Carl Woese dead at 84

Woese is he.

Seriously, though, no one else ever made plants and animals seem so relatively close, while bacteria and archaea are now rather more distant. He will be remembered.

However, the name "archaea" does seem less than ideal, as if they were somehow old relics, rather than evolved modern organisms like, well, bacteria at least. Not nearly so important as the discovery itself, a relatively minor caveat.

Glen Davidson

(Please, let's have replies to Byers occur on the Wall, where his effusions and troll-chasing belong).

Carl Woese had a major effect on microbiology, beyond just defining the Archaea. In effect, he introduced the notion that microbes could evolve. Before his and his students' work in the late 1970s, most microbiology texts had discussions of classification but not of phylogenies. Microbial groups were defined on the basis of which chemicals could stain them or on some detail of their metabolism. But there were no trees in introductory microbiology texts. (If you find this hard to believe, go to a university library, get an old microbiology textbook of pre-1977 vintage, and try to find the phylogeny). While the work of the Woese lab never lacked for critics, after it microbiologists suddenly wanted to know what the phylogeny was. In my own university, shortly after Woese's work the faculty of the Department of Microbiology wanted to know how to reconstruct phylogenies, and they turned to one of their own graduate students who ended up giving them lectures on that.

Basically there were three great periods of advance in microbiology -- the classical era of Koch and Pasteur, the 1940s and 1950s when Luria, Delbrück, and the Lederbergs established that bacteria had genetics that could be studied, and the late 1970s when it was established that microbes did in fact have an evolutionary history. Very simply, Carl was the greatest microbiologist of our age.

How insightful Carl was became clear to me after he came to me with an argument about rooting the tree of life. He was convinced that if one compared sites in ribosomal RNA that were paired (in stems) with those that weren't (in loops) that one could separate evolutionary rate from time. He had a clever argument for this, but it was not algebraic. I thought the matter over, and sat down to write a long letter to him disagreeing, and showing why you could not do make the separation between rate and time. In the midst of my letter I suddenly realized that part of my algebraic argument was wrong, and when I corrected it, it became clear that Carl was absolutely right. Which is pretty darned good intuition.

Carl Woese was not particularly humble, and was always campaigning for one viewpoint or another, but most of those were not only right, they were important. Hail and farewell.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: However, the name "archaea" does seem less than ideal, as if they were somehow old relics, rather than evolved modern organisms like, well, bacteria at least. Glen Davidson

What was very interesting to me (when I started researching Carl's papers on domains and the archae kingdom was that I was taking HS biology just as these papers were coming out. So, I was taught about Monera.

When I started teaching HS Biology, I had to learn all that new fangled Domain stuff. I didn't like it.

Then I actually did the research and found out why the domains were needed and the value that they had and I learned to appreciate them.

All

All of cellular life, including archae, has remarkable biochemical overlap.

It seems as if Woese was proposing more than one abiogenesis events.

That's a very interesting idea; did he ever discuss the details of that?

Carl Woese: "I have no trouble with a claim to the effect that God set the world up so that it progressed in an evolutionary fashion."

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and render unto Caesar the things that are God's as well."

A clear surrender demand, as Orr correctly observed.

harold,

If you read his paper, Woese proposed and had shown (this was when molecular biology was just coming into the fore) that Archae were as different from Eubacteria as Eubacteria was from Eukaryotes.

My understanding is that Archae are the proposed 'first group' because Archae have some characters that are more like Eukaryotes than Eubacteria and some characters that are more like Eubacteria than Eukaryotes.

So, not multiple abiogenesis events.

harold said: All of cellular life, including archae, has remarkable biochemical overlap. It seems as if Woese was proposing more than one abiogenesis events. That's a very interesting idea; did he ever discuss the details of that?

Here's a write up I did... including a link to the original article: http://ogremk5.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/the-three-domain-system/

ogremk5 said: harold, If you read his paper, Woese proposed and had shown (this was when molecular biology was just coming into the fore) that Archae were as different from Eubacteria as Eubacteria was from Eukaryotes. My understanding is that Archae are the proposed 'first group' because Archae have some characters that are more like Eukaryotes than Eubacteria and some characters that are more like Eubacteria than Eukaryotes. So, not multiple abiogenesis events.

