If you have the time, please look at the ID and Consciousness thread. I have written a multipart thread that walks throught a quantum mechanical explaination that is potentially compatible with MikeGene's scientific research.

My discussion starts here

I really want someone to explain were Rodger Penrose and/or I have gone astray in the logic.

Thanks and Regards,
TP

OK, sorry. I thought you were attempting to say something non-trivial. Since evolution, whether front loaded or not, is a historical process, the future always depends on the present (or the present on the past, if you prefer).

Of course. If we are talking about originally designed entities, then connecting the present to the past is connecting the present to design. But we're still left with the question of just how plausible it is to design the future through the present. This research helps us see that such an objective is increasingly plausible.

The research that Bradford alerted us to is very interesting, but this quote from one of the authors is just banal. When does evolution not require both the tools and the opportunity?

Ah, but the conventional Darwinian view tends to tilt toward the notion that opportunity creates the selection pressure for jury-rigging the tools into existence. In this case, it was the tools that helped evolution find the opportunity.

You have have distinguished FL from directed evolution by limiting FLE to a particular time period in evolution. IIRC (and correct me if I am wrong), you also assume that standard Darwinian descent with modification occurred after the front loading event.

Yes, and because of life's design, it was RM & NS under control.

IMO, then, research that adds to the plausibility of front loading would a) describe phenomena that occurred during the time period critical for front loading and b) predict a different outcome than Darwinian descent with modification. If the research doesn't fit a), then it might add to the plausibility of directed evolution, but it can't add to the plausibility of FLE. If the research doesn't fit b), then like the research that Bradford linked to, it might be neutral wrt FLE, but it won't add to its plausibility.

I can see how failure to meet a) and b) leaves you unconvinced of front-loading, but I fail to see how it renders FLE implausible.

As for a), I'm not quite sure what you mean by the "time period critical for front loading." Front-loading envisions the implanting of design at some point in time and then asks to what extent this design shaped subsequent evolution. One way to define "˜extent' is to define it as the time period by which the design can exert its influence. And that's the very question that is helped by the research Bradford links to. As for b), that does not make any sense. Did Darwinian descent with modification actually have a predicted outcome as far as this research goes? As you wrote:

The paired fins of actinopterygian fish and the limbs of tetrapods are homologous structures. Both are derived from the fins of an aquatic common ancestor. It was known that the developing fins of modern actinopterygian fish lack a developmental hallmark of developing tetrapod limbs (late phase HoxD expression). Since actinopterygian fins are morphologically more similar to the fins of the common ancestor, it was a reasonable hypothesis that the development of limbs was the evolutionary novelty and the development of fins was evolutionarily conserved.

This new data suggests the reverse.

Unless Darwinian descent with modification is going to predict specific outcomes, how can FLE hope to predict something different?

Furthermore, as I explained above, the recruitment of Darwinian descent with modification seems to be a rather wise design strategy. So why is FLE supposed to result in a different outcome than Darwinian descent with modification? What would one such possible different outcome look like?

Heck, it's not a problem for me. It's just a mildly interesting topic to debate in the comments of a blog. If you are right that FLE uses the same mechanisms and results in the same outcome as Darwinian evolution, then I suspect that MikeGene's approach is doomed.

Only time will tell.

Only a designercentric approach, confirming the existence of the designer and determining that entity's objectives, will add to the plausibility of FLE.

Huh? How? Let's say that life was indeed designed 3.5 billion years ago? Does this mean that we should necessarily be able to confirm the existence of the designer and determine that entity's objectives? Nope. So why hold a tentative design inference hostage to this demand? The designer-centric approach is an approach that is dependent on independent information about the designer. So why insist on it when no such independent information exists? We can either sit around and hope we stumble upon this information some day or we can begin pondering ways to get around the need for such independent information. Once this choice is seen for what it is, it becomes clear (at least to me) why so many critics demand allegiance to the designer-centric approach - sitting around waiting for independent information about the designer to poof into existence is a perfect way to make sure that no one is ever likely to detect any design.

The research that you originally linked to is interesting but I'm becoming much less interested in FLE, the further down these comments we go. It just doesn't seem to have any substance. You can have the last word.

I have a feeling that you'll find yourself wanting to talk about FLE sometime in the future.

