Common Descent & Common Design – An Unexpected Outcome
by JJS P.Eng.I previously mused that no two words put together get the blood boiling better than "Irreducible" and "Complexity", unless it was "Intelligent" and "Design". It is apparent that I overlooked two others: "Common" and "Descent".
Evolutionary biologists consider common descent to be a "fact", due in large part to the lack of competing and "credible" explanations. IMO, this overlooks an obvious explanation: common design (well, obvious to an engineer).
Engineers are constantly faced with time, monetary, and material constraints, to name just a few. In an effort to make the best use of all constraints, it is common for engineers to borrow from previous designs that have been shown to work well (i.e. performs well in the field, ease of construction, good use of materials, etc.). The borrowed designs could then be tweaked or augmented to fit the current design parameters. If it works well, then the augmented design could itself be borrowed at some time in the future (a kind of "selection filter", if you will). Truly innovative designs are relatively rare and would consume more time and money compared to "borrowed" designs.
If one looks at a segment of borrowed and augmented designs, one can picture a "tree" with each "descendant" linked to its predecessor by one or more common design features. Granted, this is a fairly simple analogy, but for fun, let's take it for a test drive on the Mike Gene Interstate (i.e. through the lens of front-loaded evolution).
Hypothetically, when designing the first biological organism, a designer could utilise evolutionary mechanisms and the material at hand such that biological descendants would emerge having similar design features as their predecessors. Incorporating common descent in the front-loaded design makes engineering sense as an efficient use of not only the materials and mechanisms available, but of energy usage. One would expect more energy to be consumed in the design and construction of a truly innovative body plan than to "borrow" certain design features. Thus, a front-loaded design that continuously produces descendants having similar features as their predecessors would be seen as an efficient and effective way of progressing life through distant time.
So what are the results from our test drive?
1. The differences between common descent and common design evaporate and the two concepts become essentially one, thus removing a contentious issue from the evolution/ID debates.
2. Homologies could be taken as evidence of an efficient and effective front-loaded design.
3. Evolutionary jumps can occur, but would be expected to be rare.
IMO, #1 is an unexpected outcome of front-loaded evolution. Who says design is boring, eh?
December 10th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Yes, that's what we see in human design, but that is *not* what we see in biology.
In human manufacturing, we often see crossing between lineages. So if a car maker introduces disk brakes or radios, other manufacturers and models often follow suit. Soon every car has tail fins!
In biology, we see descent with modification. It's as if every single lineage has its own haphazard "designer" who tinkers without knowledge of all the other tinkerers.
That's why analysis of artifacts leads to overlapping nested hierarchies, while the vast majority of biological taxa form a singular nested hierarchy whether grouping by phenotypic traits or by genomes. That's why we see a correlation between unrelated biological characteristics, e.g. having mammaries means having three ear bones. And why human imagination (design) explains Centaurs.
Comment by Zachriel — December 10, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Zachriel:
The above observation neglects what I mentioned here:
A front-loaded design allows evolutionary mechanisms (Myopic Tinkerer) to tinker with existing organisms. If the results of the tinkering are expected (i.e. the designer had knowledge of likely outcomes due to the application of the evolutionary mechanisms), then one can say common descent/design was pre-programmed in the first organism. In the same breath, one can also say that common descent and design are one and the same.
And I don't believe I ever explicitly mentioned "Centaurs" in my post above. I did allow for the possibility of saltations, something that several evolutionary biologists allow for.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — December 10, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
What!!! Who?
Comment by Alan Fox — December 10, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Zachriel:
It doesn't really seem that way, at least not all of biology is like this. We have molecular convergence, we have morphological convergence, we have HGT, viruses, there's the evidence of the Urbilateria as the ancestral condition and contained the genetic toolkit to make all the disparate higher animals, etc.
That we can trace exact elements of our genetic system all the way back bacteria suggests something much larger was at play throughout evolution that brought about this unification.
Comment by Guts — December 10, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
That's what we call descent with modification. All eukaryotes share certain traits. All vertebrates share these traits plus others. But that hasn't led to a situation where the designer is borrowing extensively *across* lineages, a typical aspect of intelligent design. E.g. we just never see mammals with feathers.
I understand that Front Loading allows for common descent, descent with modification, and even the myopic tinkerer. As such, it just doesn't seem to add anything to the explanation.
At least since eukaryotes (since lions and dandelions diverged), we don't see significant borrowing from other lineages. We don't see the tinkerer of hominid evolution looking at the tinkering of avian evolution. And that is what you expect from a designer.
No, it was provided as an example of a crossed lineage we expect from design, not descent.
Comment by Zachriel — December 10, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Not "all" (assuming you are using a non-trivial definition of "toolkit").
The evidence supports the Theory of Evolution. We start with fundamental structures; anteroposterior axis, triploblasty, segmentation, etc., and then these structures evolved into more complex and derived structures. Urbilateria was hardly simple and represents its own long evolutionary history.
Convergence is expected by the Theory of Evolution, but leaves a signature (Darwin 1859). Horizonal gene transfer clearly had an important role in early life, but not much is yet known. Retroviruses probably also have had a role in evolution (and represent an important exception that 'proves the rule'). None of this supports Front Loading as a unique mechanism.
Comment by Zachriel — December 10, 2008 @ 3:21 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Zachriel:
It looks like you were expecting me to contradict the theory of evolution, I wasn't. I was just responding to your statement that descendants seem to be their own tinkerers.
Zachriel:
This radical change in the theory of evolution was entirely expected in FLE.
Zachriel:
The examples I was referring to are conceptual.
Zachriel:
I'm not sure what you mean by "exception that proves the rule", if it wasn't for retroviruses we would probably not have a placenta, one of the morphological traits that unite large groups and were invented once.
Zachriel:
No idea what that means, but of course it supports FLE, FLE expects this.
Comment by Guts — December 10, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
It's still descent with modification.
Endogenous retroviruses are considered strong evidence of Common Descent.
That may very well be true. Looks like evolutionary opportunism. Are you claiming this was Front Loaded?
Scientific support means to propose a hypothesis and predict some specific and distinguishing empirical observation.
Comment by Zachriel — December 10, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Zachriel:
So? I wasn't arguing against descent with modification, I was replying to what you wrote here:
In fact there is evidence of deep borrowing .
Zachriel:
Usually this occurs through genomic insertion.
Zachriel:
I think so, the insertion had much ramifications for evolution of several species. It's possible that such data can be integrated in a theory of front-loading. On a related note, actually, simple sequence repeats do lots of neat stuff, like those outside of coding sequence influence gene expression. They are known as "agents of evolution" or the "tuning knobs of evolution". They are highly mutable sites also once thought of as Junk DNA.
However, for example, dinucleotide simple repeats are frequently associated with membrane-targeted proteins. In a database study of all reported dinucleotide repeats in UTRs, the repeats were 9 times more likely to appear in mRNAs encoding membrane proteins than other activities. The other major category where they appear is in 3' UTRs encoding transcription factors. Also if the repeat's flanking sequences are strongly conserved (about 10% of dinucleotide repeats have flanking sequences conserved throughout mammals) those mRNAs nearly always encode proteins critical to central nervous system development. Activity may also be triggered by the SOS response.
Zachriel:
No, not necessarily, but again, there's a difference between accomodation and prediction, we already went over this here .
Comment by Guts — December 10, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
I said possibility, not probability (taking a page from Mike Gene's Explanatory Continuum).
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — December 10, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Let us know.
Comment by Zachriel — December 10, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
ID in a nutshell. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, The Scientific Case for Common Descent is a detailed, well documented exposition of why common descent is accepted, yet you summarize it as "due in large part to the lack of competing and 'credible' explanations". And then you act if all you have to do is suggested "engineering" to repudiate the volumes of research behind that paper.
I can see where this is going to go: a series of comments citing specific research showing why engineering doesn't fit, followed by you saying, "Does too!" Nothing I could say would hold a candle to the document you're already ignoring.
