Another predictable argument against front-loading
by KrauzeEd Brayton has a post up about front-loading, and I'll mention the good news first. He made me aware of an interesting finding, of obvious relevance to front-loading, that I hadn't noticed myself. Turns out sea sponges contain genes for synapses, which is rather surprising, considering sea sponges don't even have nerve systems.
Considered among the most primitive and ancient of all animals, sea sponges have no nervous system (or internal organs of any kind, for that matter), notes Todd Oakley, assistant professor in the Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. But, he adds, they "have most of the genetic components of synapses."…
He, Oakley and the rest of the team listed all the genes known to be operative in synapses in the human nervous system. They then examined the sponge genome. "That was when the surprise hit," said Kosik. "We found a lot of genes to make a nervous system present in the sponge."
So, tell us the bad news, Krauze! The bad news is that Brayton then goes on to criticize front-loading, getting the whole concept wrong and making all the same old mistakes that he should be too intelligent to fall for. The trouble starts with the very title of his post, "Exaptation vs Front Loading: Why Evolution Wins".
There is no need to place these concepts in opposition to each other. Front-loading is an ID hypothesis, involving evolution, which is perfectly open to the concept of structures changing functions (i.e. becoming exapted). Imagine that Brayton had written a post on the origin of car engines and called it "Engineering vs Combustion: Why Physics Wins", and you'll know how I feel.
Brayton goes on to make the oldest mistake about front-loading in the book, namely by claiming that it requires genes to be "turned off" or "without function":
But remember, some of those genes are highly conserved or 100% conserved - that is, identical or nearly identical - between sponges and humans. And while front loading means those genes had to be "turned off" for hundreds of millions of years, exaptation posits that those genes were turned on, expressed in the phenotype and serving different functions.
This is a chestnut that has been dealt with numerous times. Like here, where I write:
A designer wanting to front-load the evolution of life need not have inserted useless genes for eyes and hearts in a unicellular organism, where mutations would erase them in a few million years. Instead, the designer could have designed genes that could be adapted to multiple functions, so that a gene could serve one function in a unicellular organism and another in a multicellular organism. Flexibility - not micro-managing - is the key.
And what criticism would be complete without claim that "front-loading requires all genes currenly in existence to have been compressed in the first genome" A claim that has been dealt with here.
Brayton often makes fun - and justifiably so - of creationists who criticize evolution without having tried to understand it. Maybe he should heed his own advice and read up on that concept he's trying to criticize.
June 10th, 2007 at 6:24 am
Brayton often makes fun - and justifiably so - of creationists who criticize evolution without having tried to understand it. Maybe he should heed his own advice and read up on that concept he's trying to criticize.
Can somebody state precisely what the theory of front-loading is?
What observations support this theory, and what observations (if observed) would falisfy this theory?
If we all know what the theory is then we all might be able to stay on topic when debating wether this evidence really supports it.
Comment by salimfadhley — June 10, 2007 @ 6:24 am
June 10th, 2007 at 6:56 am
Hi Salim,
A good place to start would be the links in the post.
Comment by Krauze — June 10, 2007 @ 6:56 am
June 10th, 2007 at 7:51 am
All I was after was a short definition of what the theory is; There are quite a lot of links & comments to work through, and I wouldnt want to get the wrong idea about the theory we are exploring here. Is this the definition of front loading that ID proponents accept:
"Front-loading is the idea that the designer made the first organisms with the future in mind, and that the original design influenced the course of evolution."
Can somebody confirm if that is a summary of the theory of front-loading?
Comment by salimfadhley — June 10, 2007 @ 7:51 am
June 10th, 2007 at 7:54 am
Sure, except that there is no theory of front-loading. "Hypothesis" or "model" would be more accurate.
Comment by Krauze — June 10, 2007 @ 7:54 am
June 10th, 2007 at 8:16 am
Hi Krauze, It appears, having read the link you provided, that this is an accurate criticism of Behe's notion of front-loading. In a quote from "Darwin's Black Box", Behe said:
(One can postulate that the designs for systems that were to be used later, such as blood clotting, were present but not "turned on." In present-day organisms plenty of genes are turned off for a while, sometimes for generations, to be turned on at a later time.)
So if Behe is promoting this notion, its valid to criticize it. I haven't read DBB, so if this is an example of quote-mining, you can correct me.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 10, 2007 @ 8:16 am
June 10th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Hi Aagcobb. You wrote:
When dealing with the quote as is why do you believe criticisms of this are valid? Or are you merely stating that it is legitimate to criticize? Looking at the argument in isolation (i.e. without involving a wider amount of available information) why would a reasonable person not ask why it is that unexpressed traits for x exist within an organism, particularly if such traits are found expressed in organisms believed to have descended from the organism in question. If nothing else a curious mind would want an answer.
Comment by Bradford — June 10, 2007 @ 9:58 am
June 10th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Hi Krause,
Why focus on Ed Brayton personally? Let's talk about his scientific thoughts.
Let's do science!
His Sponge example is a good one. Let's skip all of the opinions of opinions and go to the original paper which concludes…
I agree this piece of scientific evidence potentially provides an interesting insight into understanding something, but what?
Here are three possibilities…
1. An accidental feature that serendipitously shaped synaptic development in life on Earth.
2. Intelligent front-loaded feature created for the direct purpose of shaping synaptic development in life on Earth.
3. A pre-determined, retrocausual feature forced by the inevitable synaptic development in life on Earth.
Rather than put my spin on the first two hypotheses, I will further explain my version of the Penrose-Hameroff model and how this evidence supports it.
If you think about a computerized pseudo random number generator, it really isn't random, just complex. All of the numbers are pre-determined. The assumption is that this simulates some real-world randomness. Hopefully, you can understand how Newtonian physics implies, at a macro level, matter acts in a deterministic manner, even if it is complex. It isn't until you get down to the quantum mechanical level that things become non-deterministic. Historically, we have just assumed quantum effects are random. Penrose suggests quantum effects aren't random, just non-deterministic and non-local. In other words, quantum effects have to be consistent with all other non-local quantum effects in our space-time universe which includes all time (past, present and future) in addition to all locations.
An effect that is driven by all other effects in the Universe for all time would be so complex that it would be almost indistinguishable from randomness. "Almost" being the operative word. Evidence of the universe appearing to "magically" force consistency would provide hints that the Penrose-Hameroff is scientifically accurate. I suggest the appearance of a "pre-existing structure"¦that led to a post-synaptic element" would be just the kind of evidence we should be looking for. Especially, since Penrose-Hameroff is also suggesting synaptic activity can be directly traced to quantum mechanics.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 10, 2007 @ 10:44 am
June 10th, 2007 at 10:58 am
TP writes:
So life itself was a consequence of the nature of the universe within which it is found. Given the immensity of the universe a secondary prediction would be that life should be found throughout the universe right?
How would Penrose-Hameroff be falsified?
Comment by Bradford — June 10, 2007 @ 10:58 am
June 10th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Snippets of Krauze's comments appear at Brayton's blog. I added my two cents here.
Comment by Bradford — June 10, 2007 @ 11:15 am
June 10th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Hi Bradford,
You asked…
Good questions and I thank you for asking them.
First, I will ask how would front-loading be falsified?
I ask this question because I suspect you are looking for making a distinction between your hypothesis and mine. Of course you would need to provide a model of your hypothesis in order for me to do that.
I would say my hypothesis would be falsified and yours confirmed if a big booming voice announced "How dare you suggest I don't play dice? Prepare for the end-of-days".
More seriously, it become a matter of wieght of evidence. If there is more evidence that a chance hypothesis can explain the preexistance of scaffolding for synaptic activity the less likely my hypothesis is correct (falsified).
However, that is just this one hypothesis, it would not falsify the Penrose-Hameroff model completely.
The Penrose-Hameroff model predicts certain things about cultured neural networks. If cultured neural networks showed no signs of abilities beyond what what would be expected without assistence for quantum mechanics then the model's accuracy would be in doubt.
BTW, Did you notice MikeGene's thread Rat neurons learn how to fly a plane
As for expecting that "life should be found throughout the universe". I saw a movie about that. It was called Privileged Planet. I think most, if not all, the observations that were mention there would also apply to my hypothesis.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 10, 2007 @ 11:26 am
June 10th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Let's consider some of Brayton's arguments:
According to Brayton, if life was front-loaded, the designer MUST have been God. Yet instead of telling us why the designer MUST have been God, Brayton offers bluster: "I'm not going to engage in the ridiculous fiction that the generic designer they posit is anything other than God." Brayton is clearly unable to defend his position that the designer MUST have been God.
Indeed. And while it took precious little for Miller to throw in the towel on this idea, as an open-minded investigator, I began to to use it as a springboard to further develop the concept of front-loading. Over seven years ago on the ARN forum, I replied to Miller's criticism and the reply is archived here.
Two things should stand out in my reply.
and
Seven years ago I was talking facilitating evolution by giving genes multiple functions and said I need to give it more thought. I have.
Front-loading does NOT presume "those genes serve no function before they are later expressed."
And here we get the standard reply from the front-loading critic. According to Brayton, we see exactly what the non-teleological view predicted. But then we read this:
This is not a surprise from the front-loading perspective. But according to the critics, scientists are continually being "surprised" when their predictions come true (as Krauze knows, this is a common pattern).
And here is another common theme from the critics. In Brayton's mind, the idea becomes meaningless. Why? ID is supposed to equal creationism and unless we are proposing anti-evolutionism, the proposal is deemed meaningless. It it crucial to realize that as long as teleologists expend all their energy and time on anti-evolutionism, the non-teleologists have been given a monopoly on evolutionary interpretations. Thus, non-teleologists are under the impression that multiple-functions exclusively support a non-teleological perspective because it's the non-teleologists who have been fitting multiple-functions in a non-teleological framework. What front-loading shows is that multiple-functions make sense from a teleological perspective, thus Brayton's non-teleological framework can likewise be viewed as "meaningless."
Front-loading is not about convincing skeptics like Brayton. He is free to add his non-teleological interpretations to evolution. Front-loading is about a teleological perspective that is attempting to stand on its own, about thinking through the design of life and how it could/would impact evolution.
It's fitting that both Salim and Aagcobb have joined this exchange, as they recently argued for the existence of a discoverable, hidden message in the DNA. Certainly the mechanism they envision to maintain a hidden message for billions of years could maintain such genes. Thus, those who think the truth of ID hinges on the discovery of a message in the DNA should have no problem with this option.
This would be a problem if scientists traveled back billions of years in time and we were surveying a sample from this original consortium of cells.
Yet the researchers are constantly being surprised by what they find.
Or Brayton does not truly grasp the ID hypothesis.
Comment by MikeGene — June 10, 2007 @ 11:32 am
June 10th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Krauze could better answer this but I'll give you my thoughts. A search for genes enabling subsequent change is a fairly straightforward endeavor IMO. However the falsification of FL is not. I look for contingencies in a process. As a thought experiment assume you had an organism of two different strains. Type A had a full complement of genes which included a set thought to be evidence of front loading. Type B was identical but lacked these FL genes. Both were subjected to environmental pressures that could induce the expression of or slight modification of the FL genes enabling type A to survive and pass on its genes. Type B could also survive if a coping mechanism evolved.
The outcome: Both types survived in modified forms reflecting adapatation. The conclusion. An FL hypothesis was falsified at least with respect to this particular species and the genes in question.
Comment by Bradford — June 10, 2007 @ 11:45 am
June 10th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Hi Bradford,
And wouldn't your thought experiment also falsify my hypothesis as it pertains to that specific scenario?
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 10, 2007 @ 11:53 am
June 10th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Hi Mike,
You wrote..
Who cares?
Let's do science!
(not politics)
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 10, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
That's the part that is unclear to me. It seems to me that a more generally based form of FL (i.e. one that is pegged to laws of physics) could explain biological effects but the number of variables involved might be too great to analyze. One might argue that the theoretical experiment was consistent with Penrose because the multiple pathways were consistent. But while the Gedanken experiment is intended to show how biological FL could be falsified I do not see it as necessarily falsifying Penrose.
Comment by Bradford — June 10, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Hi TP,
You ask, "Who cares?"
I do.
Comment by MikeGene — June 10, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
The Penrose model approaches the status of a proposed theory. It is MY HYPOTHESIS that the Penrose model would explain front loading effects in nature. MY HYPOTHESIS would be falsified by Gedanken experiment.
It would take more than that to falsify the Penrose model. There is another hypothesis that falls out of the Penrose model. It is where Hameroff partners up with Penrose to suggest that quantum effects in microtubules provide consciousness to living things. Plenty of people accept the accuracy of Penrose's model yet loudly reject this hypothesis. Tegmark's objections is a good example of this.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 10, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Hi Mike,
I asked "Who cares?"
You responded with…
Then you might want to join Bradford and myself in replying directly to Ed Brayton.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 10, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Hi TP,
My cyber-addiction problem is too severe. This is why over the years I have restricted myself to the ARN forum, the Brainstorms forum, my web page, and this blog. Nowadays, it's mostly this blog.
Comment by MikeGene — June 10, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
To me, this whole idea of front-loading sounds like another more familiar idea: Destiny.
How do you tell if something was destined to happen or if it was just by the product of accidnts? Mystics have long proposed that there is a pre-ordained pattern to the universe, and that nothing happens by accident.
How would you test this idea? The trouble is, looking back it's kind of hard to work out what historical events were destined to happen and which just happened.
Is the front-loading hypothesis little more than a claim of gentic destiny?
Discuss?
Comment by salimfadhley — June 10, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
salimfadhley writes:
Physical evidence.
Comment by Bradford — June 10, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
me: How do you tell if something was destined to happen or if it was just by the product of accidnts?
bradford: Physical evidence.
Bradford, I assume (but correct me) that you do not object to me calling front-loading "genetic destiny" I'm assuming that you are OK with that comparison.
Can we talk about destiny in the more everyday sense? For example if I claimed that George W. Bush was destined to become president of the USA, do you agree?
What if I claimed that yesterday I bought a loaf of bread from a supermarket. Was this event in any way pre-destined? Was it my fate to buy bread in Sainsburys on a sunny Saturday morning? Was my entire supermarket trip part of a vast, inexplicable cosmic plan?
The way I see it, I do not have an accurate way of knowing if any of the above events were destined. I do know that both happened, but since I do not have any knowledge of the cosmic plan I do not know if mine or George's life events are unfolding according to said plan.
So in absence of that plan, what physical evidence could I present in either case to prove that an event was (or was not) destined to happen?
Comment by salimfadhley — June 10, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Hi salimfadhley,
You asked…
Let me take a crack at this. But first a disclaimer…
I am a self-described Atheist and, therefore, I am often thought of as an ID critic even though ID is not supposed to require the existence of God. Based on this and other things, you should suspect that I don't understand ID because if I did I would certainly believe not only in design, but Intelligent Design and would quit making pesky observations that "intelligence" implies an "ability to learn".
There is a paper written by Dr. Dembski titled Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence that I consider a fairly readable and comprehensive explanation of how Dembski proposes to separate Specified Complex occurrences from simply complex occurrences in nature.
Dembski offers to compare hypotheses and choosing the one that "best" explains the occurrence. He does this by suggesting that somehow, someway we figure out the probabilities of the possible "chance hypotheses" and plug it into this formula…
χ = "“log2[ 120^10 "¢ Ï•S(T)"¢P(T|H)]
where
P(T|H) = probability of the rejection region given chance hypothesis "H"
Ï•S(T) = "the number of patterns for which S's semiotic description of them
is at least as simple as S's semiotic description of T."
and 120^10 "constitutes the maximal number of bit operations that the known, observable universe could have performed throughout its entire multi-billion year history."
If χ > 1 then it is more likely than not that the chance hypothesis is NOT a correct assumption. Once all chance hypotheses are shown to be unlikely, the "best" explanation is design.
This presupposes that the design hypothesis is not a chance hypothesis. This would require that any "intelligent designer" would have to be a perfect designer eliminating any chance of error. I think we all understand why this isn't a problem for most ID proponents.
So far so good from the ID perspective. Now let's bring in Penrose…
Dembski's logic and most ID arguments very much hinge on the concept that "Darwinism" is a chance hypothesis of nature. If my understanding of Penrose is correct, there is no such thing as chance in nature.
Newtonian physics describes nature as deterministic and non-random. Quantum mechanics is not deterministic, but is it random? Penrose says "no". All quantum effects in our space-time universe are interconnected. This is extremely complex. So complex it is almost indistinguishable from randomness.
So I will add to Bradford's answer of "physical evidence" to say…
Physical evidence that appears to "magically" provide universal consistency.
Something that looks like a reverse of a cause and effect relationship (retrocausality) would be the kind of thing we might be able to detect.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 10, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
salimfadhley:
TP:
Or simply causality in the case of changes involving genes present prior to a point in time when their phenotypic effects are observed. The cause and effect relationship between genes and phenotype is observable. Nothing mystic about it. If the genes were buried in deep homology the subsequent effects would be ever more striking. Destiny need not be the stuff of mysticism in systems like this. Rather it can indicate a predisposal to certain outcomes based on physical make-up.
Comment by Bradford — June 10, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
"I haven't read DBB, so if this is an example of quote-mining, you can correct me."
Sure, the passage you quoted is an accurate representation of the one paragraph Behe wrote about front-loading (although never actually using the word), in his book from 1996.
However, Brayton's post didn't purport do be a response to a single paragraph, written more than ten years ago. It purported to be a response to the concept of front-loading, which has undergone considerable development since Behe penned that paragraph back in 1996.
