump in the wash on their own. He had a lot of clothes, and was able to keep this up for some time.

I finally persuaded him to wash them himself by pointing out that any culture that evolved to the point of being able to wash the jeans for him was unlikely to be self-destructive enough to actually go through with it...

19 posted on 06/17/2002 9:05:28 PM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis
bookmark for read tomorrow
20 posted on 06/17/2002 10:31:44 PM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-276 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson