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:
Keith:
Mike:
Keith:
Mike:
So on the one hand, Mike "tentatively infers ID because of certain data patterns," and is "becoming increasingly convinced that gene duplication echoes the teleological essence of evolution."
Press him for reasons and he runs for cover: "The studies don't specifically support a teleological or non-teleological perspective." He's merely "incorporating [certain facts] into a developing teleological gestalt."
If the studies don't support a teleological perspective, one wonders why Mike is becoming increasingly convinced of teleology.
Perhaps the Designer is whispering in his ear.
Comment by keiths — June 11, 2007 @ 3:35 am
June 11th, 2007 at 4:56 am
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.
There might actually be an every-day example that would be sufficient evidence for front-loading but would not require any fancy twist on causality or fore-knowledge, and it is something that human designers do all the time: Planning.
Lets say for example that we knew that our costal-town was particularly prone to flooding, we might decide to invest in flood-defences. In the short and medium turn, our investment is a costly investment which yields no advantage. Those resources might have been spent on schools, hospitals or other important things. In the short term we will be at an advantage by not building flood defences.
In the long term, the city which has allowed it's flood defences to fail could be wiped from the earth. You might argue that a city which fails to defend it'self from flooding is not very good at planning, wheras the city which invests in flood-defences and anticipates weather that has the potential to cause flooding is the good planner.
The question is, do we see any planning in evolution? Evolution predicts that species will adapt in response to selective pressure, and that evolution is reactive, lacking any capability of foresight or planning. Front-loading predicts that something is guiding evolution which does have the ability to plan, so if we saw conclusive evidence of planning then that might support the FL hypothesis.
For example, if the environment was getting gradually colder then the species might grow a woolly fleece. But what if that cold period was just a snap and unknown to us, a period of global warming was imminent. We might observe a species evolving in such a way that might be costly in the short term but one that would be wise given foreknowledge of the future. If we found a species that lost it's woolly fleece in anticipation of the end of an ice-age then we might have grounds to suspect that some planning took place.
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 think you are right – every single observation consistent with evolution is also consistent with front-loading, however not every conceivable evidence for front-loading would be consistent with evolution, and that is the stuff that Bradford, Krauze, MikeGene and the other FL pronents need to present.
Comment by salimfadhley — June 11, 2007 @ 4:56 am
June 11th, 2007 at 5:51 am
Krauze: "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."
I would be interested to know how many of these designed genes you are proposing. I guess one for each eye type, for a start. Is there one for each major body plan (tetrapod, insect, etc.), organs, immune systems, etc. Are we talking hundred, thousands, millions? And this designer has to not only code all that into the DNA, but has to code it so the each and every one of those genes has an alternative and vital role in a single celled organism.
Comment by The Pixie — June 11, 2007 @ 5:51 am
June 11th, 2007 at 8:08 am
Keiths:
Instead of simply letting the exchanges speak for themselves, Keith decides it is important to add some spin by embarking on yet another AboutMikeGene slime-fest. Why yes, I'm running for cover and seeking solace from the Designer. That must be it! That HAS to be it!
Y'know, as I said, I have serious business to attend to and that means I am not in a good mood right now. Can someone provide some good reasons why I am supposed to tolerate Keith and his propensity to throw slime?
Comment by MikeGene — June 11, 2007 @ 8:08 am
June 11th, 2007 at 8:36 am
Hi Keiths,
You wrote…
"Of course" you are incorrect that any neural network could be created without microtubules. Considering that neurons, themselves, are built around microtubule transport systems.
A quick Google search found this paper from the Annual Review of Neuroscience titled Microtubule-Based Transport Systems in Neurons: The Roles of Kinesins and Dyneins…
"The large size and extreme polarization of neurons is crucial to their ability to communicate at long distances and to form the complex cellular networks of the nervous system. The size, shape, and compartmentalization of these specialized cells must be generated and supported by the cytoskeletal systems of intracellular transport. One of the major systems is the microtubule-based transport system along which kinesin and dynein motor proteins generate force and drive the traffic of many cellular components."
Are you in the habit of making up facts to fit your conclusions?
Provoking
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 11, 2007 @ 8:36 am
June 11th, 2007 at 9:22 am
What does this mean: strikes me a suggestive? Suggestive of what? Of a creator? A designer? A deity? I have no idea what you mean.
Ah. So we are getting somewhere. It does require an intelligent and extremely powerful designer. I wonder if everybody agrees.
Nobody suggested that anything violates scientific data. However, we don't have any scientific data for any intelligent, powerful designer at any point intervening in any genome of any organism. And precisely THAT would be the point where front loading would deviate from evolution, correct?
Comment by hrun — June 11, 2007 @ 9:22 am
June 11th, 2007 at 9:27 am
My guess is because everybody on this blog is extremely tolerant.
In any case, slime or not, since front loading is such a big deal on this blog I am surprised that a number of simple questions just don't have an answer easily accessible. You and Krauze have been identified as the authorities on front loading. Why not post a little link on the front page of this blog that explains specifically what front loading means.
For example: Does front loading require an extremely powerful, intelligent designer? And: Can front loading be distinguished in any way from evolution?
Comment by hrun — June 11, 2007 @ 9:27 am
June 11th, 2007 at 9:51 am
I'm not sure what your scare-quotes imply. But artificial neural networks can be manufactured in electronic hardware, or more usually simulated with software. They are completely deterministic, and no microtubules are required. These artificial neural networks are capable of learning and solving many complex problems, such as in pattern recognition.
Comment by Zachriel — June 11, 2007 @ 9:51 am
June 11th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Zach:
And they are not alive, and they are not conscious.
Which makes computers and the programs they run useful, intelligently designed artifacts for human beings to use.
Comment by Joy — June 11, 2007 @ 10:56 am
June 11th, 2007 at 11:23 am
As no one said they were, I assume you are just adding some clarification. The question was whether an artificial neural network could be made without microtubules. Artificial nets are still limited to a few thousands of nodes, while a human brain has trillions.
However, it is worth pointing out that artificial neural networks emulate aspects of how biological neurons work, and solve many of the same sorts of problems, such as with pattern recognition.
Comment by Zachriel — June 11, 2007 @ 11:23 am
June 11th, 2007 at 11:49 am
This thread has grown with an explosive rate, and like Mike, I have real-life obligations that seriously constrain the time I can invest in discussions like this. So for now, I'll just do a post-by of things that caught my eye, scanning the thread. Maybe I'll be able to discuss some of it further.
Hrun: "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."
Considering how much of an IDiot I am, I am utterly clueless about the concept of science and falsification. Maybe you could illustrate the concept by describing the data or experiment which would conclusively rule out or confirm Brayton's "fortuitous origin of traits later to be exapted" hypothesis?
Salim & Hrun: As for my stance on front-loading the Big Bang, see this comment.
Hrun: "That is not only consistent but expected from mainstream evo."
If the finding was expected from "mainstream evo", how come it surprised the researchers? Didn't they accept "mainstream evo"
Pixie: "I would be interested to know how many of these designed genes you are proposing. I guess one for each eye type, for a start."
As I've said a number of times, I'm not comfortable extending the reach of front-loading beyond multicellularity. I certainly see nothing to suggest that every individual eye type was front-loaded (although visions itself might have been, through the design of key players in the light cascade).
Considering that there's still much we don't know about how genes are used to construct multicellular organisms, it would be very foolish of me to make some set-in-stone list of originally designed genes. So at the moment, suffice it to say that I expect things like surface receptors, inter- and intracellular signal molecules, as well as cell adhesion molecules to have been present in the first unicellular eukaryotes.
"And this designer has to not only code all that into the DNA, but has to code it so the each and every one of those genes has an alternative and vital role in a single celled organism."
Why vital? As far as I can see, the synapse genes didn't play a vital role in sea sponges, and they still have them.
Comment by Krauze — June 11, 2007 @ 11:49 am
June 11th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Why would I start explaining Brayton's statements?
Thanks for clarifying that. Could you then also clarify when you think front loading occurred? I.e. is it that the first cell was front loaded? Did front loading occur later? Does it occur all the time?
I don't know. Why don't you ask the scientists? Do THEY think that this goes AGAINST what was expected from "mainstream evo"
Krauze, I do understand that you time is very limited and the thread very long, thus, you can easily disregard any question I have posed in this thread and rather reply to the two fundamental questions I have about front loading which can be found here.
Thanks so much.
Comment by hrun — June 11, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
As Hrun's sort of questions have been discussed nummerous times on this blog, I decided to look through some of the old threads and re-use some old replies. Turns out, not only have I discussed Hrun's sort of questions before, I have discussed them with Hrun.
Check out this exchange between Hrun and myself, in which I answer the very same "how can front-loading be distinguished from traditional evolution" question as he's asking now. So, Hrun, why should I waste my time retracing my steps on well-trodden grounds, if you'll just show up in the future, asking the same questions again?
Comment by Krauze — June 11, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Brayton argues now that he was responding to Behe's definition of front-loading.
Ed Brayton:
Does anyone know, where Behe has used and defined the term "front-loading"
Comment by Analyysi — June 11, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Hi Kieths,
If it isn't obvious by now, I misread your comment this morning in my rush to answer before I had to head off to work. I am sorry for my misunderstanding. Let me try again. You wrote…
By "artificial", you mean inorganic, right?
Do you have examples of inorganic neural networks that are "able to do tasks of comparable complexity". As I understand it, Artificial Intelligence researchers are already planning on using quantum mechanics in an attempt to augment capabilities. This implies that something is lacking somewhere that these researchers feel quantum mechanics can solve. link
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 11, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Zach:
I was clarifying. A neuron is not a computer program, nor is it 'artificial'.
I can draw a tree on paper. You'd immediately recognize it as a tree. And despite the likelihood that the paper it's drawn on is wood-based, the drawing is not a real tree. It is not physically analogous to a real tree, and cannot be said to display or explain anything about real trees except the appearance of form from my perspective.
The drawing might tell you something about me (I can draw a tree), but it wouldn't tell you that my brain or my rendering talent works in a way analogous to a computer program that draws a tree using a branching algorithm and some constraint rules.
Human beings learn very young that drawings and photographs *are not* the things pictured. It shouldn't be that hard for an adult computer programmer to understand that his branching algorithm and his constraint rules that work to draw a tree *does not* explain the nature of a real tree.
Thus it makes no sense to introduce a computer or program – no matter how useful it can be for performing given tasks – to explain away the reliance of living neurons on microtubule constructs and their associated functional proteins.
Comment by Joy — June 11, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
I remember that exchange quite well. I also remember that none of the true questions were answered.
FLE stands for front loaded evolution. So, at some point apparently, something got front loaded (an organism, the big bang, fine tuned constants) and then evolution runs its course. Of course, maybe front loading is also a still ongoing process.
So, FLE is evolution as commonly understood PLUS some sort of intervention somewhere at some time in some way. I am trying to understand WHAT exactly this PLUS is supposed to be. Obviously, that PLUS is where evolution and FLE differ. I don't understand why nobody can identify this PLUS.
So, reading through the thread, I am still not clear if FLE is 1) distinguishable from evolution as it is commonly understood since the only difference between FLE and regular evolution would be the origin of whatever got front loaded into a genome.
Take my example of an error prone polymerase that gets turned on in times of stress to increase the mutation rate of an organisms in order to increase the chances of escaping stress.
The existance of such a system would be consistent with regular evolution and FLE. The difference between the two would be the origin of said system: Evolution posits that the error prone polymerase evolved through a series of mutations and was maintained because it conferred a selective advantage. FLE would posit that the error prone polymerase came about … how? It was front loaded into the organisms somehow at some time.
Why does nobody want to specify exactly where FLE differs from mainstream evolution? It seems so simple to point EXACTLY to where it differs.
Leaving that reluctance aside, Krauze, do you agree that I accurately pinpointed where FLE differs from mainstream evolution? Or am I way off. Maybe somebody else wants to jump in and set me straight.
Comment by hrun — June 11, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Hi Hrun,
Sure, that is one aspect where they differ. Here is another:
Front-loading leads one to expect key metazoan molecules to date much further back, whereas orthodox evolutionary models seem to leave researchers surprised whenever it happens.
Comment by Krauze — June 11, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
hrun:
I am not Mike or Krauze, but from descriptions I've seen I'd say front-loading differs from RM-NS in that it isn't random and it's not selected. IOW, if a gene vital in multicellular life forms is present and highly conserved in single-cell life forms (in which it isn't expressed or perform any other vital function), we could conclude that the gene was front-loaded into the genome by a designer of the original genome with the expectation that multicellular life forms would evolve when that gene does get expressed.
IOW, the original functional genome(s) may have been designed for 'evolvability' and contained certain genetic components for future form/function that are not expressed until evolution occurs.
Thus I would presume that the designer of front-loaded life front-loaded it when s/he/it designed the front-loaded genome.
Moreover, in my own view of EAM-ish mechanisms of evolution, the organisms themselves – in response to their environment and conditions of life – are the agents of evolution because they are the agents of genetic expression.
Comment by Joy — June 11, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
hrun wrote:
I refer you to what I said in a nearby thread. To wit:
I refer you also to this answer to salimfahdley.
Comment by stunney — June 11, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
How so?
Orthodox evolution is agnostic on how far back 'key metazoan molecules' date. If these key molecules had a function in protozoans that then got altered for metazoan function, orthodox evolution would expect them to date back just as far as FLE.
Likewise, if these molecules did not perform a selectable function FLE would not expect these molecules to persist from protozoans to metazoans.
Where is the difference?
It still leaves the single defining difference: Evolution posits that the system x evolved through a series of mutations and was maintained because it conferred a selective advantage. FLE would posit that system X came about "¦ how?
Comment by hrun — June 11, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
That's right. It's important to remember that a simulation is not the thing itself.
We can actually learn quite a bit about things by abstracting aspects of their nature. In the case of a tree, we can simulate the branching pattern (a nested hierarchy) in order to understand how the tree uses a simple growth algorithm to maximize the gathering of sunlight.
In the case of artificial neural networks, we can emulate various structures of organic neural networks and the result is that the network learns.
Comment by Zachriel — June 11, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
But that's not at all what Mike said about the sponge genes that were later found to be crucial to synapse formation. He said that FLE fully expects these genes to be expressed and to perform a function in sponges that was selected for and allowed these genes to persist.
Mike CLEARLY does not advocate that front loaded genes are not expressed and persist in a silenced state until they are needed.
Comment by hrun — June 11, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
stunney, I don't really see how your quote is related and quite honestly, I don't even understand what you are trying to say.