"Authoritarian"? I thought H. Allen Orr was an evolutionist.

hrmm but lipids from which membranes are constructed differ widely between bacteria and archaebacteria, those lipids probably arose independently. Eukaryotes and eubacteria have the same kind of lipids.

So I was wrong --- Woese (with Fox) actually did first come up with the name archaebacteria; for some reason I thought it had been in use earlier. Its from the famous 1977 paper. See Joe's comment for why Woese thought the Archaea were "ancient".

Woese CR, Fox GE.
"Phylogenetic structure of the prokaryotic domain: the primary kingdoms."
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1977 74(11):5088-5090.

http://www.pnas.org/content/74/11/5088.full.pdf

You might recall how, ~10 years ago, in the same paragraph, the Isaac Newton of Word Games notes how his buddy Michael Behe accepts common descent, while Woese - not an ID/Creationist - "explicitly denies" it. All the while having the chutzpah to keep you guessing on his position.

Bullshitter For Jesus Bullshitted: "Authoritarian"? I thought H. Allen Orr was an evolutionist.

Would not common sense suggest that if there were one abiogenesis event, there might as well have been another - more or less remotely 'related'?

How can we know for certain one way or another? All we possibly might learn is whether all known life is descended from the same event or not - but can we rule out events that left no trace?

why we should even assume that your claim that “evolutionists” (sic) have an authoritarian hierarchy

you’ve lied about having learned about evolution in university?

FL said: [snip]

you’ve lied about having learned about evolution in university?

Looked at the university transcript just two nights ago. Course and grade are still there. "B" grade. Maybe not stellar but I'm quite okay with it. FL

Rolf said: Would not common sense suggest that if there were one abiogenesis event, there might as well have been another - more or less remotely 'related'?

fusilier said:

Bullshitter Bullshitted: [snip]

you’ve lied about having learned about evolution in university?

Looked at the university transcript just two nights ago. Course and grade are still there. "B" grade. Maybe not stellar but I'm quite okay with it. FL

I thought your degree was in journalism? Just because you, maybe, took a survey course long ago, doesn't mean you understand biology. Your posts regularly demonstrate the opposite.

Rolf said: Would not common sense suggest that if there were one abiogenesis event, there might as well have been another - more or less remotely 'related'? How can we know for certain one way or another? All we possibly might learn is whether all known life is descended from the same event or not - but can we rule out events that left no trace?

Bullshitter For Jesus Bullshitted:

why we should even assume that your claim that “evolutionists” (sic) have an authoritarian hierarchy

Ummm, I wasn't the one that initially used the term "authoritarian", nor have I said anything about any hierarchy.

eric said:

Rolf said: Would not common sense suggest that if there were one abiogenesis event, there might as well have been another - more or less remotely 'related'?

It depends on their probability, tempo, and how narrow a set of conditions are needed (these are interrelated, not independent factors). If they are rare enough that the first replicator radically changes the global environment before another one would be expected to occur, then no, you would not expect more than one.

harold said:

A clear surrender demand, as Orr correctly observed.

Remember everyone, you cannot reason with the authoritarian mind (which means, of course, that you cannot reason with a very substantial proportion of the earth's population of a very substantial number of issues). Why do FL and the authoritarian he approvingly quotes project the making of "surrender demands" onto Stephen Jay Gould, of all people? Because they conceptualize the world in terms of "surrender demands". That's how they communicate with everyone else, so that's how they perceive all communications from everyone else.

harold said: If there were multiple abiogenesis events that produced recognizable descendants that still survive, then they all coincidentally resulted in common very basic cell structure, genetics, and biochemistry.

Carl Drews said:

harold said: If there were multiple abiogenesis events that produced recognizable descendants that still survive, then they all coincidentally resulted in common very basic cell structure, genetics, and biochemistry.

Could the abiogenesis event have happened to a small group of near-biological entities? Kind of like an isolated population evolving and speciating on its own? Is there any biogenesis mechanism that might work that way?

I am certain James A. Shapiro will lament especially Woese's passing over at his HuffPo blog if he hasn't already, since he has described Woese as the greatest living evolutionary biologist of our time. While I do acknowledge Woese's important contributions to microbiology and systematics, and express my condolences to his family, his friends and his colleagues, I would not regard him as a scientist as important as Dobzhansky, Fisher, Mayr, MacArthur, Maynard Smith, Simpson, or Wilson.

eric said:

Rolf said: Would not common sense suggest that if there were one abiogenesis event, there might as well have been another - more or less remotely 'related'?