Comment by Krauze — June 10, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
χ = "“log2[ 120^10 "¢ Ï•S(T)"¢P(T|H)]
Dembski's is basically attempting to calculate how improbable events that previously happened may have been. It's a mathematical way of exclaiming "what were the odds of that happening?".
BY the way, this is not a theorem, it's just Dembski's opinion rendered in mathematical form, and I do not think it tells us anything about destiny. At best Dembski's calculation might tell us that certain things are very improbable, but as we know many improbable things happen all the time.
That is why I wanted to keep this topic on every day examples before we consider the baffling concept of genetic destiny. If we cannot seperate destined events in our lives from non-destined events then I do not see how we can do the same with genetic material?
Something the looks like a reverse of a cause and effect relationship (retrocausality) would be the kind of thing we might be able to detect.
Something along the argument of "George W. Bush was destined to become president, because who else could have brought Christianity back into government?"
Event X must have been destined because it was required for Y and Y was destined because it was required for Z and Z was destined because look at how improbable that chain of events from A to Y were… I mean, what were the odds of that happening?
Comment by salimfadhley — June 10, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
It purported to be a response to the concept of front-loading, which has undergone considerable development since Behe penned that paragraph back in 1996.
So who is the authority on the Front Loading hypothesis?
Comment by salimfadhley — June 10, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Why is that your concern? I thought differentiating between good models and bad ones was a matter of objectively assessing the data and its fit to the model, not the matter of the person advocating a model.
Comment by Bradford — June 10, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Hi salimfadhley,
We are supposed to be on the same side of the Culture War, but even I can see you are disingenuously employing multiple strawmen.
I am not presenting George Bush's presidency as a fortuitous event (nor would I be tempted to). Of course you want to "keep this topic on every day examples" so you can easily dismiss them.
Finding examples of retrocausality is not going to be easy. And your use of the term "destiny" is framing the issue. Not that framing is inherently bad, you are obviously arguing that we are incapable of separating predetermined events from events that just happened. This is the crux of the argument.
Using the loaded word "destiny" isn't a counter-argument.
There are a lot of things wrong with Dembski's logic, but if you think all that Dembski said was "that certain things are very improbable", you don't understand what he said. I took the time to understand it. I am not going to do your work for you. Here is the link, do your own homework.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 10, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
You allow yourself to acknowledge the plausibility of concepts that could be viewed as not encompassed by your overall worldview. That speaks well for you TP.
Comment by Bradford — June 10, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Hi, salimfadhley,
I think it is best, when human behavior is involved, to assume free will. There is no model that can correlate a person's decision to buy a loaf of bread with that person's physical state. Consider that time elapses between the decision to buy a loaf of bread and the actual purchase of it, during which there are additional state changes. [An infinite number of state changes, if you accept that increments of time can be divided without end.]
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — June 10, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
The reason why it matters is because it is so incredibly difficult to find a coherent model about front loading to evaluate. Mike Gene, as far as I know, continues to look at his front loading hypothesis as a work in progress.
I while back I tried to figure out if there is any data that could be collected or any experiment that could be performed, which would conclusively rule out or confirm the front loading hypothesis. As far as I can tell there is none.
Thus, the quest for finding an authority on front loading or getting at an accepted definition of front loading.
As Mike Gene is fond of pointing out, all the little data snippets posted here are said to be 'consistent' with front loading. Yet, they are also consistent with evolution as most biological scientists understand it. So, what distinguishes one from the other. I don't know. Do you? Does Mike? Does anybody?
Comment by hrun — June 10, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
I am not presenting George Bush's presidency as a fortuitous event (nor would I be tempted to). Of course you want to "keep this topic on every day examples" so you can easily dismiss them.
Who claimed that destiny is alllways fortuitous?
I do not mean to imply that you or any member of this forum is a GWB supporter. My bush example was something that I found on a pseudo-conservative blog called "Shelley The Republican". I do not pretend that their opinion is in any way similar to that of you or other TT members. It was a weak attempt at humor.
I'm not sure I understand the difference between retrocausality and destiny - to my mind they both imply the same concept.
Let me give a alternative example: Was it destiny that put king Henry 8th on the throne of England? Who else would have established the Church of England? Is the Church of England a mere historical accident, or was it something that came about by divine design? Did there have to be a church of england, and was all that came before it a grand design of an unseen hand?
The reason I want to talk about everyday examples is because I feel we can more easily identify the kind of evidence that might prove the existence of "retrocausality", and having done so we might do the same for genetics. The reason I wanted to talk about George W Bush and not Henry VIII was that most of us would be more familiar with contemporary rather than tudor politics.
Let me state my own position: I think the idea of retrocausality is merely a reversal of view-point on regular causality:
Consider two dependant events, A and B. B happens sometime after A. If A causes B and B actually happened then we might argue that B retrocaused A. If you want to invoke the idea of retrocausality then absolutely everything leading up to the present moment was retrocaused by this present moment and tomorrow retrocauses today.
I do not think we will ever find physical evidence spesifically retrocausality in every day life, because everything we observe can be explained by common-or-garden causality.
However I would not be so bold as to rule out that such things might never happen, I'm reliably informed that such things apparantly do happen in the quantum scale, these are phenomena which I do not pretend to understand. So I guess my position is that I cannot disprove that retrocausality exists, but I've never seen anything that can only be explained by invoking it.
Comment by salimfadhley — June 10, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
As Mike Gene is fond of pointing out, all the little data snippets posted here are said to be 'consistent' with front loading. Yet, they are also consistent with evolution as most biological scientists understand it. So, what distinguishes one from the other. I don't know. Do you? Does Mike? Does anybody?
This is my problem as well: Every single bit of evidence ever put forwards for evolution is consistent with Mike Gene's formulation of front-loading. Every bit of evidence for front-loading can be explained more simply by more conventional evolutionary means.
That is why I think the front-loading hypothesis is redundant.