Comment by don provan — December 10, 2008 @ 4:27 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
If you are using "saltation" in its commonly understood meaning (with Goldschmidt as its premier proponent), I don't think you will find any current evolutionary biologist allowing it as a possibility. Dawkins has said saltationism is creationism.
Comment by Alan Fox — December 10, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Speaking of borrowing, I like Zach's blockquote technique so much I "borrowed" it.
Along with your "mammals with feathers comment", you're thinking too big.
Let me try to explain in a different way. In my office, we have literally binders full of "standard designs" so that we can save time during the normally tight design schedule (time-wise). However, these standards were never meant to be "universal", but rather a foundation, if you will, to complete the actual design. Perhaps a weld size changes, or a slotted hole instead of round; the possibilities are endless.
Now suppose one of these tweaks becomes the standard. It is very possible that the tweaked standard design becomes tweaked. So what you get is a progression of small tweaks.
This is analogous to common descent. But when you look at it from the viewpoint of FLE, common descent and common design are the same.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — December 10, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
First, I didn't "summarise", I pretty much quoted from the front page.
Second, I never attack the quality of the work for the paper.
Third, all I did was take common descent and design for a test drive down Interstate FLE-1. The outcomes are what they are. If you have anything specific to say for or against them, I'm all ears.
Will not!
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — December 10, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
You're appealing to the authority of Dawkins? Good luck with that.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — December 10, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Maybe you should actually quote, rather than "pretty much quote". Whatever you thought you saw isn't there.
I didn't say you did. I said you ignored the paper, which you have. There is no response to your blog that isn't already in that paper.
Why do you guys always think you don't have to defend your own positions? The arguments against you are already spelled out. I don't even know what they are, but I can plainly see you're ignoring them, whatever they are. That tells me that if I knew as much as the people that wrote that paper, and presented those facts here "specifically", you'd ignore them because you've already ignored them.
Comment by don provan — December 10, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
No. I am just giving an example of a (former) evolutionary biologist who doesn't allow the possibility of saltation. It is your claim that several evolutionary biologists allow the possibility. I am saying this is wrong. If you find saltationary events you arguably falsify current evolutionary theory. I don't think there are any evolutionary biologists who allow that possibility, as there is certainly nothing like evidence for saltations. I wonder if you could indicate some of these several evolutionary biologists? You wouldn't be appealing to their authority would you?
I can admit to one still living (former) associate professor who more than allows the possibility, but I don't think he would admit to being a supporter of evolutionary biology.
Comment by Alan Fox — December 10, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
This is such a misrepresentation of current evolutionary theory, that I wonder if you are joking. Do you think there is a design binder in the genome of every cell? Do you think there is a blueprint for the various bits, or a dimensioned plan?
Comment by Alan Fox — December 10, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Alan there is a paper here that allows the possibility of saltational events, albeit , rare, by an evolutionary biologist:
Comment by Guts — December 10, 2008 @ 6:17 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
The author is drawing a distinction between macrogenesis and typogenesis. The former can stimulate the latter, but new 'Bauplans' (blueprints) are improbable, with natural selection being the mechanism leading to typogenesis.
Comment by Zachriel — December 10, 2008 @ 6:35 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Yes the author is an evolutionary biologist that allows the possibility , albeit rare, of saltational events. He describes saltationism, which is what I think Alan is referring to,
Comment by Guts — December 10, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Don:
I for one am really looking forward to that series of comments, as they would be quite mistaken. Engineering principles are quite useful when studying evolvability of lineages over a large time scale with a fluctuating enviornment.
Comment by Guts — December 10, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
So you have constant intervention throughout the process. Each step is a design event. The problem is that we can directly observe evolution, and there is no evidence of these design events. What we observe appears to be a selective sifting of natural variation. The historical pattern also supports this, such as with adaptive radiation followed by extinction and optimization.
Comment by Zachriel — December 10, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Does this make sense, Zachriel? If I parse to "structural and functional abrupt phenomic changes result in (the arising of) large changes that can sometimes stimulate the beginning of macroevolutionary typogenesis" Ah! Typogenesis! Schindewolf! Methinks this is not mainstream.
Guts you threw me a red herring!
Comment by Alan Fox — December 10, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Goldschmidt, Schindewolf, Berg? Is a pattern emerging or is it blind chance?
Comment by Alan Fox — December 10, 2008 @ 7:14 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
What do you mean?
Comment by Guts — December 10, 2008 @ 7:15 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
This paper discusses alternative evolutionary theories, including typogenesis. The PDF of the full paper is downloadable for free.
Comment by Alan Fox — December 10, 2008 @ 7:17 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
In FLE, the "tweaks" are done by the evolutionary mechanisms, or the Myopic Tinkerer. Thus, in FLE, constant intervention by the designer is not a requirement. While each variation can be considered part of the original blueprint, there is no need for the designer to constantly intervene in the process, thus making the process appear "natural".
Using the "tweaking" analogy, I was trying to demonstrate how common descent and common design are related, if not the same under FLE.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — December 10, 2008 @ 7:20 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Are you familiar with the works of John A. Davison? If not, here is a PDF of his seminal work. There is other stuff on the sidebar at UD.
Comment by Alan Fox — December 10, 2008 @ 7:22 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
What the heck, you can't be serious. Just because he mentioned typogenesis you think the paper I linked to isn't mainstream? Maybe it isn't, but the word is used rather commonly . His point of course is that natural selection is the major mechanism for typogenesis, not saltational events, as they are improbable. They could be an impetus in that direction, however.
Comment by Guts — December 10, 2008 @ 7:24 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
To do that, you would need to explain what you mean by common design. Do you mean immaterial input that "tweaks" the genome?
Comment by Alan Fox — December 10, 2008 @ 7:24 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
You got that from the abstract? I thought it was unintelligible, but maybe that's my fault. Unfortunately without seeing the paper, it is hard to progress. Also I get the impression the paper itself is in Russian.
Comment by Alan Fox — December 10, 2008 @ 7:27 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
If an engineer has initimate knowledge of how the available materials and mechanisms function, then he/she can manipulate them into a design. For the case of FLE, the assumption is the designer has this intimate knowledge of biological materials and evolutionary mechanisms, so the descent that is caused by the mechanisms is actually part of the front-loaded design. No further intervention is required, nor was it ever postulated by myself.
The design was performed once and off it went. Each stage can be considered designed, but the mechanisms used to get to each stage are "natural".
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — December 10, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
OK. So all the necessary information is preloaded and unfolds at appropriate moments and environments. Remember that ToE explains change over time by the selection imposed by the immediate and changing environment, so that each species adapts to its niche or goes extinct. In FLE how does the unfolding keep in lockstep spatially and temporally with the environment? Is this information also preloaded? In the genome presumably?
Comment by Alan Fox — December 10, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
It's a matter of degree. The paper specifically rejects typogenetic saltation. In other words, macrogenetic changes might occur suddenly (e.g. polyploidy leading to speciation in plants), but that changes to the overall structure of the organism, changes that require coordinated changes, occurs through evolution by natural selection. The author rejects saltationism as normally construed.
Comment by Zachriel — December 10, 2008 @ 8:14 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
You got that from the abstract? Wow!
Comment by Alan Fox — December 10, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
At best, it appears empirically indistinguishable from the Theory of Evolution, but posits an extraneous entity.
If I understand the basic concept, the Designer planted a seed with knowledge of how the seed will develop. The seedling adjusts to the environment as it unfolds according to scheme, a developmental pattern which just happens to look like good old-fashioned evolution. Nice story.
Comment by Zachriel — December 10, 2008 @ 8:27 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Zachriel:
Zachriel, you have been corrected before on this, even in this thread. Much of the data that is expected from an FLE perspective was unexpected from a traditional evolutionary perspective, so of course there is a distinction.
Comment by Guts — December 10, 2008 @ 8:37 pm
December 10th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
No, you've merely claimed it.
Comment by Zachriel — December 10, 2008 @ 10:29 pm
December 11th, 2008 at 12:02 am
Huh? I've never merely claimed it, I've given evidence for it in the form of actual quotes and the biological data.
Comment by Guts — December 11, 2008 @ 12:02 am
December 11th, 2008 at 1:15 am
Guts:
Placentas have evolved hundreds of times independently in fish and reptiles.
Comment by Raevmo — December 11, 2008 @ 1:15 am
December 11th, 2008 at 1:18 am
JJS:
So the designer of life (aka God) was faced with similar constraints? Did God have gambling debts?
Comment by Raevmo — December 11, 2008 @ 1:18 am
December 11th, 2008 at 1:50 am
Raevmo:
Very interesting, would love to read about it. I was referring to placental mammals though (which may also have evolved more than once).
Comment by Guts — December 11, 2008 @ 1:50 am
December 11th, 2008 at 4:31 am
Is there a link? I am a newcomer and have not seen your "evidence for it in the form of actual quotes and the biological data" that distinguishes front loading from the current ToE.
Comment by Alan Fox — December 11, 2008 @ 4:31 am
December 11th, 2008 at 10:36 am
If you visit a typical evolution discussion site, such as news.talkorigins, you will find many people more than willing to explain the Theory of Evolution in often excruciating detail, including many scientists who are happy to tell how the theory impacts their own studies, their data, the exceptions, the hypothetical, the plain unknown.
I have trouble finding a similar degree of interest in explaining the theory and data on ID sites. Apparently, I'm supposed to already know, but my skepticism (admitted) is due to my ignorance (admitted).
Enjoy.
Comment by Zachriel — December 11, 2008 @ 10:36 am
December 11th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
No, I'm not joking. It seems to me you missed the point of the analogy. But something I said later must have clear things up:
Since biological entities can affect the environment around them, I'd say yes. Mike Gene has an interesting post on this subject here.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — December 11, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
December 11th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
It is a good story. Apparently it is so good that some people want to look more closely at it and follow the rabbit trail.
The story gets better when you include the evolution of Earth's minerals (see link in my comment above.
Keep in mind, I am not arguing against evolution and its mechanisms. I'm just wondering if evolution was incorporated in the front-loaded design. So if you don't mind, I and others like me want to keep following the rabbit trails.
Of course I am not saying "…so shush!". Your comments are more than welcome. In fact, I wish to thank all critics (Zach, don, Alan, Raevmo, Dave, um Dave, where are you???
). Honest criticism tends to hone ideas and hypotheses.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — December 11, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
December 11th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
What findings would be evidence against an engineering hypothesis? For example, common descent would have a serious problem if eyes develop in one lineage suddenly jumped to an unrelated lineage. What examples would pose a similar problem for the engineering hypothesis. I can think of a couple examples that I would think made it suspect, like stupid design and unnecessary components, but I already know that supporters of an engineering hypothesis will have answers for that based on our ignorance of the over all engineering picture.
So what possible findings would make the engineering hypothesis seem unlikely? Is there anything that wouldn't also make the theory of evolution equally suspect? Or is the situation such that anything we find that agrees with the theory of evolution would logically have to agree with the engineering hypothesis?
Comment by don provan — December 11, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
December 11th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
I think if God gambled, He rigged the game
As for constraints, in the physical world there are constraints and that God had full knowledge of them. (Is this going to turn into a theological debate now?)
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — December 11, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
December 11th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I would careful with this particular line of questioning, especially the "stupid design" part. I've heard that line of argument applied the retina in the vertebrate eye, and that argument has been successfully refuted (IMO).
Similarly, "unnecessary components" have slowly revealed their "necessity", if will (ithe human appendix, example). "Unnecessary components" could also be "sleepers", waiting to be activated by external or internal pressures (environmental, for example).
I think you answered your own question. The "engineering" hypothesis presumes life evolved via evolutionary mechanisms and various selection pressures, all of which were known by the designer.
However, you do pose a good question:
A good question indeed. Stayed tuned.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — December 11, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
December 11th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Speculation is fine, but there doesn't appear to be any support. The Theory of Evolution largely explains evolution, and there is no known barrier to the evolution of complexity. Sure, we can always insert a telic entity into the narrative (e.g. the Monolith), but there is no evidence of this.