It depends on their probability, tempo, and how narrow a set of conditions are needed (these are interrelated, not independent factors). If they are rare enough that the first replicator radically changes the global environment before another one would be expected to occur, then no, you would not expect more than one.

Helena Constantine said: I've often thought there could have been several events that resulted in something like life, and our ancestor out-competed its rivals.

I recall that Woese, about a decade ago, argued that the most recent common ancestor off all life (and that is a life form much later than the origin of life) was most likely not a single species, but that life forms of that period probably swapped genetic material around quickly. So that there was not one LUCA (last universal common ancestor) but rather a bunch of them.

Do I recall Woese's argument correctly? It is one that would be hard to test even with complete genomes of many widely-diverged species.

Carl Drews said:

harold said: If there were multiple abiogenesis events that produced recognizable descendants that still survive, then they all coincidentally resulted in common very basic cell structure, genetics, and biochemistry.

Could the abiogenesis event have happened to a small group of near-biological entities? Kind of like an isolated population evolving and speciating on its own? Is there any biogenesis mechanism that might work that way?

Realistically, there were probably thousand - or millions - of "Genesis events" where a self-replicating molecule got formed.

In almost all cases these events would have been dead-ends. A warm little pond that dried up in the sun. A bubble in an ice cube that melted. A fissure in clay that dissolved in the next high tide. A really inconvenient meteorite.

Given the relative paucity of organic molecules on the early Earth it was almost inevitable that any abiogenesis event would be nipped in the (proto)bud.

It would have been the incredibly lucky molecule that managed to hang around long enough, in a rich enough, protected enough, environment to establish a stable lineage.

I can't see how it's anything but likely that there had to be more than one event, since most of them are destined to fail.

Of course, once some simple pre-biological lineage did establish itself, it got an almost insurmountable first-mover advantage. From now on, little bits of free-floating amino acid were no longer genesis molecules in potentia for some competing design, instead they got a new name - food.

Right now there are probably two organic molecules in you garbage disposal that just linked up into something that might just could possibly self-replicate given the right chance and 10 million years to work on it. Oops... it was just eaten by a fungi.

ogremk5 said:

Carl Drews said:

harold said: If there were multiple abiogenesis events that produced recognizable descendants that still survive, then they all coincidentally resulted in common very basic cell structure, genetics, and biochemistry.

Could the abiogenesis event have happened to a small group of near-biological entities? Kind of like an isolated population evolving and speciating on its own? Is there any biogenesis mechanism that might work that way?

There's lots of ways it could have happened. We'll never know. But, when we're talking about 'organisms' that are that simple, then gene flow, consuming and incorporating genes, etc. are all possibilities.

Carl Drews said:

harold said: If there were multiple abiogenesis events that produced recognizable descendants that still survive, then they all coincidentally resulted in common very basic cell structure, genetics, and biochemistry.

Could the abiogenesis event have happened to a small group of near-biological entities? Kind of like an isolated population evolving and speciating on its own? Is there any biogenesis mechanism that might work that way?

stevaroni said: Given the relative paucity of organic molecules on the early Earth it was almost inevitable that any abiogenesis event would be nipped in the (proto)bud.

Helena Constantine said:

stevaroni said: Given the relative paucity of organic molecules on the early Earth it was almost inevitable that any abiogenesis event would be nipped in the (proto)bud.

Can you expand on this? As a layman, I always imagined that the pre-biotic earth was rich in organic molecules, supposing that most of the carbon that exists today as fossil fuels and organisms might have been dissolved in the oceans? Or was in the form of CO2?

Frank J -

Probably the single most beneficial development I have seen in terms of defending science and science education is people challenging ID/creationists for their own explanation.

All they want to do is attack straw men and change the subject.

This is partly due to the outcomes of trials. Since Edwards v Aguillard it has been politically useless for them to openly declare a purely religious explanation. At Dover Judge Jones repeatedly brought up that ID was just evolution denial.

It's partly due to the Internet, too.