Comment by salimfadhley — June 10, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
This comment expressed my own views on possible falsification.
Comment by Bradford — June 10, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
That would be Krauze and I.
Comment by MikeGene — June 10, 2007 @ 6:22 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Here is Bradford's Front-loading thought-experiment:
I'm not sure this would prove or disprove anything about front-loading: For starters, we might not expect all of group B to die, only some of them. They might be stressed compared to group A who are well adapted to the environment.
In this experiement, we would expect type A organisms to initially survive better than type B organisms, however given enough generations species B may evolve some kind of coping mechansism.
I think this would show that a rich genome gives an organism an advantage when the environment changes. It also might show that even a species with a reduced genome can evolve under selective pressure.
I still do not see front-loading. This looks like micro-evolution, an idea we all accept.
By the way; It's not enough to show that FL can be falisifed, you also have to show that the FL hypothesis explains more than the plain evolution hypothesis. I do not currently see the need to invoke retrocausality when plain old normal causality does a good enough job.
Comment by salimfadhley — June 10, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
But that would not distinguish front loading from evolution as it is commonly understood, right? Organisms may very well have evolved mechanisms that facilitate change and adaptation.
Again, I don't understand what the difference between evolution and front loading would be. maybe one might THINK these genes are 'evidence' for front loading, but they just as well might be evidence of an organisms developing mechanisms for change and adaptation.
The crux of the matter is, the only true distinguishing feature I see between front loading and evolution, is HOW certain features of organisms were arrived by. Evolution thinks it all occurred via mutation and natural selection, while front loading thinks it occurred via … (well, here maybe Mike and Krauze will have to fill in the blank).
Comment by hrun — June 10, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Great.
So maybe you could fill me, salimfadhley and others in: Is there any feature of the front loading hypothesis that makes it different from evolution as it is commonly understood?
Comment by hrun — June 10, 2007 @ 7:07 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
I'm just the court jester here to entertain until the experts arrive but it seems to me you can view FL is a restrictive or guided pathway paradigm. One of the criticisms I have of mainstream evolution is a mindless attachment to the principle that x evolves in response to selective pressure. It may be that there is more to it than that. If the presence of some genes allows adaptation that would not otherwise occur then that would distinguish FL from mainstream theories.
Comment by Bradford — June 10, 2007 @ 7:35 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
[the hypothesis of] Evolution thinks it all occurred via mutation and natural selection, while front loading thinks it occurred via "¦ (well, here maybe Mike and Krauze will have to fill in the blank).
From what I can tell FL suggests that it also occured by mutation and natural selection, but that the end goal (today) was somehow anticipated by the purported designer.
FL is not a hypothesis about the evolutionary mechanism, it's a hypothesis about the state of mind of the purported designer, spesifically that the designer knew how things would end up.
Comment by salimfadhley — June 10, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Court Jester or not. At least you are trying to be specific.
In any case, I don't think you are phrasing this quite right: mainstream evolution does not think the selective pressure is necessarily the CAUSE for evolution. It is part and parcel of the process.
And I'm sorry but I do not understand what you mean by 'would otherwise not occur'? If there are genes in an organism that facilitate mutation (for example an error prone polymerase that can be turned on in response to environmental stress), that would such a process you are talking about, right? Why would that support front loading over evolution? I don't know. Let's hope those experts arrive soon.
Comment by hrun — June 10, 2007 @ 7:58 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Well, but that means AT SOME POINT some designer must have inserted something somewhere, right? So THAT PRECISELY is the point where front loading and evolution can be distinguished. Hence, my point of leaving that blank for Mike or Krauze to fill in.
Comment by hrun — June 10, 2007 @ 8:00 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Well, but that means AT SOME POINT some designer must have inserted something somewhere, right? So THAT PRECISELY is the point where front loading and evolution can be distinguished. Hence, my point of leaving that blank for Mike or Krauze to fill in.
I do not think the FL hypothesis requires even that; For example, the purported designer might have set up the entire universe with the spesific foreknowledge that a certain set of parameters would lead to his expected result and might have never touched the universe again.
Even if that were the case, the FL theory still only talks about what this purported designer purportedly expected to happen. It's not testable because we do not know what this designer was allegedly thinking.
I agree, that a major deficiency in ID type theories is it's inability to speculate on the nature of the designer, his purpose and methods. This is a blatent, critical omission, and one which must be overcome before ID can become a potentially succsessful proposition.
Comment by salimfadhley — June 10, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Hmm, I stand corrected, then. I thought that here front loading specifically refers to front loading the genome with some sort of information/tool set. At least from looking at the examples, that is what is implied. But maybe you are right. I'm sure Mike and Krauze can clarify.
Comment by hrun — June 10, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Hi Hrun and Salimfadhley,
If Bradford is the court jester, I'm the Machiavellian pretender to the throne and since the real royality has yet to answer, I will put my spin on things.
Whether it is true or not, I doubt you will hear a sudden and direct admission that front loading requires the existence of God. There is even a little hesitation in discussing the existence of an Intelligent Designer. When the designer is discussed, it is usually with a dismissive declaration that the identity and/or ability of any designer is not important.
So if we aren't to discuss God or an unnamed designer, what can we discuss?
Retrocausality.
If there is anything Front Loading suggests is that a solution to a problem exists before the problem is apparent. In other words, the effect precedes the cause. A trivial example of this is getting out an umbrella before it rains. As an "intelligent designer" you initiated an action prior to a need.
So at the root of things, Front Loading is looking for what I call retrocausality in a general sense. A reverse order of cause and effect.
This is not an easy search and I doubt any single example will provide concrete proof. It will take a database of multiple examples that tip the scales for neutral observers. Of course those more inclined to believe will tend to have a lower threshold of acceptance.
The Penrose-Hameroff model provides a mechanism that might raise the threshold for neutral observers and maybe even some non-believers, but I am not sure it will be accepted as cannon by those in charge.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 10, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
At least from looking at the examples, that is what is implied. But maybe you are right. I'm sure Mike and Krauze can clarify.