Comment by Zachriel — December 11, 2008 @ 2:23 pm
December 11th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Me:
JJ:
With respect JJ, "Yes" is not an informative answer to my question. The question was sincere. I think ToE explains more than FLE because of this matching predicted by ToE that we observe. Does FLE have an answer to matching organisms to environments, remembering how macro-environments change with continental drift, climate change, meteor impact, etc? ToE does, because it posits environment as a driving force. And don't get me started on black smokers, caves and Antarctic rock!
I will check your link.
Comment by Alan Fox — December 11, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
December 11th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Following JJ's link:
Terraforming? Organisms shape their environment? Well, it is different from ToE, I'll grant you. And yes, organisms change the environment, such as an oxygen rich atmosphere from photosynthesis. Talk about rabbit trails, I feel I have fallen down the rabbit hole with Alice.
Comment by Alan Fox — December 11, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
December 11th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
The human appendix is a vestigial remnant of the caecum. Cooption is rampant in evolution, so being vestigial does not mean not having any function whatsoever. However, we do know that the human verniform appendix does not have a cellulose fermentation function, and has a much higher variability in structure consistent with relaxed selection and not a some sort of preplanned 'apoptosis'.
Comment by Zachriel — December 11, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
December 11th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
That's what I said. I can think of a couple, but I know proponents already reject them. That was the point: the only ones I can think of, FL advocates will reject. That's why I have to ask you for ones you won't reject.
I presented two options, so I suppose you could say I answered my own question. But which option are you saying is the answer? That everything we find that agrees with evolution will logically also agree with any engineering hypothesis? If so, what use is it?
Comment by don provan — December 11, 2008 @ 7:04 pm
December 11th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
FLE has two answers, I'd say. One is that these events were anticipated. Good luck disproving that.
The other answer is that the ability to deal with catastrophies was built into the process, making the process that much more indistinguishable from evolutionary theory. In fact, JJS seem perilously close to admitting that he expects no detectable differences between the process in his engineering hypothesis and the process currently accepted by biologists.
Comment by don provan — December 11, 2008 @ 7:10 pm
December 11th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
I think IDists make a mistake by tracing front loading from the artificial starting point of a cell or even a precursor cell. The case is much more compelling when viewed from the perspective of the universe itself while looking at the unfolding of our galaxy, solar system and planet. This removes it from an entirely biological basis without neglecting biology.
Comment by Bradford — December 11, 2008 @ 8:59 pm
December 11th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Bradford,
I agree with your about a hypothesis involving the front loading being the introduction of life. I actually think the logic falls apart completely with a starting point that late, but we can discuss that elsewhere.
But the only reason moving the load point back makes things any better is that you're moving it completely beyond investigation. Since we have absolutely no way of knowing what actually happened, the "what else could it be?" argument seems even more compelling for those that fall for it. Perfect for people prone to think of God as the default explanation for all unexplained phenomena, since it seems likely we'll never explain the start of the universe.
Comment by don provan — December 11, 2008 @ 9:42 pm
December 11th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
dp:
Not so. For life to form there must be suitable conditions. What forces would bring about such conditions and what is the likelihood that a confluence of forces would generate a suitable galaxy, solar system and planet. These questions are comprehended within an even broader framework that is focused on basic forces of physics themselves and the related fine tuning issue. This is not the stuff of metaphyscis but physics.
Another reason for looking at the load point more closely is because it is realistic. If life can arise then what is it about the relevant organic chemicals and laws of chemistry and physics that would make this possible? What would generate coded information systems on a planet where genetic systems do not exist. Contrary to being beyond investigation and contrived these questions are within the scope of investigatigative capacity.
Comment by Bradford — December 11, 2008 @ 10:03 pm
December 11th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
As soon as you said "likelihood", you revealed that you're making a "what else can it be?" argument. Prove whatever you want as unlikely as you want, that still doesn't support a proposal for something that cannot be demonstrated.
Comment by don provan — December 11, 2008 @ 10:14 pm
December 11th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
If you wish to remove constraints from consideration then likelihood is indeed irrelevant. So if this comes down to trusting the sufficiency of naturalism to account for everything then you have a ready philosophical explanation at hand.
Comment by Bradford — December 11, 2008 @ 10:33 pm
December 12th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
The reason "likelihood" raises a red flag is because we all know already that you're never going to apply that constraint to your own hypothesis. That's what makes it a "What else could it be?" argument: all what-else's have been ruled out using a criteria that cannot even be applied to the "winning" explanation.
Comment by don provan — December 12, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
December 12th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Alan wrote:
See here , also you can peruse our Front-loading section in general. There are many, many examples. See also the TDM blog .
Comment by Guts — December 12, 2008 @ 10:25 pm
December 12th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Zachriel:
The latter is irrelevant, if there were a barrier to evolution then that would FLE is impossible (unless there was intervention here and there). The theory of evolution, as I have pointed out, is going through constant changes, we are for the most part still learning how evolution works, and it's turning out to be more complex than previously thought.
Comment by Guts — December 12, 2008 @ 10:26 pm
December 12th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Don wrote:
I would say that if engineering concepts turned to be useless when describing evolution or biological machines. If biology turned out to be more like chemistry and/or physics. Not that concepts in these fields are useless, Mike Gene did a study on this with respect to publications in the field in his book.
Comment by Guts — December 12, 2008 @ 10:35 pm
December 12th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Which brings up this question: which is more useful in studying genomes and the genetic code- chemistry or cryptanalysis?
Comment by Bradford — December 12, 2008 @ 11:44 pm
December 13th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
We already know engineering concepts aren't useless in biology. What about the usefulness of engineering analysis suggests the use of an engineering process? We can using engineering to study Natural Bridges National Monument, can't we?
Any engineering study of biological systems will involve chemistry and physics, don't you think? So how can it not be "more like chemistry and/or physics"?
Comment by don provan — December 13, 2008 @ 7:29 pm
December 13th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
I'm very interested in any information you have about cryptanalysis being applied to the study of the genomes.
Comment by don provan — December 13, 2008 @ 7:31 pm
December 15th, 2008 at 1:12 am
Don wrote:
Yes but things could have turned out to be quite different.
Don wrote:
I don't see what you mean in that link, but my point about engineering in biology is that it is pervasive , protocols, feed back control, robustness, even computer science data structures, etc etc.
Don:
My point is not that chemistry and physics are not involved, which is why I wrote: "Not that concepts in these fields are useless"
Comment by Guts — December 15, 2008 @ 1:12 am
December 15th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
I can't imagine how.
Life is complex. Engineering principles can be used to analyze complex structures. That tells us nothing about their origins. Natural Bridges is a simple and obvious example: we know the origins of the natural bridges and know those origins did not involve engineering, yet we can still discuss the bridges and their structures using engineering principles.
Comment by don provan — December 15, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
December 15th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Don wrote:
Not so difficult, they used to think the cell was a bag of goo.
Don:
How so? When was the last time you needed protocols, feedback loops, and data structures (just to name a few) as a requirement to understand natural bridges? I can understand how one can make analogies here and there, or how one or two concepts might be needed, but so much of engineering is required to understand biological complexity, this is predicted by ID.
Comment by Guts — December 15, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
December 16th, 2008 at 6:58 am
Guts:
OK, so give your best example of biological complexity that requires engineering to understand, and explain why it cannot be understood except by reference to engineering.
Comment by Raevmo — December 16, 2008 @ 6:58 am
December 16th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Raevmo wrote:
Not sure if it's the best but ceratainly one of my favorites, the bow-tie architecture principle employed by TCP/IP and power grids, used to understand various facets of cellular organization. You need to employ concepts such as protocols, robustness, etc in order to properly model and analyze these systems. You can read about it here
Comment by Guts — December 16, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 11:59 pm
[...] commenter stated: "…JJS seems perilously close to admitting he expects no detectable differences between [...]
Pingback by The “Engineering Hypothesis” | Evolution Engineered — May 1, 2009 @ 11:59 pm