The most terrifying thing an ID/creationist can hear is "I'm willing to listen to your explanation; what happened when, and what is your evidence for that?".

harold said: Frank J - Probably the single most beneficial development I have seen in terms of defending science and science education is people challenging ID/creationists for their own explanation. All they want to do is attack straw men and change the subject. This is partly due to the outcomes of trials. Since Edwards v Aguillard it has been politically useless for them to openly declare a purely religious explanation. At Dover Judge Jones repeatedly brought up that ID was just evolution denial. It's partly due to the Internet, too. The most terrifying thing an ID/creationist can hear is "I'm willing to listen to your explanation; what happened when, and what is your evidence for that?".

I'm no biologist, but doesn't the fact that Archaea, Eucaryota, and Bacteria all use DNA as the genetic transcription medium suggest that any "first replicator" happened way before that split? My limited understanding was that DNA itself is relatively highly "evolved". Past the "first replicator", I'm fascinated by the notion that "evolvability" first had to "evolve" from the "first replicator".

The most terrifying thing an ID/creationist can hear is “I’m willing to listen to your explanation; what happened when, and what is your evidence for that?”.

And that leads to the question of why they think God would be unable to get natural processes to produce results that meet her requirements. Their whole argument appears to assume this, even though it also appears to me that it contradicts the basic assumption behind the God concept.

Suppose NASA gets a bunch of money, sends an ice-penetrating probe to Europa, and the probe finds self-replicators in the liquid water beneath the ice. Suppose the probe is equipped with a sophisticated chem-bio lab. How would you distinguish:

A) A common abiogenesis event with Earth.

B) A separate abiogenesis event on Europa.

If B), should the little replicators on Europa have DNA but with wildly different sequences?

I guess that would depend on how much influence the chemical properties have on the correlations between DNA/RNA sites and amino acids.

Henry J said: And that leads to the question of why they think God would be unable to get natural processes to produce results that meet her requirements.

Carl Drews said: How would you distinguish: A) A common abiogenesis event with Earth. B) A separate abiogenesis event on Europa. If B), should the little replicators on Europa have DNA but with wildly different sequences?

In my opinion, Eric is correct. We might expect to see some similarities, especially if the two environments were similar. This might simply be due to constraints on the evolution of replicating systems, even if there were actually two separate origins. Indeed, this would teach us a lot about what real constraints exist and what might just be due to chance events and historical contingency. I wouldn't even expect life elsewhere to be organic, but it might be. If it were organic, it might or might not use DNA as the genetic material, but even if it did it might still be an independent origin. Likewise it might or might not use the same bases to code for information.

What you would absolutely not expect to see would be two convergent genetic codes, since most of the features of the code are considered to be arbitrary. You would also expect fundamental differences in ribosome structure and the details of the cellular machinery and genome structure. And of course, it should not be possible to place an independent origin within a phylogentic context in the terrestrial tree of life. At the very most you might get a completely unconnected branch.

Since this is not an implausible scenario, some science fiction has been written about it. The most important thing is that we will learn a lot if an independent form of life is ever discovered. Until then, in a very real sense, we only have one example from which to generalize.

Carl Drews said: Suppose NASA gets a bunch of money, sends an ice-penetrating probe to Europa, and the probe finds self-replicators in the liquid water beneath the ice. Suppose the probe is equipped with a sophisticated chem-bio lab. How would you distinguish: A) A common abiogenesis event with Earth. B) A separate abiogenesis event on Europa. If B), should the little replicators on Europa have DNA but with wildly different sequences?

Thanks for the answers. I did not know what was contingent and what was required. I am currently reading James Watson's The Double Helix (2012), and of course in the book it has to be a double helix with CTGA!

We might get a chance to practice for Europa within a year or two. The British team has called off drilling into Antarctica's Lake Ellsworth because of technical difficulties:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20850360

But they will be back! Or another team will penetrate Lake Vostok.

For the reasons Eric mentioned in his first paragraph, I would be gob-smackingly surprised if they found evidence of a separate origin for any biological replicators they pull up out of the lake. (I don't know what else to call them - bugs?) The sub-Antarctic lakes have been frozen over for only millions of years, and they are not isolated now. One could place a brass dollar coin on the surface of the ice cap and in a few hundred thousand years it would progress downward with the ice layers and melt out into the lake. Bugs can do the same thing.

But it will be fascinating to see what's down there! And Lake Ellsworth is a lot closer than Europa.

One question may possibly have dwelt in the reader's mind during the perusal of these observations, namely, Why should not the Deity have given to the animal the faculty of vision at once? Why this circuitous perception; the ministry of so many means; an element provided for the purpose; reflected from opaque substances, refracted through transparent ones; and both according to precise laws; then, a complex organ, an intricate and artificial apparatus, in order, by the operation of this element, and in conformity with the restrictions of these laws, to produce an image upon a membrane communicating with the brain? Wherefore all this? Why make the difficulty in order to surmount it? If to perceive objects by some other mode than that of touch, or objects which lay out of the reach of that sense, were the thing proposed; could not a simple volition of the Creator have communicated the capacity? Why resort to contrivance, where power is omnipotent? Contrivance, by its very definition and nature, is the refuge of imperfection. To have recourse to expedients, implies difficulty, impediment, restraint, defect of power. This question belongs to the other senses, as well as to sight; to the general functions of animal life, as nutrition, secretion, respiration; to the economy of vegetables; and indeed to almost all the operations of nature. The question, therefore, is of very wide extent; and amongst other answers which may be given to it; beside reasons of which probably we are ignorant, one answer is this: It is only by the display of contrivance, that the existence, the agency, the wisdom of the Deity, could be testified to his rational creatures.

Carl Drews said: Thanks for the answers. I did not know what was contingent and what was required.

I am currently reading James Watson's The Double Helix (2012), and of course in the book it has to be a double helix with CTGA!

Actually, I think Pauling proposed a triple stranded DNA molecule. Who knows, maybe somewhere that's s the way it is.

Joe Felsenstein said: I recall that Woese, about a decade ago, argued that the most recent common ancestor off all life (and that is a life form much later than the origin of life) was most likely not a single species, but that life forms of that period probably swapped genetic material around quickly. So that there was not one LUCA (last universal common ancestor) but rather a bunch of them. Do I recall Woese's argument correctly? It is one that would be hard to test even with complete genomes of many widely-diverged species.

Organismal lineages, and so organisms as we know them, did not exist at these early stages. The universal phylogenetic tree, therefore, is not an organismal tree at its base but gradually becomes one as its peripheral branchings emerge. The universal ancestor is not a discrete entity. It is, rather, a diverse community of cells that survives and evolves as a biological unit. This communal ancestor has a physical history but not a genealogical one. Over time, this ancestor refined into a smaller number of increasingly complex cell types with the ancestors of the three primary groupings of organisms arising as a result.

There are different ways of looking at such a community of progenotes. On the one hand, it could have been the loose-knit evolutionary (genetic) community just discussed. On the other, it could have been more like a modern bacterial consortium, with cells cross-feeding one another not only genetically but also metabolically. Cell–cell contacts would have facilitated both processes. In both views of the community, the latter in particular, it is not individual cell lines but the community of progenotes as a whole that survives and evolves. It was such a community of progenotes, not any specific organism, any single lineage, that was our universal ancestor—a genetically rich, distributed, communal ancestor.

The tree arose in a communal universal ancestor, an ‘‘entity’’ that had a physical history but not a genealogical one.

The universal ancestor is not an entity, not a thing. It is a process characteristic of a particular evolutionary stage.

Thanks, Doug. I am now fully informed.

Sounds like he was saying that individuality is an advanced trait that wasn't present in the early stages.

Rolf said:

The most terrifying thing an ID/creationist can hear is “I’m willing to listen to your explanation; what happened when, and what is your evidence for that?”.

The most terrifying thing an ID/creationist can do is to listen to your explanation of "what happened when" because he has no answer except godditit.

The most terrifying thing an ID/creationist can do is to listen to your explanation of “what happened when” because he has no answer except godditit.

Actually, anti-evolution activists love to hear our explanations of “what happened when” because it gives them data and quotes to take out of context to promote unreasonable doubt to fence-sitters who lack the time and interest to dig deeper.