Well Mike and Krauze never proposed a method by which the purported front-loading was achieved, or how the designer might have known the consequences of his front-loading. Nor did they point to any conclusive evidence for FL.
There is plenty of evidence consistent with front-loading, but as I said before, I cannot think of any evidence for FL that is not also consistent with the much more widely accepted evolutionary hypothesis, hence my belief that FL is a redundant theory.
Gotta go to bed!
Comment by salimfadhley — June 10, 2007 @ 8:14 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
salimfahdley wrote:
The ID critics' 'argument' basically comes down to the following two assertions, and one question:
1) If I Was The Intelligent Designer, I Wouldn't Have Done It That Way.
2) Laws Don't Need Any Thought Or Agency To Exist, Or To Control Nature.
Q) If There Was An Intelligent Designer, Why Did It Cover Its Tracks?
The problem with 1 is obvious: none of the critics can specify a complete science of an alternative universe that would contain complex and intelligent life-forms and be demonstrably superior to the actual universe in some sense of 'superior'. None of the critics really knows how to create a universe, or how to create alternative forms of matter, energy, physical causation, life, embodied consciousness, embodied rationality, or embodied value. Since they don't, all they do, and all they can do, is to make noise, wave their hands, while saying, "Oh, I'm so intelligent, I wouldn't have done it like that". But the statement is as spurious as it is empty of substance, in the absence of a complete scientific specification of the imaginary superior alternative.
The problem with 2 is equally obvious. That proposition is self-evidently unscientific and metaphysical, self-evidently question-begging, and self-evidently controversial in the extreme, even among non-theistic philosophers. The word 'laws' implies intelligence and rationality. The explanandum is precisely observed regularity. If 'laws' are real and independent of both the minds and matter they govern, then that's a statement of metaphysical Platonism, which is hardly an uncontroversial position. If 'laws' is just shorthand way to refer to the observed regularities, then one is merely identifying the explanandum, not providing an explanans at all.
And the problem with Q is the same: it is self-evidently unscientific and metaphysical, self-evidently question-begging, and self-evidently controversial in the extreme. For it ignores the large body of data pointing to cosmological fine-tuning, Earth's planetary and biospheric fine-tuning, and the fine-tuned nature of genetic code, none of which indicates determined track-covering. Even before the discovery of these modern data, most intelligent people (even religious skeptics like Hume and Voltaire) thought it very doubtful that the universe was the product of unintentional, non-agency based processes, because of the strong appearance of mathematically intelligible design throughout the known universe. Indeed the more recent findings of fine-tuning have been enough to convert some atheists to deism, and to motivate others to find justifications for a multiverse. Q assumes track-covering, but this is not the data but a clearly contentious interpretation of the data.
Comment by stunney — June 10, 2007 @ 8:17 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Again, that's the same for mainstream evolution. Luria/Delbruck ran a number of classic experiments on the existence of useful mutations BEFORE they are needed. No retrocausality nor front loading needed.
Apart from that, I don't really know what you exactly mean by retro-causality, but one thing at a time. I would first like to understand what exactly is meant by front loading and how it could possibly be distinguished from mainstream evo.
Well, but that's the whole point, isn't it? How can the scale be tipped if we don't know what it can possibly tip towards. WHAT exactly is front loading? And how can it be distinguished from evolution? So far, if there is a scale analogy, it is not a balance scale, but a regular old digital scale and every piece of evidence gets dumped in the same bowl.
Comment by hrun — June 10, 2007 @ 8:30 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Hi Stunney,
You wrote…
Do you consider me an ID critic?
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 10, 2007 @ 8:31 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Well, that may be the case for ID critics. But in this case, there are at least two front loading 'interested' posters present. Both apparently would like to understand what front loading entails. None can get a clear answer.
Both, salimfahdley and I, are just speculating about how a designer is related to front loading. It is obviously not clear to anybody on the board. Or, the ones who know, are not saying.
Do you know if front loading implies a designer? Do you know if it requires a designer? Does said designer have to be intelligent? Omnipotent?
Comment by hrun — June 10, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Hi hrun,
Thank you for your response.
You wrote…
I am suggesting you can't separate what I call retrocausality from front loading.
The mechanism is non-deterministic (or at least unknown at this time). All we have are hints. All we can do is look for hints. Some ID proponents talk about detecting design. I think it is more understandable to look for retrocausality.
I suggest (and Mike may agree) that we are not talking about an either/or situation. Front loading is an add-on to current evolutionary thinking. How many examples of consciences will it take to convince you that some unknown effect is at play?
I will let the real royalty speak for themselves. I happen to have a model based on Penrose-Hameroff to explain a possible mechanism for what I am suggesting. But I am not quite ready to instigate a palace coup yet, so keep this between us, ok?
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 10, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
So then you also have somewhat of a clear idea what exactly entails front loading, correct. Can you explain what it is and how it differs from mainstream evolution?
So, in your mind, is the antibiotic resistance studied in the Luria/Delbrueck experiments a case of retrocausality/front loading?
Well, first you have to tell me what exactly is added to evolutionary thinking? I mean, how could I possibly be convinced of something if I have no idea what it is I'm supposed to convinced of? So, what add-on to evolutionary thinking do you think is expalined by some unknown effect?
But WHAT EXACTLY does that model explain. I mean, I commend you for having a model, but shouldn't there be a phenomena first that requires explanation? What is that THING (add-on to evolutionary thinking) that your model explains?
Comment by hrun — June 10, 2007 @ 8:53 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Hi hRun,
Thank you for responding. You asked…
I will be away from the keyboard for an hour. Here is the quick answer.
The model is to explain the coincidences we see in living things. Too many proteins have multiple functions. The sponge gene has scaffolding for synapses prior to the advent to nerves. Flip through the examples MikeGene provides.