Glad that a decent analysis is finally throwing some cold water on the ridiculous claim of the protofeathers. Unfortunately, it takes serious time and effort (i.e., actual scientific work) to analyze and demonstrate the falsity of such claims, while it is very quick and easy to get wild stories and evolutionary fantasies proclaimed to the world. Kind of like trying to swat down a population of files that multiply faster than they can be killed.

Or controlling a large population of bunnies with a slow and plodding weapon. Oops, did I say that . . . ?

OK, sorry. I thought you were attempting to say something non-trivial. Since evolution, whether front loaded or not, is a historical process, the future always depends on the present (or the present on the past, if you prefer). The research that Bradford alerted us to is very interesting, but this quote from one of the authors is just banal. When does evolution not require both the tools and the opportunity?

Since you are not happy with this, perhaps you can share what type of research finding would add to the plausibility of front-loading?

You have have distinguished FL from directed evolution by limiting FLE to a particular time period in evolution. IIRC (and correct me if I am wrong), you also assume that standard Darwinian descent with modification occurred after the front loading event. IMO, then, research that adds to the plausibility of front loading would a) describe phenomena that occurred during the time period critical for front loading and b) predict a different outcome than Darwinian descent with modification. If the research doesn't fit a), then it might add to the plausibility of directed evolution, but it can't add to the plausibility of FLE. If the research doesn't fit b), then like the research that Bradford linked to, it might be neutral wrt FLE, but it won't add to its plausibility.

Bradford:
This really gets to the heart of the matter. When the outcome and mechanism are not disputed but the perspective differs why then does this become such a problem for you Nick?

Heck, it's not a problem for me. It's just a mildly interesting topic to debate in the comments of a blog. If you are right that FLE uses the same mechanisms and results in the same outcome as Darwinian evolution, then I suspect that MikeGene's approach is doomed. Only a designercentric approach, confirming the existence of the designer and determining that entity's objectives, will add to the plausibility of FLE.

The research that you originally linked to is interesting but I'm becoming much less interested in FLE, the further down these comments we go. It just doesn't seem to have any substance. You can have the last word.

Mike Gene: Besides, why would this bother you? If in the end we have a decent teleological perspective that embraces descent with modification by Darwinian mechanisms, is it the alternative teleological perspective that annoys you?

This really gets to the heart of the matter. When the outcome and mechanism are not disputed but the perspective differs why then does this become such a problem for you Nick?

And as I pointed out above, if the genetic capability to build tetrapod limbs is derived from genetic pathways present in primitive fish, then the capability to build modern actinopterygian fins must be a genetic novelty. The original hypothesis was that the ab ility to build tetrapod limbs was the genetic novelty, and the ability to build actinopterygian fins was derived from primitive capabilities. Either way, you've got one conserved mechanism and one novel mechanism in modern vertebrates. The competing hypotheses are equivalent with regard to front loading, so this new research adds nothing to its plausibility.

The existence of true novelty does not render the front-loading of evolution implausible. It only renders the front-loading of that particular novelty (noise) implausible. The hypothesis of front-loading is not about pre-determining every aspect of evolution. On the contrary, a front-loading perspective asks just how much of evolution can be shaped by design given all the noise that it likely to occur.

IOW, front loading is indistinguishable from descent with modification by Darwinian mechanisms.

In the beginning (and maybe in the end), this may be true, as front-loading is about a designer recruiting descent with modification by Darwinian mechanisms. The alternatives for the designer would be to either ignore descent with modification by Darwinian mechanisms or work against it. IMO, recruitment is a better design strategy than ignoring it or opposing it.

Besides, why would this bother you? If in the end we have a decent teleological perspective that embraces descent with modification by Darwinian mechanisms, is it the alternative teleological perspective that annoys you?

FL just has the added bonus of being vague and undefined with ever shifting scope and timing, so that any evolutionary conservation adds to the plausibility of FL, while genetic novelty does not detract from its plausibility. Perfect!

I'm not sure what "Perfect!" is supposed to mean, but are you under the impression that I am supposed to have a ready-made, rigorous, detailed Theory of Front-Loading? I have only begun to explore/investigate the front-loading perspective and must do so in my spare time.

The objective of FL isn't the issue, the timing is. You wrote that a basic assumption of FL is that "the designer has one window of opportunity." You also argued that the FL occurred at the origin of multicellular life or in the "first cells" (though it can't be both if there was a single window of opportunity). Therefore, this research adds nothing to the plausibility of FL, because it occurs after the critical period that you have defined. Since invertebrates lack HoxD clusters, they cannot have the overlapping pattern of HoxD expression. If FL occurred at the time multicellular life first appeared, then this genetic pathway is not a candidate for a front loaded process.

Where did I say that "this genetic pathway is a candidate for a front loaded process?" This example simply helps us appreciate one way in which the future could be designed through the present, adding to the plausibility of front-loading. "It had the tools," he said, "but it needed the opportunity as well."

Since you are not happy with this, perhaps you can share what type of research finding would add to the plausibility of front-loading?

This isn't a matter of trying to argue evolution versus ID, or worrying about the possible objectives of front loading. The issue is that FL, as you have described it in your comments, is incoherent and self-contradictory.

On the other hand, perhaps your criticisms are knee-jerk reactions that satisfy a need to debunk?

And as I pointed out above, if the genetic capability to build tetrapod limbs is derived from genetic pathways present in primitive fish, then the capability to build modern actinopterygian fins must be a genetic novelty. The original hypothesis was that the ability to build tetrapod limbs was the genetic novelty, and the ability to build actinopterygian fins was derived from primitive capabilities. Either way, you've got one conserved mechanism and one novel mechanism in modern vertebrates. The competing hypotheses are equivalent with regard to front loading, so this new research adds nothing to its plausibility.

This shows us one way of designing the future through the present.

IOW, front loading is indistinguishable from descent with modification by Darwinian mechanisms. FL just has the added bonus of being vague and undefined with ever shifting scope and timing, so that any evolutionary conservation adds to the plausibility of FL, while genetic novelty does not detract from its plausibility. Perfect!

BTW, multi-cellular life is just one possible objective of front-loading.

The objective of FL isn't the issue, the timing is. You wrote that a basic assumption of FL is that "the designer has one window of opportunity." You also argued that the FL occurred at the origin of multicellular life or in the "first cells" (though it can't be both if there was a single window of opportunity). Therefore, this research adds nothing to the plausibility of FL, because it occurs after the critical period that you have defined. Since invertebrates lack HoxD clusters, they cannot have the overlapping pattern of HoxD expression. If FL occurred at the time multicellular life first appeared, then this genetic pathway is not a candidate for a front loaded process.

This isn't a matter of trying to argue evolution versus ID, or worrying about the possible objectives of front loading. The issue is that FL, as you have described it in your comments, is incoherent and self-contradictory.

You and Bradford must have very different ideas about frontloading, and you were apparently wrong when you claimed upthread that this research "adds to the plausibility of front-loading." The research that started this thread has nothing to do with the origin of multicellular life, and therefore, has no relevance to front loading as you have just described it.

Returning to the quotes provided by Bradford:

The paper, "An autopodial-like pattern of Hox expression in the fins of a basal actinopterygian fish," shows that the genetic and developmental toolkit that builds limbs with fingers and toes was around long before the acquisition of limbs, according to the scientists, and that this toolkit exists in some primitive form in a living primitive bony fish, the paddlefish.

"We found that the genetic capability seen in tetrapods to build limbs is present in even more primitive fish," said lead author Marcus Davis, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in Neil Shubin's lab at the University of Chicago.

This shows us one way of designing the future through the present.
BTW, multi-cellular life is just one possible objective of front-loading.

You and Bradford must have very different ideas about frontloading, and you were apparently wrong when you claimed upthread that this research "adds to the plausibility of front-loading." The research that started this thread has nothing to do with the origin of multicellular life, and therefore, has no relevance to front loading as you have just described it. Invertebrates don't even have a HoxD cluster, so the particular HoxD expression pattern that permits development of tetrapod limbs instead of fins cannot have been front loaded at the origin of multicellular life.

Front loading is looking more and more like a kind of bait and switch. When it is convenient, almost any evolutionary conservation "adds to the plausibility of front loading." But when the specifics of a particular piece of research are discussed, front loading retreats to some vague event at the origin of multicellular life.