I have enjoyed reading the recent chat here by harold, DS, Carl Drews, etc regarding RNA/DNA and to hypothesise about abiogenesis. While it's too bad our resident trolls are too inflicted by Morton's Demon (named after ex-YEC Glenn Morton), it's nice that I and a few others here at PT can learn a thing or two about science. James Watson’s The Double Helix is now on my list of books to read, when I find some time that is.

What is interesting Douglas, is that Woese, like lots of proponents of Darwinian evolution, trot out the YEC 'individual crafting of parts like a machinist' position as also being an ID position, which is patently untrue. In fact, ID has no such debt to YEC.

Even Darwinian evolution skeptic Michael Behe made an off-hand comment that a single progenitor cell was a plausibility, an idea compatible with Woese' take on early life. So this seems just another strawman characterization of the ID position.

What is more curious though, in the context of this OP is that no matter what scenarios are proposed by people like Woese, these ideas can all live under the humongous Darwinian evolutionary tent.

No scenario left behind.

Hey Stevie, what would we gain by switching over to ID-inspired science?

Steve P. said: What is interesting Douglas, is that Woese, like lots of proponents of Darwinian evolution, trot out the YEC 'individual crafting of parts like a machinist' position as also being an ID position, which is patently untrue. In fact, ID has no such debt to YEC. Even Darwinian evolution skeptic Michael Behe made an off-hand comment that a single progenitor cell was a plausibility, an idea compatible with Woese' take on early life. So this seems just another strawman characterization of the ID position. What is more curious though, in the context of this OP is that no matter what scenarios are proposed by people like Woese, these ideas can all live under the humongous Darwinian evolutionary tent. No scenario left behind.

Frank J said: Thus almost from the beginning of "scientific" creationism in the mid-20th century, the pressure to "don't ask, don't tell what happened when" began. And it has been a retreat ever since. Worse, for the ID peddlers, not only do they know that "goddidit" is all they have, they are painfully aware that mainstream evolution, and not YEC or OEC, have the correct whats, whens, wheres and hows. But of course they would not dare admit it.

Carl Drews said: We might get a chance to practice for Europa within a year or two. The British team has called off drilling into Antarctica's Lake Ellsworth because of technical difficulties: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20850360 But they will be back! Or another team will penetrate Lake Vostok.

gmartincv said: The Russians completed drilling into Lake Vostok last February. So far no signs of life has been detected.

Steve P. said: Even Darwinian evolution skeptic Michael Behe made an off-hand comment that a single progenitor cell was a plausibility, an idea compatible with Woese' take on early life. So this seems just another strawman characterization of the ID position.

Steve P. said: What is interesting Douglas, is that Woese, like lots of proponents of Darwinian evolution, trot out the YEC 'individual crafting of parts like a machinist' position as also being an ID position, which is patently untrue. In fact, ID has no such debt to YEC. Even Darwinian evolution skeptic Michael Behe made an off-hand comment that a single progenitor cell was a plausibility, an idea compatible with Woese' take on early life. So this seems just another strawman characterization of the ID position. What is more curious though, in the context of this OP is that no matter what scenarios are proposed by people like Woese, these ideas can all live under the humongous Darwinian evolutionary tent. No scenario left behind.

Just Bob said: Hey Stevie, what would we gain by switching over to ID-inspired science?

harold said:

Steve P. said: What is interesting Douglas, is that Woese, like lots of proponents of Darwinian evolution, trot out the YEC 'individual crafting of parts like a machinist' position as also being an ID position, which is patently untrue. In fact, ID has no such debt to YEC. Even Darwinian evolution skeptic Michael Behe made an off-hand comment that a single progenitor cell was a plausibility, an idea compatible with Woese' take on early life. So this seems just another strawman characterization of the ID position. What is more curious though, in the context of this OP is that no matter what scenarios are proposed by people like Woese, these ideas can all live under the humongous Darwinian evolutionary tent. No scenario left behind.

Now is your chance to prove Woese wrong. 1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you if present? 2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC? 3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not? 4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer? 5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer? 6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? 7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? 8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?

eric said:

Steve P. said: Even Darwinian evolution skeptic Michael Behe made an off-hand comment that a single progenitor cell was a plausibility, an idea compatible with Woese' take on early life. So this seems just another strawman characterization of the ID position.