Comment by hrun — June 11, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
hrun wrote:
Yes, how convenient for you.:lol:
You said: we don't have any scientific data for any intelligent, powerful designer at any point intervening in any genome of any organism.
My point is perfectly understandable and highly inconvenient for your position. We never have any 'scientific data for' any 'intelligent, powerful designer' at any point intervening in anything. That some observed bodily motions constitute intervention by an intelligent designer is always an interpretation of data, whether it's human bodily data or any other kind. 'Intelligent designer' is not a fundamental term of physics, chemistry, or biology.
You may wish to bone up on the issue, as there's a very large literature about it.
Comment by stunney — June 11, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Now that is much clearer. And why can we never have "any 'scientific data for' any 'intelligent, powerful designer' at any point intervening in anything"
For example, if I were to interfere with a bacterial culture and perform some intelligent design, I would remove some bacteria from the culture, alter their genome by standard molecular biology practices and return them to their brethren. All of these steps are observable. And some of the effects are traceable. For example, the culture would find that some individuals at some point disappeared and returned with an altered genome. Now for me, that would look like the intervention of an intelligent, powerful designer intervening. Why would that not constitute such scientific data or, why would a powerful, intellligent designer NOT intervene in such a way?
Comment by hrun — June 11, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Hmm. The very first reference is to solipsism. Well, I suppose it is a consistent philosophical position.
Comment by Zachriel — June 11, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
hrun wrote:
It might look like that to you if you're the agent doing it. But that's a first-person perspective, and the rest of the universe only has at best a third-person perspective. And that's the point, which you seem to have difficulty grasping.
It would constitute data. It wouldn't constitute data with its correct interpretation stamped on its forehead in bold letters for the convenience of understanding by third parties.
Get it now?
It depends on whether the powerful, intelligent designer was up to no good, and what the side-effects might be. Et cetera, et cetera.
Comment by stunney — June 11, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Hi Hrun,
"If these key molecules had a function in protozoans that then got altered for metazoan function, orthodox evolution would expect them to date back just as far as FLE."
- and yet, the researchers, guided by orthodox neo-darwinism, were surprised when this very thing turned out to be the case.
"FLE would posit that system X came about "¦ how?"
You said so yourself in your previous comment: It was designed by an intelligence. Why repeat the question, if not for rhetorical effect?
Comment by Krauze — June 11, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
As a third party, I would look upon hrun's reporting to be valid evidence of intelligent intervention in the life of bacteria, and convenient for understanding. And with a bit more detail, it would be possible to replicate the experiment in order to confirm hrun's original findings.
Comment by Zachriel — June 11, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Zachriel, why are you so, you know, inane?
Oh, and wrong too? Here are the first page results:
Comment by stunney — June 11, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
I asked you before: Do you know why they were surprised? Were they surprised because their result was NOT consistent with orthodox evolution. I would think not. Yet, you make it appear as if that was the source of their surprise. Why is that?
I repeat it because nobody who actually adheres to FLE is clear on it. I am just guessing at what FLE entails.
So, we now have the key difference between 'orthodox evolution' and FLE: some parts of the genome came about NOT by evolution but were inserted or caused by a powerful intelligent designer. So, why would the study of FLE not deal with that key aspect? Fact after fact gets posted where FLE and orthodox evolution agree. Structures that were present, expressed and used in earlier organisms change in a manner that gives these structures new function. Fine. Most people agree there. Well, maybe not Joy, but at least you and Mike seem to agree there.
So, now we can finally answer my questions:
1) Yes it is. The origin of some structures/systems/parts of organisms was placed there by a powerful intelligent designer.
2) Yes it does. Some structures in organisms came about by direct intervention of a powerful intelligent designer.
Why was that so hard?
Now, with these answers in hand, I really don't understand why Mike writes to my question "if there is any feature of the front loading hypothesis that makes it different from evolution as it is commonly understood?"
Mike answers:
Why will only time tell? The answer is obvious: FLE posits that at some point a powerful designer intervened in the genomes of at least some organisms. "Evolution as it is commonly understood" certainly does not posit this. Why would Mike not immediately and clearly point me to this key difference?
Comment by hrun — June 11, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Google conveniently provides a count, Results 1 – 10 of about 18,800,000. Guess which one Google says is #1. But whadda they know?
A more precise count can be had by putting quotes around the "problem of other minds" returning 31800 links.
Comment by Zachriel — June 11, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
No, I don't get it now.
You say: "We never have any 'scientific data for' any 'intelligent, powerful designer' at any point intervening in anything."
As a counter I give you an example of what it would look like if an 'intelligent, powerful designer' would intervene in a specific way. Analogous, if all of a sudden 1 million humans would disappear from this planet, and then came back with sequences inserted into their genome that were not there before, I would interpret that as scientific data for the intervention by a powerful designer (I would assume intelligence, but I would probably not insists). Would YOU come to a different conclusion? Why? What would it be?
Comment by hrun — June 11, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Hilarious, truly, truly hilarious. You do not understand the issue, and are merely making a fool of yourself. Other minds and their experiences are not observable, ever. You always have to interpret physical data.
If you were hrun's dog or his rabbit, hrun's reporting would go right over your head, even though all hrun's physical behavior would be identical as he gives his report. If you were his pet bow-wow or bunny, it would just be noise and you wouldn't think, wow, hrun intelligently intervened in that bacterial culture—jumpinpussycats, that means hrun must be, my God, an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER:!:
"…..You can show me a bunch of material objects. You can show me brain matter, blood vessels, sound waves, electromagnetic waves, photographs of humans, film of construction activity, etc. For every such object, one could in principle explain its composition and motions entirely in terms of basic physical science. "This particle went here, that one went over there, this one bumped into that, that sent this photon going that way"¦etc."
Comment by stunney — June 11, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Behe doesn't subscribe to the notion of front-loading that Brayton is assuming he does. He addressed this in Darwin's Black Box. Behe never claimed that the primative genome was packed with genes that corresponded to multicellular life. Nor did he claim that these genes would have to be turned off waiting to become functional for multicellular use. Behe understood that these genes, if turned off and simply waiting activation, would not be protected from the culling effects of natural selection.
Comment by Doug — June 11, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
I'm sorry to say, but I have to be off now. I'm leaving on a trip overseas, but I should be back with an internet connection in a day or so. So please, if I don't answer to any question or post, it's not because I'm ignoring anybodies points. Regardless, I think we made a lot of progress. I finally got clear answers to some points about FLE that were unclear to me before.
The key difference between FLE and orthodox evolution is that at some point some powerful intelligent designer intervened and altered certain genomes.
I do wonder if Mike and Krauze are in agreement on this matter though, since Mike seemed to be somewhat reluctant to give a straight answer about direct interventions by a designer.
Comment by hrun — June 11, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Hi hrun,
Does it matter if they are in complete agreement or close agreement?
Krauze stated:
Certainly seems like there exists wiggle room. Both Krauze and Mike Gene have been pretty straightforward with where they believe the front-loading hypothesis to be residing – and a hard theory where party lines are drawn is currently not that place.
Comment by Doug — June 11, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Did you just substitute mind for intelligence? We don't need to observe a nebulous mind in order to infer intelligence.
The question is whether a report describing a repeatable laboratory experiment is valid evidence of intelligence . Yes, it is valid evidence.
Comment by Zachriel — June 11, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
stunney wrote:
Stunney,
You've backed yourself into a corner on this one. Keep squirming.
Having scientific data for something doesn't mean you have to experience that thing directly. If it did, ID/FLE as a scientific project would be doomed to failure.
The funny thing is that you apparently don't realize this or are embarrassed to admit it.
Comment by keiths — June 11, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Hi Hrun,
"Were they surprised because their result was NOT consistent with orthodox evolution."
No, orthodox neo-darwinism would have been fine, however the results had turned out. But according to you, the result was to be expected from orthodox neo-darwinism. If the researchers knew that, why were they surprised?
"So, why would the study of FLE not deal with that key aspect?"
No one is saying that front-loading shouldn't deal with it. If you think that you can use a designer-centric approach to achieve insights into front-loading, you are more than welcome to try.
"Why would Mike not immediately and clearly point me to this key difference?"
Because Mike is focused on the aspects of front-loading that are likely to generate insights. And lacking compelling evidence to the contrary, designer-centrism doesn't seem like a fruitful avenue.
Comment by Krauze — June 11, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
hrun wrote:
Yeah, there's just the data. It's not 'data for'. It's just data. The 'for' part isn't part of the data itself. The 'for' part is you taking the data for the purpose of formulating an explanatory hypothesis. But it's a commonplace that all scientific theories are under-determined by the data.
You described some physical events. And you gave your interpretation of them. The events and their interpretation are not the same thing. Another interpretation would be 'a bunch of atoms are moving about'. Notice the second interpretation mentions only atoms, not an intelligent designer.
You interpret the data as being best explained by the hypothesis you propose. But the data you described in your scenario by itself is just data. It's not 'data for intelligent intervention'. The data doesn't have THIS IS SCIENTIFIC DATA FOR INTELLIGENT INTERVENTION written across it. The 'data for' phrase is thus misleading. It's just data. Then comes your interpretation of the data as indicative of intelligent intervention.
Now look at pre-human biological data. It does not come with a stamp on it saying UNDESIGNED or DESIGNED. And the question is: what is it precisely that licenses (or doesn't license) the inference to intelligent intervention in your example, and what precisely is relevantly similar or dissimilar in the case of pre-human biological data with respect to licensing inference to intelligent design or its absence. Some people might interpret the DNA code alone as indicating an ID activity. Et cetera.
My perfectly straightforward point is that observation alone does not settle the issue of intelligent design in any context. Observation just sees bits of matter moving about, whether its the Empire State building being constructed or whether it's early organisms on Earth captured on film by a passing alien astronaut crew. Interpreting any physical observations as indicative of intelligent agency and hypothesizing that there are conscious, experiences going on that explain specified physical motions is always, in every context, not just the context of pre-human biology, a matter of inference from observed data, and not an observed datum itself.
Comment by stunney — June 11, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
hrun:
I can accept that a gene might perform some function in a single-celled organism that it doesn't perform in a multicellular organism. If the same gene works differently for differently complex organisms, perhaps Mike would say the genome itself is functionally front-loaded for flexible duty.
According to the OP, Brayton insists that these genes DO serve different functions in sponges. What are those functions?
Comment by Joy — June 11, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Hi Krauze and hrun,
I was reading that old thread you mentioned, where you two were discussing front-loading, and noticed that multicellularity was mentioned at one point. One of my favorite biologists, Michael Lynch, had a very interesting thing to say about the evolution of multicellularity recently: that it may have come about via nonadaptive means. A lot of his recent work has been on nonadaptive processes and genomic architecture, and it has led him down some interesting paths. Here's the reference, and the passage:
Lynch M (2007). The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins
of organismal complexity. PNAS 104 (suppl 1) 8597-8604.
Comment by KC — June 11, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Hrun,
I had originally planned on once again walking that extra mile to respond to your questions. In fact, as fair-minded critics know, I truly enjoy discussions about FLE and do my best to answer all questions thrown my way. But I don't want to reward your disrespectful behavior. Despite the fact that I have made it clear that my time for blogging is severely limited, consider your obsessive posting that has carried through to today:
June 10th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
June 10th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 9:27 am
Throughout this obsessive posting, we find you constantly drumming the same theme:
You have turned a simple question into taunting and that is symptomatic of trolling. So let me be polite and say that your behavior has not exactly encouraged or induced me to reply. I don't believe your interest is genuine.
Comment by MikeGene — June 11, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
I consider this statement of Brayton's faulty:
About two years ago, they did an experiment where a million nucleotide bases of highly conserved mouse DNA was extracted from the zygotes. The result was perfectly normal mice. If the million bases were vital, then why were the mice that issued perfectly normal? If the million bases weren't vital, then why were they highly conserved? The most logical explanation is that DNA has a self-correcting system of its own, and that it doesn't have to rely on NS for conservation of bases. It would seem this system could safely guard any front loaded genes.
Comment by Testytestaccio — June 11, 2007 @ 10:18 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Mike
Very important point, that.
Salim,
I believe Denton meant something roughly similar to this, thus the title of his last book, Nature's Destiny. Although his arguments were more about fine tuning and available biological niches than frontloading, as I recall.
TP
A God who learns or an omniscient God? – so hard to decide. I wonder if I can work out a way to have both.
Stunney
Well, that is the question. Are laws independent of the matter they govern? Just a retorical question; not sure there is compelling evidence.
Hrun,
Free will versus determinism – another problem in which both arguments are fairly compelling. And, while Christianity is famous for advocating free will, there are some Christians who don't; I've read around on their websites, and they have a surprising amount of scriptural support.
Determinism does seem boring, not so much for me perhaps as for God. But then, perhaps it is we who are being entertained.
Comment by onething — June 11, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
June 11th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Hi onething,
Thank you! It's a crucial and oh-so-relevant point that the critics have ignored in order to taunt and chest-thump. It's re-assuring to me to see that their lack of appreciation for this point was not a function of my failure to communicate.
Comment by MikeGene — June 11, 2007 @ 11:51 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 12:21 am
Stunney,
You have correctly identified one of the bars in our prison. It will not always be so.
Comment by onething — June 12, 2007 @ 12:21 am
June 12th, 2007 at 3:02 am
MikeGene to hrun:
Not my questions.
Comment by keiths — June 12, 2007 @ 3:02 am
June 12th, 2007 at 3:29 am
Regarding the network of rat neurons that learned to keep an F-22 simulator straight and level, Thought Provoker asks:
Sure. Here are three:
1. A control system for keeping a remotely-operated submersible at a prescribed depth in shallow water in the presence of irregular surface waves.
2. Neural-network-based controllers for model helicopters. Bonus: The synapse weights were generated using an evolutionary algorithm.
3. A neural-network-based airplane flight controller that learns, in real time, to compensate for airframe or control surface damage, allowing a disabled plane to be landed safely.
Comment by keiths — June 12, 2007 @ 3:29 am
June 12th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Keiths:
The link shows I did indeed answer your questions; you just didn't like the answers. The only question left hanging in the air is, "What is convincing you?" If I thought you were being respectful and open-minded, I would not wait for the context. But since you are obsessed with attacking me personally and have a closed-mind, you can wait. Do you have a problem with that?
Comment by MikeGene — June 12, 2007 @ 8:46 am
June 12th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Comment by hrun — June 12, 2007 @ 9:41 am
June 12th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Krauze, I do not know why they were surprised about their results? Do you?
In addition, you make it sound as if the result was PREDICTED by FLE. I don't remember anybody predicting that a structure found in sponges to be the precursor for synapses. All I know is that people retrospectively say it is consistent with FLE, just like it is consisten with otrhodox evolution.
The predictions made by both theories are equally vague: structures found to have function in higher organisms (e.g. metazoans) will have some precursors with different functions in simpler organisms.
The reason why I would suggest to focus on that part is because it appears to be the ONLY aspect where it differs from orthodox evolution. Or can you name another difference.
I guess I am not understanding what that insight would be, since as far as I can tell there is no other difference to orthodox evolution.
Of course, I may be wrong. But I have yet to figure out what other difference there may be.
Comment by hrun — June 12, 2007 @ 10:47 am
June 12th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Krauze, I'm not clear on why you rejected the idea that evolution could be programmed and the program compressed ("front-loaded") into a single (primordial) genome. (You said its not "required." Or something like that.)
A scientist (designer) given some knowledge of the rules for the construction of the DNA-code (E.g., Hornos, José Eduardo M. & Hornos, Yvone M. M., Algebraic model for the evolution of the genetic code. Physical Review Letters, Volume 71, Issue 26, December 27, 1993, pp.4401-4404.) should be able to predict with some precision evolutionary outcomes and also program directly in genetic code specific outcomes of the evolutionary process. That is how we test theories of genetic evolution. (Mostly via an indirect method, of controlling the environment and/or behaviors (breeding). But the direct programming method is used in advanced research and applications, bioengineering.)
Those "rules" are just the compressed version of all the evolution of life on Earth.
I don't find implausible the idea that evolution could be programmed and the program compressed into a single (primordial, minimal, irreducible) genome.
Scientists and designers are attempting to do exactly that right now!
Comment by Rock — June 12, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Hi keiths,
You wrote…
Thank you for providing the information. I will look into it and respond later.
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 12, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
hrun didn't like my offering of FLE. Probably because I'm not particularly up on it and because Mike would offer something different about expression…
So I asked hrun what functions these post-synaptic genes serve in sponges. [hrun] didn't respond, so I went looking to see if Mike's FLE 'expectation' that these genes are expressed and perform a function in sponges that was selected for and allowed these genes to persist could be supported.
I went first to Brayton's blog to see if he knew what functions these genes were serving in sponges. Rather than citing the PLoS paper, he quotes Sharon Begley. SHE said…
Aha! Junior researcher on the project claims they "found this mysterious unknown structure in the sponge" he then hints was modified and co-opted later on to become… what? A brain? A spinal cord? A neuron, perhaps? Hmmm… curious about this mysterious unknown structure in the sponge, I got the whole article from PLoS and was greeted immediately – second paragraph of the introduction – with a very clear sentence…
I went through the entire paper and couldn't find a single mention of any "mysterious unknown structure" in sponges, nor any assertions that this mystery structure is an expression these post-synaptic genes. But it *is* mentioned that orthologs and paralogs of these genes gave rise in later metazoan evolution to other components of other types of nerve cell junctions. Clearly these genes are specialized. But where (in sponges) are they actually expressed?
Turns out the 'mysterious unknown structure' wasn't present in adult sponges, but is a fairly well known structure in free-swimming sponge larvae – the epithelial tissue.
These genes are expressed only in a single larval epithelial cell type, known as "flask cells," with other of the pre-synaptic genes differentially expressed in specific subcells of flask cells. And before someone complains about my use of the term "Specific," let me quote from the PLoS article"
Ed Yong of the blog "Not Exactly Rocket Science" explains Sakarya, et al.'s findings in Simple sponges provide clues to origin of nervous system. He goes ahead and postulates that flask cells provide sensory functions.
Biological Bulletin offers a free figure from the paper "Cytological Basis of Photoresponsive Behavior in Sponge Larvae" demonstrating that the sensory functions of epithelial and sub-epithelial flask cells has been previously examined in some depth. Flask cells also happen to have a cilium. Cilia are microtubule constructs.
Yong makes the following assertion about the "surprising" finding of the PSD in a sponge genome -
My goodness. That bit of poetic wax sounds almost intelligent! But the actual situation is that the genes are expressed only in sponge larvae's epithelial cells, which are believed to provide sensory/processing functions for the larvae. They don't express in adult sponges. Perhaps they're conserved, just like the genes for tubulin, actin and other MAPS, because they are so useful for sensory and processing functions. Why would that shock Sakarya, et al.?
Front-loading (per Mike and Krauze, anyway) doesn't insist that genes for complex structures – like a nervous system – can't be expressed in pre-nervous system life forms. Here is evidence that they *are* expressed in a pre-nervous system life form, in sensory capacities.
The NDS would expect that they wouldn't even exist in a pre-nervous system life form in recognizable form, much less be highly conserved and serve informational functions. THIS explains the researchers' surprise at their own findings.
I never labored under the presumption that the genes and gene products that became our highly complex CNS magically poofed into existence by evolutionary accident just recently. The developmental expression dance – the one that organizes these raw materials into the complex constructions of our CNS – has been progressive over life in time – an unfolding. I have mentioned this several times on the consciousness threads. That can be a front-loaded process quite reasonably as well, seems to me.
Comment by Joy — June 12, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
I don't understand this point. Tubulin, actin, and MAPs aren't conserved because of their use in sensory and processing functions; they are nearly universal cytoskeletal elements in eukaryotic cells. Also, virtually all cells have sensory and [information] processing functions. The specializations of synapses are mostly about speed.
I can't speak for them, but I found it surprising because these proteins appear to have been co-opted as an ensemble.
I don't understand this. How was there front-loading if they weren't designed in before they were used?
I don't see how you arrived at that expectation, since all cells sense their environment and process information about it. The synapse is a mechanism that allows amazingly rapid communication between cells, and I don't see any major leap between co-opting an ensemble of proteins that senses the environment for sensing of signals from other cells.
For example, does the ubiquitous use of glutamine as a neurotransmitter reflect intelligent design or off-the-shelf co-option?
Comment by JAM — June 12, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Hi Joy,
Thank you for your comment. It was very informative. Please tell me it took you more than fifteen minutes to put all that together. Lie if you have to.
Thanks,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 12, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Hi, MikeGene,
More surprises, and faster and faster, please. It may be true that if an organism has an X system, then it must have a Y gene, but the converse is obviously not always true. Aside from providing fodder for the catfight between FLEists and Evolutionists, it raises a stinky flag over geneticists who think it will one day be possible to have one-to-one mappings between genes and functions to include even behaviors and inclinations. All we need is a bunch of quacks who claim they have isolated genes for religous people, athiests, conservatives, anarchists, liberals, homosexuals, heterosexuals, tolerance, intolerance, intelligence, etc, and I'm not just whistling dixie because I've read news quips about these sorts of claims, though the scientists are still in the very first stages of contemplating this.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — June 12, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Yeah, it took me awhile – longer than 15 minutes! I don't know why NDS'ers would be "surprised" by this. The primary eukaryote sensory constructs – MTs – have been around since eukaryotes appeared, the genes for their production carefully conserved from that time to this. The constructs are spectacularly useful to both single-celled and multicellular, differentiated life forms. They provide sensation (including photoreception), communications, signal transduction, trasport, motility and reproductive functions. They're apparently information processors as well, whether in stable form in neural cells or in dynamic form operating in the nucleus, at the membrane or through the cytoplasm.
Comment by Joy — June 12, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
To All,
You might want to take a peek at how Ed Brayton deals with someone who is more arrogant than he is. link
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 12, 2007 @ 9:27 pm
June 12th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Well, "meaningless gibberish" is what they hear, and all they can understand. Fear of physics isn't surprising. Many of 'em say the same thing about philosophy of science too, whenever it intrudes on their Anazi Tales.
It's situations like this when it helps to remind one's self that science *inevitably* marches on – whether or not some entrenched 'orthodoxy' wants it to. They can slow things down a little while longer by digging in. But they cannot stop the coming wave from breaking when it hits the reef.
Comment by Joy — June 12, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
June 13th, 2007 at 5:41 am
Krauze
I had not realised that; I am just an occasional visitor to TT. But this makes me wonder, somewhat tangentially, about the FLE timeline. I think mainstream evolution has a long, long time between first life and multicelluar life, like a billion years or somethings. I wonder if FLE has any ideas about that. It seems to me that while mainstrean evolution will necessarily take a very long time to build up the omplexity required, FLE has is already built in, so the jump from first life to multicellular life should be very quick, especially if that is specifically what is front-loaded. Indeed, one might expect it to happen numerous times.
Vital was perhaps putting it a bit strong? The synapse genes are used by the sponges, and so the gene does not get lost.
Your hypothetical designer has to find some use for every front-loaded gene in that first cell. If he did front-load the eye (and I appreciate you are not suggesting he did) then every gene front-loaded for use in the eye must have some other function in that first cell, some function important enough that losing the function will have a deleterious effect on the survival of the cell. If the function can be lost without reducing the survival chances of the cell, then over a billion years, the gene is going to get lost. In this light, your claim that front-loading only promotes multicellularity, and not the numerous features we see in modern biology, seems prudent.
Does that mean you believe supposedly IC structures can arise by evolution, as set out in modern evolutionary theory?
Comment by The Pixie — June 13, 2007 @ 5:41 am
June 15th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
I'm no expert on FLE but this article seems to be in the ballpark. Evolution: hacking back the tree of life
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — June 15, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
June 15th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
From the above linked abstract, the money quote:
Outstanding to see this coming from biologists.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — June 15, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
June 15th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Shush, Anaxagoras! We're not supposed to notice that the genetics doesn't match classical gentleman's guesses as to who's related to whom. Are you just trying to cause trouble? §;o)
Comment by Joy — June 15, 2007 @ 3:22 pm