[VadeRetro]

I think it's quite well established that chloroplasts and mitochondria were endosymbionts at one time. Woese has no argument with this.

Another point cleared up! Thanks.

[Ahban]

I don't suppose either of you would care to admit that the hypothesis of different origins of the several types of cells, yet with the cells still having interchangable parts, is support for ID. Its not a slam dunk, but it shows the facts are consistent with what would be expeceted if a common designer (interchangable parts) made several types of cells.

Is the natualist hypothesis more likely than the ID hypothesis? No, if cells did not have a single common biologic ancestor ID is more likely. Two of the three cell types show up as soon as Earth cools down enough to allow them (after asteriod shower about 3.6 bya). The other may have been there, but not quite in its current form.

The crux of my point is this : If the mythical pre-biotic 'soup' naturalistically produced not one but three separate cells in a geologically insignificant amount of time, then why have origin of life experiments hit one brick way after another since Urey-Miller?

I am not asking you to 'see the light'. I am just asking you to acknowledge that the lack of common biologic origin despite interchangability of some parts and quick arrival time all make ID a little bit more likely. Are either of you willing to concede even that much?