Well, I invite you to correct Woese. Provide a corrected characterization of the ID position. What intelligence, designed what bit of life, when, how, and what evidence can we expect that it left behind? As far as I can tell, pretty much any attempted characterization of ID by a non-proponent is considered a strawman characterization. Its a three card monty idea; whichever description the mark picks, it was the wrong one. There is no bean.

Harold is not implying that Woese was wrong. He did not lambast anyone, not even Behe. His questions have not been answered in even vaguely responsive terms by you, or as far as I know, anyone who asserts "non-Darwinian" origins for the species. Sneers, falsehoods, irrelevancies and snide remarks are no substitute for evidence.

No, the hypothesis of "design" does not absolutely require the identification of a designer, although it would be a little less vacuous if one were identified. It does, however, require evidence that design occurred. Produce it, please.

The physics and chemistry that produce variation in allele are actually fairly well understood, even though they are formidably complex. From a genetic perspective, their effects have been understood for a century or more now, and the basic biochemistry for about half as long. The mechanism that selects the successful variations among those produced by this process is also well understood.

Those are the mechanics of evolution. They can be and have been minutely specified and subjected to endless experiment. Please specify the mechanics of intelligent design to the same degree of detail.

Douglas, of course HGT is a challenge to Darwinian evolutionary theory.

..co-opting this concept is simply an attempt to punt the ball....as I alluded to several times in a discussion with Flint in a past posts, how does one account for the ability of early life to possess any 'abilities' - but specifically in this context, the ability to recognize new genes and utilize them, the ability to copy and release them to other organisms?

...all these myriad mechanisms which existing at the start of life are never adequately explained by ND, just a simplistic explanation and then 'OK, folks lets move on'.

Steve P. said: With this in mind, ID is not required to propose the identity or method of a designer...

simply contrast the ID position with the ND position by inserting a key conceptual element that ND denies...the existence of information as an independent and separate physical entity that interacts with physics and chemistry.

...yeah, you can wag a crooked finger at ID to please your perps....but it is ID that will overtake ND....just a matter of time.

...but we all know ND will attempt to co-opt ID's information as a separate entity concept and claim it fit with ND all along....we knew THAT!

Dave Luckett said: No, the hypothesis of "design" does not absolutely require the identification of a designer, although it would be a little less vacuous if one were identified. It does, however, require evidence that design occurred. Produce it, please.

In archeology, one usually can't identify the designer of an artefact at all. A general cultural context is usually the best that can be done. However, the general techniques, methods and material used can be specified. In animal behaviour, no designer is ever specified, either of the animal, or of the behaviour. In criminal forensics, the purpose is not necessarily to associate any particular person with the crime, but often simply to define more closely what happened, when, by what precise means, and under what precise circumstances. Hence a hypothesis of design does not necessarily include the identity of the designer, but it does, and must, say what happened, generally when, and by what means or techniques, using what materials. If it does not specify these at least, it is merely vacuous.

If Steve P or any proponent of intelligent design were to say what happened in any terms other than the vaguest of handwaving, the hypothesis could be tested. But they refuse to do that - for that very reason. Absent such a description, it can't be tested - which is exactly what they want.

But if it can't be tested, it isn't science.

Steve P. said: ....but wait Harold, if you are implying that Woese is not wrong, then why lambast Behe for this off-hand remark that a single progenator cell started life's evolutionary (non-darwinian of course) track? ...btw, your list has been answered twice....you know what they say about repetitive behavior. ...no, you don't gots to get paid! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaIZWjItReI

harold said:

Steve P. said: What is interesting Douglas, is that Woese, like lots of proponents of Darwinian evolution, trot out the YEC 'individual crafting of parts like a machinist' position as also being an ID position, which is patently untrue. In fact, ID has no such debt to YEC. Even Darwinian evolution skeptic Michael Behe made an off-hand comment that a single progenitor cell was a plausibility, an idea compatible with Woese' take on early life. So this seems just another strawman characterization of the ID position. What is more curious though, in the context of this OP is that no matter what scenarios are proposed by people like Woese, these ideas can all live under the humongous Darwinian evolutionary tent. No scenario left behind.

Now is your chance to prove Woese wrong. 1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you if present? 2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC? 3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not? 4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer? 5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer? 6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? 7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer? 8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?

