Misconceptions about front-loading
by KrauzeI've often heard this sentence, or sentences like it:
"Front-loading is the idea that the designer put a copy of every gene into the first organism, programming the course of evolution."
Well, both parts of that sentence is wrong. Front-loading does not claim that the first organism had a copy of every existing gene, and the phrase "programmed evolution" makes it sound more deterministic than it really is. So, how would I describe front-loading? How about this:
"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."
To illustrate the differences between these two descriptions, let's look at an example. The most fundamental division in life is between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Prokaryotes are those cells without a nucleus, comprising bacteria and a group formerly thought to be bacteria, but now referred to as archaeons; while eukaryotes are those organisms who do have a nucleus in their cells, such as cats, oak trees, house flies, and yourself. Although multicellular organisms are the easiest to see, many eukaryotes, such as amoeba and slime molds, only consist of a single cell. At some point in the past, some unicellular organisms evolved multicellularity. In an article in New Scientist (requires subscription), Claire Ainsworth writes:
Eukaryotes could make this leap [to multicellularity] because they had already evolved many of the necessary attributes for other purposes. Many single-celled eukaryotes can specialise or "differentiate" into cell types, dedicated to specific tasks such as mating with another cell. They sense their environment with chemical signalling systems, some of which are similar to those multicellular organisms use to coordinate their cells' behaviour. And they may detect and capture their prey with the same kind of sticky surface molecules that hold cells together in animals and other multicellular organisms.
In other words, unicellular eukaryotes contain some structures that, although useful for unicellular life, also happened to be convenient in multicelullar organisms. Now, let's look at this from the perspective of front-loading. Suppose that those structures didn't come into being through evolution, but had been placed in the first eukaryotes by the designers. If that was the case, the evolution of multicellularity would essentially have been front-loaded; the organisms would have been given the tools to solve a particular problem, thereby making one path in the maze of life much more inviting.
In this scenario, the evolution of multicellularity wasn't "programmed"; the designers wouldn't have known what exact route life would take, nor could they have known that organisms such as oak trees and cats would emerge. Furthermore, there is no need for every gene to have been present in the first organisms. To use yet another metaphor, life would merely have been given a skeleton, on which new structures could be built.
Note that all of this is just a thought scenario: Whether the first eukaryotes really were front-loated is for future research to decide. But when discussing this possibility, let's at least make sure we're talking about the same thing.
March 5th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
I'd be interested in hearing how these notions on front-loading square with Paul Nelson's arguments about ORFans and common ancestry.
Ya out there, Paul?
Comment by Art — March 5, 2006 @ 9:49 pm
March 5th, 2006 at 10:14 pm
Krauze, I read through your description, and I am wondering if there is a way to detect the presence of 'front loading'?
It seems to me that you recognize that the structures present in unicellular organisms, that then are co-opted for multicelluar life actually do have a function in the unicellular organism. In addition you apparently agree that once these structures were there, evolution worked itself out pretty much like discribed in mainstream science. Hence, they do have an evolutionary advantage and thus could have evolved naturally. So, it appears to me, the only way to distinguish front loading and evolution, would be to actually detect the actual act of 'front loading' by the designer, or some difference preceding the front loading.
Am I understanding this correctly? Or is there another way how we can distinguish mainstream evolution from front loading?
Comment by hrun — March 5, 2006 @ 10:14 pm
March 5th, 2006 at 11:06 pm
The following definition is proposed:
"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."
Contrast this with the weaker definition:
"History-depedendent is the idea that the prior forms of an organism influence the subsequent course of evolution (for their descendents)."
By this notion, "Front-loading" is a special cases of "History-dependent". All I have done is omit the "design" presumption. Conventional evolutionary biology is plainly "History-dependent". Does "front-loading" add any useful substance for a scientific model?
It may be an interesting metaphysical or philosophical idea; but to be a scientific model there needs to be some consideration of the designer; motives or means or intentions in a form that have some meaningful implications for the evidence that contrast with an undesigned history-dependence.
The current crop of IDists do not consider the designer, and present nothing that could distinguish history-dependence by design, and history-dependence without design. The mere fact of history-dependence sheds no light on the matter of whether or not a designer is involved.
This is why ID as currently pursued has nothing much to do with science.
This is also the source of a major theological problem with ID, for those who adopt the orthodox Christian view that all the world is the creation of God. The notion that there could be some way to single out some general physical process that was not that way by design is rather a problem for the notion of a transcendent creator who established and maintains the entire natural world.
Cheers — Sylas
Comment by sylas — March 5, 2006 @ 11:06 pm
March 6th, 2006 at 2:04 am
I'll take a stab at this. First things first, hrun. What matters in the moment is that it is becoming increasingly clear that a non-teleological perspective of evolution (the "mainstream evolution") is just that – a perspective on evolution. Attempts to tease the different perspectives apart comes later down the road. Remember that the sword cuts both ways here – if you criticize Krauze for not being able to distinguish FLE from DE, you are admitting that you cannot distinguish DE from FLE.
At this stage, it's about feeling out the plausibility of designing evolution. Traditionally, this seemed like a preposterous hypothesis. But more and more data strengthen the plausibility of such a reality.
Comment by MikeGene — March 6, 2006 @ 2:04 am
March 6th, 2006 at 9:17 am
Mike, I don't have a problem with not being able to distinguish the two. I also can't distinguish the currently theory about gravity and the theory of invisible elfs pushing objects towards each other according to their masses. I also can't distinguish an old earth and mainstream evolution theory from 'God created the world three seconds ago and made it all look like its really really old and evolution happened'. In these cases I go with the simpler or more likely explanation.
I'm still wondering what that argument may be, but that would escalate this thread to something far away from the original post.
So, with both theories indistinguishable once the original act of designing is done, it remains to examine the actual act of designing and the designer who did so, right? Seems like sylas came (rightly or wrongly) to the same conclusion.
Comment by hrun — March 6, 2006 @ 9:17 am
March 6th, 2006 at 9:49 am
The fact that ateleological theories about evolution can be made consistent with the data behind front-loading is in itself rather uninteresting, as neo-Darwinism has shown itself capable of accommodating many conflicting theories over the years. For example, is there anything in neo-Darwinism that lead us to suspect that structures required for multicellularity had arisen in the earliest eukaryotes? If these structures had evolved in conjunction with multicellularity, would we have had to reject neo-Darwinism? I don't think so.
Now, ask this question about front-loading: If the first eukaryotes show no preparation towards multicellularity, how does the prospects for front-loading look. Not good, I'd say.
Comment by Krauze — March 6, 2006 @ 9:49 am
March 6th, 2006 at 9:57 am
Not necessarily. It might just be that multicellularity was not specifically front loaded, but other things were.
In either case, what one really should look for in front loading would be stuff that turns out to be useful at a later stage in evolution, but is useless (or even detrimental) at an earlier stage, right? This would really contradict evolution, but would be a perfect example for front loading. I wonder if such a thing will ever be found… but if it is found, it will be very interesting to figure out where it came from. Apart from that, the only thing I can think of to distinguish front loading from evolution is to actually study the act of front loading.
Comment by hrun — March 6, 2006 @ 9:57 am
March 6th, 2006 at 9:59 am
Krauze says:
Why Krauze? Couldn't you then simply hypothesize that the ID designed the first multicellular organism to evolve into the diversity of mutlicellular life we see today? As I understand it, you don't have anything to say about the designer, so on what basis would you conclude that the designer had to front load the unicellular eukaryote rather than the first multicellular eukaryote?
Comment by Aagcobb — March 6, 2006 @ 9:59 am
March 6th, 2006 at 10:27 am
Not at all. One way that ID theory gives us to distinguish betrween teleological and ateleological modes is the concept of complex specified information. That life actually possesses no CSI (something that direct experimentation shows us) is both remarkable (as teleological suspicions lead many to believe just the opposite) and informative (as it offers pretty specific and testable hypotheses fo origins and evolution). And it is rather unfriendly to teleological ideas regarding front-loading. (Ateleological front loading is just another term for RM+NS.)
Other than fuzzy, wishful-thinking reasoning ("it looks that way to me"), how would one determine such a preparedness? Why would one even suspect such a thing? What scientific (as opposed to metaphysical or theological) data exist that leads one to even suspect such a thing in the first place?
Comment by Art — March 6, 2006 @ 10:27 am
March 6th, 2006 at 10:49 am
You hit the nail on the head there, Krauze. The problem I, I think, is that Neo-Darwinism (any ateleological account, really) is comprised partly of chance, to some imprecise degree. Since chance can, in principle, be called on as an explanation for just about anything all by itself, the Neo-Darwinist can just turn up the chance dial to accomodate anything they weren't expecting before. After all, they can say, there's no reason, in principle, that it couldn't have happened to have happened that way. Of course, accomodating and explaining are not the same thing.
Comment by Deuce — March 6, 2006 @ 10:49 am
March 6th, 2006 at 11:08 am
This is an incorrect perception of evolution. There are certain things that even with the chance dia cranked up can't happen according to evolution. For example, structures that are not useful (or detrimental) should not be maintained over long periods of time. Organisms that are identified as precursors to other organisms should appear earlier in time. Homology should not occur in unrelated organisms. … And there are plenty of other examples. None of these could be explained away by cranking up the chance dial.
Finally, I wonder what 'conflicting theories' Krauze was talking about. If there are two conflicting theories that both get accomodated, does that mean there is a logical error somewhere? Or is it more like 'common descent' theory accomodates evolution, front loading, ID and specific kinds of creationism?
Comment by hrun — March 6, 2006 @ 11:08 am
March 6th, 2006 at 11:16 am
Hrun:
There is no doubt that traditional views have their philosophical justifications and it is difficult to argue against a view that boils down to ancient events that "just happened." Yet we must also remember that the critics of ID have no experience trying to investigate the world from the perspective of design. Their naysaying can be useful, but we should not put too much stock into it.
Writing in the journal Science, evolutionary biologist Francois Jacob offered some truly profound words:
We must remember that many critics of have a vested interest in inducing a spontaneous abortion of any ID investigation, so it would only make sense that some would demand to be convinced (by extraordinary evidence?) now, thereby thwarting Jacob's wisdom.
FLE is about "looking at objects from a different angle." If someone wants to look at gravity from the perspective of invisible elfs, or look at the world from the perspective of God creating the world three seconds ago to make it all look like its really really old and evolution happened, then they should feel free to do so. Yet hrun merely assumes that FLE is analogous to such perspectives. Rather than assume it, we should test it. And the way to test it is to develop a robust hypothesis of FLE and see if it generates novel insights into our reality. Of course, if outsiders attempt to actively thwart the emerging embryonic FLE perspective, it suggests they are out to ensure that FLE remains in the class on invisible elfs (and I wonder why that is?).
Yet even at this preliminary stage, it's clear to me that FLE is not in the same category of invisible elfs. FLE not only leads to certain expectations about the biotic world, such that we can appreciate its growing plausibility, but it also stems from an independent consideration of the origin of life and the clues that speak to its design. Put simply, FLE is a hypothesis that follows from the hypothesis of life's design. The elf example, on the other hand, is clearly an ad hoc rhetorical move on the part of hrun.
Yes and no. We'll see how this plays out later.
Sylas correctly notes that evolution is history-dependent. The fact that we have begun to appreciate just how deeply history-dependent it is is one of the things that make's the design of evolution so plausible. Yet perhaps you two can now explain why conventional evolutionary biology failed to predict the deep-borrowing that is now known to exist. Why is it that so much of evo-devo, for example, was a "surprise" to conventional evolutionary biologists? None of these findings surprise us from the perspective of FLE.
It's interesting that hrun needs a hypothesis about evolution to contradict evolution. Here is where the distinction between EE and OE (spelled out four years ago ) becomes important. Designing a structure that is detrimental at first, but only useful millions of years later, surely may be something that might possibly open the mind of a hardcore skeptic, but it's a terrible design strategy. The criterion that hrun needs to be convinced would be reason to kick him off the team of designers trying to design evolution. Apparently, he thinks the design objective of a designer is to prove to others that the designer exists.
Look, if all goes well over the next few months, I'll have plenty more to say about FLE.
Comment by MikeGene — March 6, 2006 @ 11:16 am
March 6th, 2006 at 11:28 am
Art:
You need to have this discussion with your fellow critics, as I think you are the only critic who believes this.
You should explain to TelicThoughts readers what you mean by the belief that "life actually possesses no CSI."
There is no need to be so impatient or rude. Those of us that explore the possibilities of evolution's design do not demand that it be taught in schools. Nor do we demand that it be recognized as science. Given these facts, I don't quite understand your apparent bitterness.
As Francois Jacob said:
Jacob was a great scientist, a Nobel Laureate. Is there a reason why you want us to abandon his insight into inquiry?
Comment by MikeGene — March 6, 2006 @ 11:28 am
March 6th, 2006 at 11:35 am
I'm not certain that this is the case. I think many people have a vested interest that ID is not taught in public schools, but I personally don't care if there are hundreds of Discovery Institutes. And I would even welcome them, if only they would start doing some science, instead of exclusively doing PR.
Again, that's fine. I don't want to discourage anybody from looking at things from a different angel. If you feel that this particular angle will be productive, go right ahead. I am trying to understand the angle and I am trying to figure out how this angle is different from evolution.
As far as I can tell, there appears to be no difference once the act of front loading has been committed. So, it is only natural to start looking at earlier events, either preceeding front loading or during the act of front loading for novel insights.
No, I do not assume such a thing. I merely stated other examples where certain theories can not be distinguished from each other. That does not mean that I give FLE the same status as my elf theory of gravity. So, your suggestion is wrong that 'they' are out to get FLE (or at least in my case it is a wrong suggestion).
Certainly. As I said above.
Hmm, don't quite get it, but I will wait until later then.
Humans are fallable? We learned a lot in the past decades? [...] I am certain there will be many things we will learn about evolution in the future. If we were able to predict everything we will find, we would just work our way slowly through the list of predictions and finally we'd be done with research. That's not quite how it works.
I don't get it, sorry.
I agree, not sound design strategy. I was merely looking for distinctions between FLE and evolution. Again, this brings me back to looking at the act of front loading or preceding the act as means of differentiation.
I'll be waiting in anticipation.
As a final note, Mike, I wonder why you need to address me in the third person when you are apparently answering my posts directly. I am obviously here to read the answers to the questions I posed. However, if it is common practice here, then I can also attempt to phrase my posts accordingly.
Comment by hrun — March 6, 2006 @ 11:35 am
March 6th, 2006 at 11:36 am
Hmm, looking at your reply to Art, apparently it is not common practice to refer to other in the third person when answering their posts directly.
Comment by hrun — March 6, 2006 @ 11:36 am
March 6th, 2006 at 11:58 am
A couple more points and then I have to run.
Hrun:
Yes, but we are not talking about some trivial detail here. This thing "about evolution" comes close to the essence of evolution itself. Again, the things we expect from the FLE perspective surprised the conventional evolutionary biologists.
Sorry. I suppose it is a bad internet habit I have picked up over the years. I'll try to stop it.
Comment by MikeGene — March 6, 2006 @ 11:58 am
March 6th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Mike, but we would expect the same for evolution, wouldn't we. We are finding out more and more that co-option, rather than creating from scratch is the preferred way evolution goes… not just for stuff that
happened a long time ago, but also for evolution that goes on right now (e.g. development of resistance in bacteria, novel degradation pathways, …). It might be a failing of scientists that they didn't see this earlier, but how is that a failing of evolution? How does this make a case for or against evolution as a theory?
When we look back decades from now, and assuming that FLE established itself as the dominant theory, might there be things that could have been predicted by FLE, but aren't prediceted just yet? Would that somehow invalidate FLE? I don't think so.
I mainly surprised by the fact that it does not appear to be an actual habit, since you addressed Art personally… anyway, it's not that important.
Comment by hrun — March 6, 2006 @ 12:05 pm
March 6th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
Art asked,
Yup, but I have a debate tomorrow at Univ of IL-Chicago (SCE rm 302, 750 South Halsted) against Austin Dacey of the Center for Inquiry-NY, and another debate Thursday (3/9, 7:30 pm) against my old grad school sparring partner Sahotra Sarkar, at UT-Austin. The moderator for the latter event will be Bill Wimsatt, who supervised both Sahotra's dissertation and mine.
But I can contribute a fascinating stimulant (for all concerned) in this thread. Go here, and listen to Claire Fraser's talk, the last lecture of the symposium. Near the end of her presentation, she raises an absolutely fascinating puzzle for front-loading, specifically in the context of ID.
Then, just to twist your mind around one more time, look at this paper.
Comment by Paul Nelson — March 6, 2006 @ 12:32 pm
March 6th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
Hrun:
Thats not really what comes to my mind when I think about Mike's idea of front-loading. Although it is part of it. A good illustration of "FLE would expect it, but current theories didn't" is the discovery that the last common ancestor to bilaterians and cnidarians already had the complete set of wnt genes. The reason why this was unexpected is because the idea was that cnidarians have one, nematodes and insects about 4-5 and vertebrates 12. This was consistent with the idea that gene duplication and increasing complexity go together. This was wrong.
What do we find instead? A much more complex evolutionary scenario, the complete set in the urbilaterians. The fact that a complex signaling center is governing gastrulation indicates that this genetic complexity was necessary to create entoderm, ectoderm, establish a boundary between both layers, etc. So, gastrulation is a complex task and for that you need all these ligands (IC). This is a very different scenario something that FLE would predict and expect, when you have a robust model that you can start studying these things with and actually predict these discoveries, it's just better all around for our understanding of the biotic world. You're not investigating these things with the wrong idea and suddenly getting hit in the head with a discovery that smashes your expectation. Clearly, there are distinctions with traditional evolutionary thinking and FLE thinking.
I'm not sure but I think FLE also explains convergence differently than Darwinian theory does (i.e. it's not or it's more than similar selective pressures).
Comment by Guts — March 6, 2006 @ 1:15 pm
March 6th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Hi Hrun,
"Finally, I wonder what "˜conflicting theories' Krauze was talking about. If there are two conflicting theories that both get accomodated, does that mean there is a logical error somewhere?"
The "conflicting theories" I was talking about were accomodated at different times. For example, in the sixties, it was thought that searching for homologous genes in distant relatives was futile, as evolution could easily find several different solutions to the same problem. But with the advent of evo-devo, we've learnt that the genes being used to construct animal bodyplans are in fact widely shared, having arisen much earlier than anyone anticipated. As Mike said, this change "comes close to the essence of evolution itself", yet it has been incorporated into evolutionary biology with little fear and trembling.
Comment by Krauze — March 6, 2006 @ 4:59 pm
March 6th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Hi Hrun,
"It might be a failing of scientists that they didn't see this earlier, but how is that a failing of evolution? How does this make a case for or against evolution as a theory?"
No one is trying to make a case against "evolution as a theory". In fact, FLE stands for "front-loaded evolution". What the example shows is that neo-Darwinism can be modified to fit with many different scenarios. This doesn't mean that it should be rejected, but it suggests that we should be careful before assigning any special meaning to the fact that it can be made to accomodate the data mentioned in my post.
"As far as I can tell, there appears to be no difference once the act of front loading has been committed. So, it is only natural to start looking at earlier events, either preceeding front loading or during the act of front loading for novel insights."
Yes, you believe that the only way to detect front-loading is to either 1) prove evolution impossible, or to 2) watch the designer in action. In other words, you're looking for extraordinary evidence that'll shock you into belief. I, taking my cue from history, where extraordinary theories have been supported by circumstantial evidence, gradually gathered through an open-ended investigation, differ.
What's so great about all of this is that I don't have to convince you. I don't need the consent of critics to proceed with thinking about these things. In the end, there's only one judge to determine who is right: Nature, with the clues she gives us.
Comment by Krauze — March 6, 2006 @ 5:19 pm
March 6th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
I am not setting this up as my belief, it is a question I have that I am addressing to you and others. The gradual gathering of circumstantial evidence only works if some of this circumstantial evidence fits well with one theory but not with the other. If this is not the case, then all the gathering of the gradual evidence does is strengthening both theories equally. That's why I am looking for a way to separate or distinguish between the two. And since apparently the evolutionary mechanisms itself after the act of frontloading are agreed on by both theories, the only logical way to distinguish the two is by looking at the act of frontloading or the time preceeding frontloading, where there should be enormous differences.
So true. I admire your outlook on this.
Comment by hrun — March 6, 2006 @ 6:11 pm
March 6th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
Hi Hrun,
"The gradual gathering of circumstantial evidence only works if some of this circumstantial evidence fits well with one theory but not with the other."
Far from always. None of the observations gathered by Darwin disproved special creation. Every piece of evidence was already known by natural theologians, and had an explanation from within the existing paradigm. Darwin didn't find any evidence that unequivocally decided the issue; instead, he offered a different perspective on a large body of data that, to the person inclined, was more promising.
"And since apparently the evolutionary mechanisms itself after the act of frontloading are agreed on by both theories, the only logical way to distinguish the two is by looking at the act of frontloading or the time preceeding frontloading, where there should be enormous differences."
Time will be the judge of that. BTW, which "evolutionary mechanisms" does the ateleological perspective posit as being behind multicellularity?
Comment by Krauze — March 6, 2006 @ 6:24 pm
March 6th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
None of them disproved them, but numerous were only consistent with evolution, but not with special creation. Hence my suggestion that the evidence ought to fit better with one than with the other theory.
I would guess that mutlicellularity allowed for specialization of cells for certain tasks, which allowed multicellular organisms to outcompete single celled organisms in certain niches.
Comment by hrun — March 6, 2006 @ 7:09 pm
March 6th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
Hi Hrung,
"None of them disproved them, but numerous were only consistent with evolution, but not with special creation."
Which were those?
"I would guess that mutlicellularity allowed for specialization of cells for certain tasks, which allowed multicellular organisms to outcompete single celled organisms in certain niches. "
That's not a mechanism, that's just a restatement of what distinguishes multicellular organism (specialization of cells) coupled to a truism. When you define it that broadly, it can accommodate practically everything.
Comment by Krauze — March 6, 2006 @ 7:22 pm
March 6th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
Common ancestry.
Certainly, that is an evolutionary mechanism. I am not really certain what you are after with your question apparently. Maybe if you give me the answer from the teleological perspective, then I could better understand what you are looking for and could provide a similar answer.
Comment by hrun — March 6, 2006 @ 7:58 pm
March 7th, 2006 at 8:24 am
Hi Hrun,
"Common ancestry."
Common ancestry wasn't an observation, it was an explanation Darwin proposed for various observations, such as similar organs, the geographical distribution of species, and similarities in embryology.
"I am not really certain what you are after with your question apparently. Maybe if you give me the answer from the teleological perspective, then I could better understand what you are looking for and could provide a similar answer."
I don't claim to have an "answer from the teleological perspective". You were the one who started talking about "evolutionary mechanisms", so I tried to get a feel for the detail of these. Apparently, the level of detail is limited to "something happened that enabled multicellular organisms to outcompete unicellular organisms", so making it consistent with various observations is not much of a challenge.
Comment by Krauze — March 7, 2006 @ 8:24 am
March 7th, 2006 at 8:46 am
[quote]I don't claim to have an "answer from the teleological perspective". You were the one who started talking about "evolutionary mechanisms", so I tried to get a feel for the detail of these. Apparently, the level of detail is limited to "something happened that enabled multicellular organisms to outcompete unicellular organisms", so making it consistent with various observations is not much of a challenge.[/quote]
Are you maybe interested in a more detailed step by step analysis how multicellular beings developed? Are you wondering how exactly a single celled organism managed to turn into a two celled organism? In either case, the mechanisms remains the same simple evolutionary mechanisms as before. Variation led to a competitive advantage. If you are looking for the biological underpinning of each of the innovations along the way, you should not ask for evolutionary mechanisms, which I guess include things like 'selection', 'genetic drift', 'lateral gene transfer', … in essence all means to produce variation in a population and fix these variations.
Comment by hrun — March 7, 2006 @ 8:46 am
March 7th, 2006 at 8:51 am
Alright, how about the observation that certain organism appear at different times in the geological column and that there is an order going from simple to more complex as the strata gets younger.
Comment by hrun — March 7, 2006 @ 8:51 am
March 7th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Is there a single scrap of evidence that life on Earth has ever been anything but cellular?
The FLEers are arguing (mostly from what I've seen) about the transition from unicelluraity to multicelluraity.
It's certainly interesting to speculate about, but is there any reason to do so? Other than it is what conventional evolutionary thought says so, life, all of which is cellular, must come from some pre-ceullar form?
Any actual "evidence" of that?
I really mean "scientific" evidence.
Seems to me, as if I understood anything about FLE, which I don't, that if life begins with cells that in itself is some major front-loading!
I think I'm saying that actually all we know (as opposed to all we speculate about) seems to favor FL!
Comment by Rock — March 7, 2006 @ 4:43 pm
March 7th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
Hrun:
If we expected such deep borrowing from conventional evolutionary theory, it would have predicted deep functional borrow. But it didn't.
Which is another piece of evidence that makes FLE more plausible. Front-loading depends on future evolutionary events being connected to the original design. The deeper and broader the connection, the greater the plausibility of front-loading. If "creating from scratch" was the primary means of evolution, front-loading would be unfeasible.
It's not a failing of evolution or scientists. It's a failing of the non-teleological interpretation of evolution.
Front-loading is not about making a case against evolution, as front-loading is a particular perspective on evolution.
No one is talking about invalidating anything. The fact remains that deep borrowing was an unexpected surprise from the non-teleological perspective, yet is expected from the front-loading perspective. This is just one subtle clue that encourages me to think front-loading is on the right track.
Comment by MikeGene — March 7, 2006 @ 4:57 pm
March 7th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Rock:
No.
That is one heuristic example. I'm still exploring the plausibility of front-loading. But like I said, I'll have more detail to add this summer.
If one begins with the hypothesis that the first cells were designed, one might speculate that they were designed to evolve. Of course, evolution is a given once you have life, thus a better way to think about it is whether and how the designer designed with the future in mind.
Indeed. Of course, the cells that kicked of life need not have existed. So why were those cells "chosen?"
Comment by MikeGene — March 7, 2006 @ 5:04 pm