There are too many coincidences.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 10, 2007 @ 9:00 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
But that's the whole point me and salimfadhley have been making. That is not only consistent but expected from mainstream evo. Stuff that had one function before (sponges) evolves to have a different function (mutlicellular orgs with nervous system).
So, you, just like Mike, are pointing to examples that are entirely consistent with mainstream evolution. Yet, you say that front loading or retrocausality explain something that is an add-on to evolution.
Could you at all answer what this add on is?
How about my question? Is the mutation in Luria/Delbrueck an example for retrocausality or front loading? Is the occurence of the resistance against the viruses one of those coincidences you are talking about?
I guess I will have to wait a while for an answer. And maybe Krauze or Mike will jump in and be able to explain to me and salimfadhley what distinguishes front loading and mainstream evo.
Comment by hrun — June 10, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Hi hrun,
Hopefully, you aren't thinking that I would recoil at an experiment that supports Darwin's theories.
Thank you for bringing in Luria/Delbrueck because I think it helps enhance the discussion. Here is a link to a Power Point presentation that explains the experiment quickly. For those that don't have Power Point they can easily Google it.
This experiment shows that mutations happen before they are needed. The idea is that mutations are natural and random and not in response to environmental pressures. Experiments like these are consistent with the idea of random mutation and selection, i.e. classic Darwin.
Now, what if there is no such thing as naturally occurring randomness?
Newtonian physics implies everything is deterministic and non-random. Penrose implies that quantum physics is also non-random, but is non-deterministic. Where does natural randomness come from?
I suggest there is no true randomness, only the illusion based on the complexity of everything being connected at the quantum level in space and time.
This is generally my model. The more standard ID response would be to argue that natural randomness isn't good enough to climb Dawkin's mount improbable in the short time available.
So no, the simple mutations of Luria/Delbrueck wouldn't provide evidence of either retrocausality and/or front loading.
It is the more extreme examples that provide the evidence. For example, how can a few cultured neurons operate a flight simulator? link
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 10, 2007 @ 10:08 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
So that sounds that in your hypothesis all mutations are retrocausal, rather than caused by random processes? Why do you dismiss the obvious third option of 'false random' i.e. determinism?
In any case, is that really what Krauze and Mike mean when they talk about front loading?
In any way, I'm afraid you are not clarifying much. The gist I get from your posts is that 'stuff if to complicated' to be a coincidence. Thus, you postulate that stuff is connected on a quantum level and retroactively causes the right mutations to happen at the right time (i.e. in the past).
I have to say, this sounds VERY different from how I imagined front loading.
I thought it was explained quite well how cultured neurons operate a flight simulator. The researchers gave the neurons feedback whenever they produced the desired output for the correct input. Thus, the appropriate neuronal pathways were strengthened to the point that in the end the cultured neurons were trained to operate the simulator. What does this experiment to do with anything we discussed up to now (retrocausality or front loading)?
EDIT:
Oooops, I missed this. I wasn't asking if this was evidence for retrocausality or front loading. I wanted to know if this was an EXAMPLE of retrocausality and/or front loading.
I.e. are simple mutations occurring in such experiments a case of retrocausality and/or front loading. From what I understand, Mike and Krauze would think that this is not front loading, however, from what I read from you, you'd say it was retrocausality. Is that a correct assessment?
Comment by hrun — June 10, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Hi hrun,
What makes you think I don't embrace the idea that the Universe is one big predetermined Mandelbrot Set?
Like I said, I'm not sure my ideas are embraced by the true royalty (at least not yet).
If you don't mind my bluntness, I suspect you imagined Front Loading could only be creationism in disguise. You may be right, but I happen to think some of the people involved are earnestly searching for scientific reasoning and some of their arguments and evidence has merit.
EDIT - You added…
One of the problems with identifying non-deterministic processes is that they are non-deterministic. So we can't know if retrocausality is in effect at all times. However, you are astute enough to know that for consistency, I have to agree that even simple examples must be caused by retrocausality if everything is connected at the quantum level.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 10, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Usually folks who include quantum effects in their hypothesis are fairly adverse to a deterministic universe.
No, I actually don't suspect that. More directly, I think that front loading is just mainstream evolution (at least how Mike and Krauze talk about it).
However, if folks here believe that front loading means at some point some (virtually) omnipotent being altered the genomes of certain organisms to allow them to adapt to future needs, then I would equate that with a form of creationism. But as far as I can tell, that is not what Mike and Krauze believe.
As a PS: Could you, just for clarities sake, state if you think that the mutations appearing in Luria/Delbrueck's experiments are actually an example for a retrocausal effect?
Comment by hrun — June 10, 2007 @ 10:40 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Hi Hrun,
I have enjoyed our conversation. Thank You. You wrote…
I like to think I am not a usual folk kind of person.
Sorry, if I wasn't clear. Yes, they are an example. I don't see how it would be consistent with the Penrose model for them not to be since everything is connected to everything else. I also don't see how we could prove it so it might be considered a metaphysical statement rather than a scientific one.
That is a big problem with the Penrose model. Penrose is arguing that waveform collapse is a reality. He makes predictions. Runs experiments confirming the predictions. He can quantify the effect. No one is offering realistic alternate explanations (continually spawning universes is the alternative choice and it doesn't match the evidence). Normally, there would be no doubt Penrose's model is scientifically accurate, but it is so incredible that it is dismissed as metaphysical. The term "quantum weirdness" comes to mind.
To make matters worse, Penrose hooked up with Hameroff and suggested quantum mechanics are behind consciousness. Microtubules are small enough to directly experience quantum effects and microtubules are everywhere in living organisms and are especially abundant in brains.
If you are interested, I wrote a five part series explaining the logic of this starting here. It might be good for a laugh when you have the time.
Good Night and thanks again.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 10, 2007 @ 11:03 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Thanks Thought Provoker for being clear.
As I said, I really think that your hypothesis is quite different from what I understood Mike and Krauze's working hypothesis to be. But hey, I could be wrong.