Steve P. said: ...a not so clever, limp wristed attempt to bait a Darwinian evolution skeptic into being accused of derailing a thread. ...maybe PT moderators should take a look at BWing these types of home-grown posts.

Just Bob said: Hey Stevie, what would we gain by switching over to ID-inspired science?

Steve P. said: eric, contrast the ID postion with the ND position: ND: we don't know how life got started...but without doubt it was a combination of physics and chemistry... ID: we don't know how life got started...but without doubt is was information interacting with physics and chemistry...

...your continued attempts to imply that design requires the identity and method of a supposedly human like yet ethereal entity suggests you are purposefully twisting the ID position to make it easier to rebut...create a weak link and break it with tweezers...bolts cutters are way too expensive.

So I suppose to keep the logic consistent, we need to ask you for the identity and method of the physics and chemistry that started life and provided the conditions for Darwinian evolution...no but wait!; darwinian evolution does not depend on abiogenesis... separate issues! so I can't require this of you.

With this in mind, ID is not required to propose the identity or method of a designer...simply contrast the ID position with the ND position by inserting a key conceptual element that ND denies...the existence of information as an independent and separate physical entity that interacts with physics and chemistry.

...yeah, you can wag a crooked finger at ID to please your perps....but it is ID that will overtake ND....just a matter of time. ...but we all know ND will attempt to co-opt ID's information as a separate entity concept and claim it fit with ND all along....we knew THAT!

Steve P. said: eric, contrast the ID postion with the ND position: ND: we don't know how life got started...but without doubt it was a combination of physics and chemistry... ID: we don't know how life got started...but without doubt is was information interacting with physics and chemistry...

...your continued attempts to imply that design requires the identity and method of a supposedly human like yet ethereal entity suggests you are purposefully twisting the ID position to make it easier to rebut...

the existence of information as an independent and separate physical entity that interacts with physics and chemistry.

but we all know ND will attempt to co-opt ID’s information as a separate entity concept and claim it fit with ND all along.…we knew THAT!

Steve P. said: Douglas, of course HGT is a challenge to Darwinian evolutionary theory.

..co-opting this concept is simply an attempt to punt the ball....as I alluded to several times in a discussion with Flint in a past posts, how does one account for the ability of early life to possess any 'abilities' - but specifically in this context, the ability to recognize new genes and utilize them, the ability to copy and release them to other organisms?

...all these myriad mechanisms which existing at the start of life are never adequately explained by ND, just a simplistic explanation and then 'OK, folks lets move on'.

So Stevey says he's answered the "Harold List," okay Stevey since I've been running around the internet with it too, I have made my own additions to the list. Why don't you try answering my additions to the list.

1) The DI is always arguing that they are capable of “detecting design.” Explain the methodology of “detecting design?”

2) The DI is always using “Complex Specified Information” to say that design can be demonstrated. Okay, what is “Complex Specified Information?” Can it be quantified? How is “information” measured? How much “information” does it take to make a man? A fish?

3) Maybe you want to discuss the odds of evolution. Okay, what are the odds? Can you explain how they came up with that number? Can you show the exact calculations they used to produce this number? If that’s too hard, can you at least tell us where to start to calculate the odds?

In addition to answering my questions I want you to either answer the "Harold List" again or post a link to the answers so that I can see them.

Steve P. said: So I suppose to keep the logic consistent, we need to ask you for the identity and method of the physics and chemistry that started life and provided the conditions for Darwinian evolution...no but wait!; darwinian evolution does not depend on abiogenesis... separate issues! so I can't require this of you.

Steve P. said: ....but wait Harold, if you are implying that Woese is not wrong, then why lambast Behe for this off-hand remark that a single progenator cell started life's evolutionary (non-darwinian of course) track? ..

Behe claims that life began with a progenitor cell that was heavily front loaded.

Just Bob said:

Steve P. said: ...a not so clever, limp wristed attempt to bait a Darwinian evolution skeptic into being accused of derailing a thread. ...maybe PT moderators should take a look at BWing these types of home-grown posts.

Just Bob said: Hey Stevie, what would we gain by switching over to ID-inspired science?

... And of course Stevie came back with a powerful, stiff-wristed answer to the question, right? ... Home-grow posts? As opposed to what -- factory-made posts? Purchased at Walmart posts?

Too much off topic, off OP, so shutting down.