Since you were so kind to be explicit, maybe Mike and Krauze will do the same. Or maybe I will be encouraged to read Mike's book.
Comment by hrun — June 10, 2007 @ 11:09 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
hrun comments:
Indeed. TP is promoting his own idiosyncratic model of front-loading, which bears little resemblance to the kind of front-loading envisioned by ID proponents.
Mike and Krauze's version of front-loading does not depend on retrocausality at all, as far as I can tell. Hameroff employs retrocausality only on short timescales to explain Libet's gap (the fact that neural activity precedes consciousness by hundreds of milliseconds). TP is extrapolating from Penrose-Hameroff, which is already considered "out there" by most neuroscientists, and adding long-term retrocausal mutations to the mix.
TP asks:
TP, Neo-Darwinian evolution does not depend on true randomness. It only depends on the fact that mutations are not guided by the anticipated fitness of the mutants.
TP:
TP, you're misinterpreting DeMarse's experiment. The phrase "operate a flight simulator" suggests that the network of rat neurons was able to fly the simulator as a human pilot would, manipulating all of the controls and interpreting all of the instruments. The reality is that the network learned only to fly straight and level, manipulating only the control stick, when provided information about the plane's attitude relative to the horizon. Furthermore, the control stick's range of motion had to be restricted to 10% of normal or the rat neurons would overcontrol and crash the simulator.
Artificial neural networks containing far fewer than the 25,000 neurons used in DeMarse's experiment are able to do tasks of comparable complexity. They, of course, do not contain mcrotubules and are not subject to quantum effects. So your suggestion that quantum effects are necessary to explain DeMarse's result is simply not correct.
Comment by keiths — June 10, 2007 @ 11:31 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Hi Hrun,
Time will tell. Are you under the impression that the objective behind the exploration of front-loading is to come up with something different from "evolution as it is commonly understood?"
For someone so "interested," why have you completely ignored my reply to Ed Brayton? That you completely ignored this reply tells me your "interest" is pretense.
So let's start at the beginning. Do you agree that ID is not necessarily creationism? Do you think front-loading is a form of creationism?
Comment by MikeGene — June 10, 2007 @ 11:58 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 12:27 am
Time will tell? So as of yet, we don't know if the front loading hypothesis is in any way distinguishable from "evolution as it is commonly understood"
Well, indeed I was under that impression. And, it appears that I am not alone. People like thought provoker certainly think so as well. Maybe you can clarify the issue, rather than asking me. It is much easier if you explain what the objective behind front loading is, rather than asking me about my (rather imperfect and limited) understanding of it.
That depends entirely on how these organisms arrived at the genes they have that allows them to adapt.
So, let's take for example the sponge/synapse example. What would the origin of such genes be? A designer directly intervened and, possibly with forethought about potential development neurons, put said genes in place– then I would say it's creationism. If these genes just evolved because they conferred a selective advantage to sponges and these genes then later evolved to form synapses which in turn gave a selective advantage to these organisms, then I would say it is just mainstream evolution.
Hence, my confusion. I understand that front loading is not supposed to be equal to creationism (or divine interventionism). And I believe that it is also supposed to be, at least in some way, distinct from evolution as it is currently understood.
Is this correct, so far?
I didn't know I was supposed to respond to it. But, if you like, I disagree with Brayton that it has to be God, as generally thought of by Christians. That's why I referred to it above as interventionism. Creationism is also meant in the sense that there was a creator. That could for some people be the God of the bible. It could also be some incredibly advanced beings that came to earth, created life and left without much of a trace. Or, it could be some beings that continue to interact with the genomes of organisms in a way that, as of now is not detectable for us.
Either way, I am unclear of what exactly front loading includes. The term seems to imply to me an actively acting agent. I.e front loading occurs when some entity front loads something. Maybe some form of designer. So, coming back to my questions, is front loading this form of interventionism (entity actively intervening/designing genomes) or is it rather undistinguishable from evolution? Or is there a third option that I am missing. It's entirely possible.
Comment by hrun — June 11, 2007 @ 12:27 am
June 11th, 2007 at 3:19 am
Hrun wrote:
Well, as I tried to make clear in my remarks about Q, I take FL to be a case of fine-tuning. If unintentional processes are the whole story, there should not be objects that start out by being already finely tuned for producing complex life, given the infinite number of ways a world could fail to be conducive to complex life.
Salim was suggesting in the post I responded to that there was no difference between FL and standard evolutionary theory. To me, that's like suggesting that there's no difference between noting the data of cosmological fine-tuning and standard cosmology. In the cosmological case, however, it seems that a significant number of scientists are struck, nay, astounded, by how 'front-loaded' a variety of physical parameters appear to be. For example, Penrose and Greene have both noted how 'extraordinarily special' was the state of the universe at the Big Bang. Rees has noted how special various fundamental physical magnitudes are. Both look like examples of front-loading for life (given the requirement for stars, etc), except that 'fine-tuning', not 'front-loading' is the common term in cosmological contexts.
If, as Mike Gene believes, there are biological structures and parameters that are 'fine-tuned' for the development of later complexities, then this strikes me as suggestive in the same way as cosmological fine-tuning is.
It does not violate scientific data in either case. Those data are whatever they are. But it seems to me that physicists are more open to an intelligent design hypothesis than are biologists.
If fine-tuning or front-loading has no probable wholly unintentional explanation, then yes.
Knowledge is rare. Rationally justifiable belief is more common. Given the data, I'd say it rationally justifies belief in an intelligent and extremely powerful designer.
Comment by stunney — June 11, 2007 @ 3:19 am
June 11th, 2007 at 3:35 am
hrun wrote:
hrun,
Here's a recent description from Mike of what his version of front-loading involves:
But getting Mike to explain why he thinks this hypothesis has merit is like pulling teeth.
He is willing to file post after post in the "Front-loading" category, and to make statements like this:
Or this:
But witness the runaround I got from Mike when trying to find out why he is increasingly convinced of this:
Mike wrote:
I responded:
Mike: