Pondering Evolution
by BradfordMichael Sherman's Universal Genome in the Origin of Metazoa proposes an experimentally testable hypothesis and a model with two major predictions appearing in the linked abstract:
…first that a significant fraction of genetic information in lower taxons must be functionally useless but becomes useful in higher taxons, and second that one should be able to turn on in lower taxons some of the complex latent developmental programs, e.g., a program of eye development or antibody synthesis in sea urchin. An example of natural turning on of a complex latent program in a lower taxon is discussed.
The essay begins:
In this essay, I will focus on the origin and evolution of Metazoa, without discussing evolution of unicellular organisms, or other groups. Ideas proposed below in no sense challenge the existing views on formation of small taxonomic units. Our focus, however, will be on emergence of new complex systems, and related appearance of large taxons.
What follows is, if I may borrow a phrase, thought provoking morsels for TT's analytical members. Enjoy.
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:55 am
That's funny, I had previously suggested that a significant fraction of genetic information in lower taxons must be functionally useless but becomes useful in higher taxons as a prediction of Front-Loading, but I made that prediction in effort to highlight how silly the notion is.
I hope he follows through with some actual investigation, then instead of Front-Loading having no evidence it might actually have specific negative evidence.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 22, 2008 @ 9:55 am
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:59 am
Todd:
Why woud the evidence be "negative"?
Comment by Bradford — August 22, 2008 @ 9:59 am
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:04 am
That's a subjective reaction. Intrinsic to the idea of front-loading is a telic outcome. Loading for future biological events. If that's what biological evidence were to indicate then so be it. You can still think it is silly though. That's your privilage in an open society.
Comment by Bradford — August 22, 2008 @ 10:04 am
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Please make it clear, TB, that’s your silly idea of “Front-Loading.” (Not that its your idea either.) Not Mike Gene’s. Mike Gene has attempted for years to correct this common misapprehension amongst his critics. To no avail, obviously.
Comment by Rock — August 22, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Here's another interesting passage from Sherman's paper…
The hypothesis of a "Universal Genome" is pretty much where I've suspected Mike's "Front-Loading" was going, so it's nice to see this published. In Cell Cycle. A year ago.
Sherman's hypothesis is more radical than Mike's. Has Sherman been kicked out of BU for it? Has he been thoroughly denounced by the orthodoxen as a "Creationist?" If not, WHY not?
Comment by Joy — August 22, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Not Mike's? Who originated the idea of FLE?
Comment by Joy — August 22, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Answering your question, Joy, and also Raevmo's in another topic, the idea of "front-loading" is a design science, design theoretic construct.
Mike Gene may correct me on that, maybe he arrived at the idea independently, but not first.
It's just common sense, which obviously ain't that common, as designers have not consistently or effectively applied the principle in practice: Load the critical decisions up front, front-load, to mitigate the effect (cost) of poor decision-making, which is considerable (even disastrous). Common sense; because an uniformed decision made early in the design of a system of design (what systems designers are employed to do–not just design systems but designs systems of design), correcting wrong decisions invariably prove to be prohibitively costly.
IOW just make the right decisions first. Impossible! You bet! But try telling that to your boss! LOL
It doesn't occur to biologists because the "theory" they are working with is a disaster! Its all about disasters: Variation is random wrt fitness!
Comment by Rock — August 22, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Hi, I'm new here.
I think TB assumes that an actual investigation will invalidate the hypothisis proposed in the paper.
I could be wrong, though.
Comment by Jay Thomas — August 22, 2008 @ 4:33 pm
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Rock:
Yeah, and and fitness is defined as that which is fit (survives). I've been semi-amazed for years that the die-hard culture warriors can't see what's right in front of their faces – figure it's a forest and trees sort of situation. It was just a matter of time until the NDS paradigm finally became so non-explanatory of incoming evidence that it had to be shelved.
We've only been decoding genomes for a few years. We were bound to find some things we weren't expecting given the anachronistic assumptions of NDS. Sort of makes the movement to dump the term "Darwinism" look like an after-thought to the general recognition that the incoming evidence needs a broader theoretical accommodation.
Not the first time science has had to deal with metaphysical corruption in its ranks. Science will survive the revolution in biology too, I expect. NDS/classical/orthodox MET of the "Random Mutation + Natural Selection = Evolution" paradigm will not. It's looking more and more like "Design + Development + Selection = Evolution" with RM-NS providing in-species variation to enhance overall fitness of the population and/or thinning the herd.*
* Yes, we've identified many genetic mutations that cause or contribute to the development of diseases – cancer, heart disease, diabetes, alzheimer's, etc., etc. along with the actual genetic diseases. Obviously, random mutations can cause harm. But for evolution's purposes any diseases contributed to by SNPs or substitutions in protein coding that don't show up for 40 years are of no consequence. They concern us because we all want to live to be 100.
Comment by Joy — August 22, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Joy:
Says who?
You claimed before:
Please give some examples of such mutations.
Comment by Raevmo — August 22, 2008 @ 5:37 pm
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Rock:
Please feel free to offer your superior theory. I agree that organisms are "front-loaded" to cope with their environment. But who was the front-loader?
PS: do you still think Darwin never had an original idea in his life?
Comment by Raevmo — August 22, 2008 @ 5:46 pm
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Look at this. The telicization of Raevmo before our very eyes. Who says evolution takes eons to produce new forms? Telic Raevmo.
Comment by Bradford — August 22, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Hi Bradford,
I appreciate you offering this thread up because it looks like DaveScot wasn't interested in my Vernanimalcula guizhouena comment (at least the submitted comment hasn't appeared on Uncommon Descent yet).
I'm not antagonistic towards the Front Loading argument because…
1) Metaphysically, we don't know how the universe was created. It is a matter of philosophical outlook as to whether it was "front loaded" with purpose or not. People are entitled to find their own Truth.
2) Scientifically, it is consistent with quantum effects interconnected in both space and time. Interconnections in time would appear to us like foresight.
I will try to post a follow up comment explaining how the Vernanimalcula guizhouena fit in my view of a way-down-on-the-totem-pole ID alternative.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 22, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:04 pm
TP, what thread was it at UD to which you submitted the Vernanimalcula guizhouena comment?
Comment by Bradford — August 22, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Bradford:
Haha, surprised you there, huh? I like that word, "telicization". Ten hits on Google though, so not entirely original. Yes, I finally accepted Jebus as my Lord and Front-loader. Well, not really to be honest.
Comment by Raevmo — August 22, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Hi Bradford,
You asked…
Universal Genome in the Origin of Metazoa
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 22, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Because they will look for it and fail to find it. Every gene in a lower taxon will have positive benefit for the environment in which it evolved, which will falsify Sherman's theory.
No, its not my silly idea of Front Loading, but apparently its Bradford's and Bilbo's and Sherman's. I know very well that Mike Gene specifically pointed out on numerous occasions that a front-loaded gene would need a current purpose in order to be preserved until its final purpose can be fulfilled. It seems it is other creationists whom Mike needs to educate. Of course in Mike's version there is no place for the front loaded information to be stored, no theoretical mechanism, and Mike's version relies on "random" evolutionary processes to unlock the front loaded data. His version is just a tilting of the odds. At least Sherman's version is falsifiable, which is why I hope someone tries to investigate it.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 22, 2008 @ 8:17 pm
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Todd:
I guess there is no point to research. Just ask Todd instead.
The current purpose is consistent with traditional understanding of natural selection. So it appears perfectly reasonable. If however, current non-function and function in posterity were identified together that would be strong evidence for FL. So Mike's intuition would be confirmed with some tweaking.
Comment by Bradford — August 22, 2008 @ 8:27 pm
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:32 pm
It seems his normal work involves heat shock proteins in cancer. See his staff site. I guess so long as you do real work on the weekdays you can post whatever crazy theories you want on the weekend.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 22, 2008 @ 8:32 pm
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:41 pm
You say that immediately after I said, "I hope he follows through with some actual investigation" and "At least Sherman's version is falsifiable, which is why I hope someone tries to investigate it." Interesting, obviously you care more about sound bites than discussion. I encourage researching this hypothesis, the knock-out experiment he suggested should generate interesting data. I'm not concerned about anything he might discover, it will either reenforce my position or teach me something new, either of which is good.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 22, 2008 @ 8:41 pm
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Todd:
That should read: "it will either reenforce my position or convert me into an IDist, either of which is good."
Comment by Bradford — August 22, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Here is another statement from Sherman's piece.
So, he gives a number of examples of genes found in lower taxa that were a surprise. For instance, genes such as Pax6, used in the development of eyes and ears (among other things) in sea urchins, which do not have eyes or ears. He also makes a big deal about the collection of Wnt genes in hydra that mirror those in vertebrates, because there are many fewer of these genes in fruit flies. The conclusion is that these genes were there in the primitive metazoan genome, retained in vertebrates, but lost in other higher taxa.
The idea he is setting out is that these genes are inactive in the lower taxa, but maintained by some mechanism until they are needed in some higher taxa, or lost in others:
As I read his treatment, the first question that struck me was what evidence there might be that the examples he provided were useless in the lower taxa, since this is a specific prediction of his model. The answer was striking. The genes in sea urchin that are related to those involved in the development of sensory organs are not only expressed during development, but are also expressed in the sea urchin tube feet. This is the sensory organ of the sea urchin. This is how it moves and how it eats. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=230517&blobtype=pdf
When we look at all those Wnt genes of hydra that should be non-functional according to the prediction, we see that every one is expressed during development in a beautifully overlapping spaciotemporal pattern.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v433/n7022/pdf/nature03158.pdf
This is hardy what one would expect of genes that were not being used. The fact that they are all expressed is indication enough that they are used, but sometimes, as in the case of sea urchin Pax6, for a purpose other than that in vertebrates and arthropods. The assertion that these genes are not functional in the lower taxa is not supported by the evidence. Where does that leave the model, for which this prediction was "absolutely critical"?
Comment by David E Levin — August 22, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:10 pm
David Levin:
That's what we would think. It is conceivable though that expression mechanisms could exist for proteins that lack function.
In the testing stage. Logical arguments are affirmed or refuted there.
Comment by Bradford — August 22, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:41 pm
David:
Where have I heard that prediction before.
I don't think he is stating that these genes are not functional only that some genes are not functional in lower taxa.
What a great place for research. Research by the way that flows from ID.
Sherman's idea is a subset of frontloading which is but a subset of ID proper
If this idea turns out to be a dead end it will at least serve as a contrast to what Mike Gene proposes.
Real contrasts are what are needed so Mike can work on predictions of his own. Not the sort of mushy mess that explains everything that MET has become.
There is enough exciting science to keep us busy for quite a while.
In the mean time your side can continue to draw epicycles.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — August 22, 2008 @ 9:41 pm
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:41 pm
David L.:
Do we know that all genes (protein coding segments of DNA) are always expressed in all organisms in which they are present? We've been discussing ultraconserved segments this week, that are apparently NOT ultraselected. I would suspect that the other possible mechanisms (or a total surprise) for shielding DNA regions from both mutation and selection in those regions have been there all along. It's not just genes he's talking about. There are expression and developmental regions associated, the "programs" that 'unfold' over time (evolution is an 'unfolding', you know).
Though I don't have a problem with versatility in protein functions over time either. They're useful constructs.
Comment by Joy — August 22, 2008 @ 9:41 pm
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Why climb Mt. Improbable when you can toboggan down Mt. Inevitable?
Comment by chunkdz — August 22, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Todd B: "I know very well that Mike Gene specifically pointed out on numerous occasions that a front-loaded gene would need a current purpose in order to be preserved until its final purpose can be fulfilled."
A front loaded set of genes, say, for a human eye, need not serve any "current purpose" at all. Rather another mechanism with a dual purpose, a current function, and a function of preserving the front loaded genes, could be responsible for their preservation. And if such a configuration were discovered, it would be powerful evidence of a telic source.
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 22, 2008 @ 11:47 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:36 am
FMM,
Of what use are they as examples then? Why not choose examples that support the model?
Comment by David E Levin — August 23, 2008 @ 7:36 am
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:41 am
Joy,
Of course, not all genes in all organisms have been tested for expression, but those Sherman used as his examples have. They are all expressed in interesting spatiotemporal patterns. A fact that he fails to note.
That is your conclusion, not that of the authors of the study discussed. Nor mine, for that matter. The data support the conclusion of strong selection pressure.
Comment by David E Levin — August 23, 2008 @ 7:41 am
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:48 am
Bradford,
That's wishful thinking in the extreme. As a rule, organisms do not express proteins they do not need. It would be a waste of energy to produce them. This is one reason they have developed elaborate regulatory mechanisms to turn on expression of metabolic genes only at times when they are needed. For developmental genes like those discussed here, the pattern of expression is reflective of what tissues require the protein during different stages of development. But if non-functionality of expressed genes is where you want to put your money, I'll be happy to take it.
Comment by David E Levin — August 23, 2008 @ 7:48 am
August 23rd, 2008 at 9:06 am
David Levin:
You're right although a capacity to express would not have to necessarily lead to synthesis. The author might argue for a permanently repressed state.
Comment by Bradford — August 23, 2008 @ 9:06 am
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:36 am
Once again you promote a false dichotomy wherein its either MET or ID and there are no other options. How narrow of you. Because MET is an evolving body of understanding and not an orthodoxy it will always adapt to incorporate new understanding. FMM likes to call adapting to reality "adding an epicycle," it seems some ID'ers attack MET for not chaning while at the same time other ID'ers attack MET for changing.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 23, 2008 @ 10:36 am
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:42 am
If you say so, all I was pointing out if that Mike specifically disagrees with this in the DM.
Sure, an invisible and so far undiscovered "preserve unused genes" function might exist. So far there is zero evidence of this proposed system. Nearly anything is possible, I prefer to believe only in those things which are both possible and have positive evidence.
That's an awfully big "if" there. I think God popping down to CNN Headline News and announcing "I AM" would be powerful evidence of a telic source too, but I'm not holding my breath.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 23, 2008 @ 10:42 am
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:55 am
Todd:
That's what I'd like to be able to say to my waistline.
OK, so when MET incorporates ID, ID then becomes mainstream and you can become a mainstream IDist. We already have Raevmo leaning in that direction.
Comment by Bradford — August 23, 2008 @ 10:55 am
August 23rd, 2008 at 11:01 am
There is a demonstrable relationship between heritable characteristics and differential reproductive success.
Comment by Zachriel — August 23, 2008 @ 11:01 am
August 23rd, 2008 at 11:19 am
Bradford,
OK. But again, why use these genes, which are clearly expressed, as examples? Is it because there are no known examples of genes that were not expected to exist in lower taxa and are not expressed in those species? One would think that if such examples were available, the author would have used them.
Comment by David E Levin — August 23, 2008 @ 11:19 am
August 23rd, 2008 at 12:11 pm
David Levin:
You would think so. But let me use a quote from Rock to begin to illustrate where I think Sherman is coming from.
For Sherman and Rock the outcomes for which design is applied as an explanation are not simply small incremental steps brought by mutations. The scope is much greater and encompasses the diversity of life. If the larger picture is to be explained through a design lens then what would we expect? Rock correctly identifies an answer. Load the critical decisions, as evidenced by physical constructs, early on. Mike has used the term foresight to refer to this type of phenomenon.
You have mentioned metabolic efficiency and natural selection is ever looming in the background. Sherman alludes to function. Apply these concepts to a sequence of causal events. A certain degree of metabolic inefficiency is inevitable for any paradigm. If a gene duplicates and then mutates, free of selection pressure, it is functionally useless until changes bring about function with selective value and a means of expression. A timeline would witness: duplication + a period during which gene alterations and expression capacity evolve and finally fixation upon realization of new function. Strictly speaking the intermediate stage involves some metabolic inefficiency. Selection could jettison the metabolic drag but the inefficiency is thought to be slight. The same thinking would apply to unprocessed pseudogenes. Functionally and metabolically useless.
Look at a design perspective. Precusor systems would be found in lower taxa; either the Mike Gene version (having selective value albeit different function than found in descendents) or the Sherman version (lacking present function but able to pass on function to descendents). Sherman clearly would have a stronger design inference if the evidence conformed to his theory but Mike's theory sticks closer to selection norms and of the two is considered the more likely. Both Gene and Sherman have a design view of the larger picture which MET would explain as a by-product of unintended consequences.
Expression without function is wasteful as you point out. It is also counterintuitive from a selection vantage point. Yet when the larger picture is viewed waste is trivialized and the wisdom of, as Rock put it, mitigating future cost clearer. So data which maximizes future gains at the cost of early inefficiencies strongly suggests design. Natural selection anomalies indicate exactly where one would look for the type of evidence Sherman is seeking. That does not mean of course that he will find it but the logic is evident. I would feel more confident if he fingered unexpressed genes.
Comment by Bradford — August 23, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Bradford,
I might be inclined to take the idea seriously if he (or anybody else) identified genes in lower taxa that should not be there and demonstrated that they are not expressed, are devoid of function, but are maintained in a functional state. Until then…..
Comment by David E Levin — August 23, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Joy, I linked to some papers for Bradford that illustrate the point that evolutionary biology certainly must accept the basic concept of irreducible complexity, as being inherent in the very notion of a biological function. In one of the papers (and another related paper) the authors note the problem of “parasitism,.” They report that in one of the rounds of their experiment they isolated a ribozyme that was amplified at twenty times the rate of the ribozyme that catalyzed the reaction twenty times more efficiently, which was what they were actually selecting for. This paradoxical result has been reported many times in many fields, from observations of the nesting behavior of birds, to Beta vs. VHS!
It is one of the limits to “natural selection” (and also plainly, artificial selection): If the selection criteria is for the relative rate of reproduction, and not for any other selective criterion, natural or artificial, that is not directly related to, upon which reproduction alone, is not dependent, then one’s methods betray.
Think about it. If we really knew what was being optimized in evolution, these kind of results would not be “paradoxical.”
Dawkins made famous the idea that all that is being optimized is the rate of reproduction. “Selfish genes.” Of course, that’s nonsense, and a significant lacuna in theory. Bizarrely enough, it is touted as its signal achievement!
Think about it. If we really knew what was being optimized in evolution, these kind of results would not be “paradoxical.”
Population genetic models don’t consider any function other than reproduction and therefore don’t explain, even begin to, the evolutionary optimization of any number of biological functions that are not so obviously, directly connected to the rate of reproduction.
Is it a limit upon evolution? Or a limit of theory? Theory is my answer.
Comment by Rock — August 23, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 3:26 pm
David:
Can you think of any feature in any organism that you know is useless?
The question of whether or not a specific section of DNA has a function seems to be impossible to answer in the negative. Just look at the appendix or junk DNA or the ultra conserved stuff we’ve been discussing lately.
No matter how useless something may appear there is always a chance that a hidden function will be found and no matter how insignificant a function may be it can always be argued it is vital in some circumstance.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — August 23, 2008 @ 3:26 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:00 pm
FMM,
Ah, but here we don't even have the appearance of non-functionality to support the argument.
Comment by David E Levin — August 23, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:23 pm
If we did would you take the idea seriously or simply hold out for a unknown function like you are doing with ultraconcerved genes?
On a related note
Which theory woud have pridicted this?
qoute:
Trichoplax has no neurons, but has many genes that are associated with neural function in more complex animals
and
It lacks organs and only has four or five cell types. Yet, despite its apparent simplicity, its genome encodes a panoply of signaling genes and transcription factors usually associated with more complex animals.
end quote
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — August 23, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Rock, how could something be optimized during evolution which is not somehow related to reproduction and/or survival?
Actually, it's not sure at all that anything at all is optimized during evolution. It's a convenient modeling approach, at best a useful approximation.
Comment by Raevmo — August 23, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:45 pm
FMM,
Not so for ultraconserved genes. As we discussed, the evidence concerning the allele frequencies of mutations in ultraconserved sequences strongly suggests ultraselection. In any event, if there were large numbers of genes in simple metazoans whose functions appeared to be specific for derived features (i.e. eyes, brain, etc.), but were not expressed and whose deletion had no detectable phenotype, I would have to take it seriously. As far as I know, there are no such examples.
To extend that quote:
"It lacks a nervous system, but it still is able to respond to environmental stimuli."
This is the key. These genes, while clearly not used for the purposes we are accustomed to seeing, are in all likelihood used for more primative sensory input. This work will, I believe, provide insight into the evolutionary pathways to sensory perception. Again, you are betting on them being non-functional. If I understand Mike Gene's argument correctly, he thinks that they should have different functions. But this seems indistinguishable from evolutionary theory.
Comment by David E Levin — August 23, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 5:58 pm
fmm,
There's another detail you miss here too. You ask, "On a related note
Which theory woud [sic] have pridicted [sic] this?" The truth is that no theory at all predicted this. Front-Loading has never predicted anything. At best there are a few discoveries that surprised MET but are easily covered by FLE hand-waving and epicycles.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 23, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 6:40 pm
C’mon, Raevmo, you repeated the question I asked but w/o my stipulations. How and why is that systems not obviously or directly related to reproductive success are optimized on the view that reproductive success (as dictated by theory) is all that is optimized?
I can just as easily state that it's not sure at all that anything at all is evolved during optimization. [Evolution’s] a convenient modeling approach, at best a useful approximation. Actually what I think is that “evolution” is a purely extraneous factor, an inessential and extraneous factor, and explain just about everything biologists explain in terms of optimization theory. A design theory.
Comment by Rock — August 23, 2008 @ 6:40 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:39 pm
[...] In light of my third clarification about front-loading, I should probably address one aspect of Michael Sherman’s paper (Universal Genome in the Origin of Metazoa) that is being discussed on Telic Thoughts. [...]
Pingback by A Hibernation Mechanism? | The Design Matrix — August 23, 2008 @ 10:39 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Todd B
You seem to misunderstand. I'm not arguing that these things exist. Or even that I think they exist, or will be found. Only that they are within the realm plausibility. Does the very thought of such things make you bristle?
Whatever.
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 23, 2008 @ 10:48 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 11:28 pm
[...] Gene has written a piece pertinent to the blog entry Pondering Evolution titled A Hibernation Mechanism? Mike makes these observations: As I see it, chapter 6 from The [...]
Pingback by More on Sherman and Front Loading - Telic Thoughts — August 23, 2008 @ 11:28 pm
August 24th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
kornbelt: You seem to misunderstand. I'm not arguing that these things exist. Or even that I think they exist, or will be found. Only that they are within the realm plausibility. Does the very thought of such things make you bristle? Apparently you failed to read my post that you are responding to. I said, "Nearly anything is possible, I prefer to believe only in those things which are both possible and have positive evidence." Its possible that tiny intelligent gremlins live inside every atom and steer them around like bumper cars in order to alter genes. Its possible that a hyper intelligent shade of blue teleports genes forward and backward through time in order to control evolution. Perhaps Q from Star Trek is real and he's involved, we know what a character he is. There are as many possibilities as there are thoughts to dream them up. Scientifically speaking Front-Loading is in the same category as the other possibilities I just mentioned. Honestly these possibilities make me chuckle, not bristle. I always get a laugh out of people who seem desperate to believe in silly things.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 24, 2008 @ 5:01 pm
August 24th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
A truly bizarre response. I'm not asking you to believe anything, nor do I care. I merely offer a plausible scenario, given naturalistic physics, of how a set of genes could be conserved across deep time without having any current function. And you bring up gremlins as if there's some sort of correspondence to the absurdity. Whatever, man.
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 24, 2008 @ 11:21 pm
August 25th, 2008 at 6:56 am
kornbelt888:
"And you bring up gremlins as if there's some sort of correspondence to the absurdity"
Ah but kornbelt, remember, to quite a few atheists a God Hypothesis equals absurdity because they simply can't wrap their head around it. In their mind they have already decided there is no creator, therefore there is no frontloader, hence 'god' is just as fictitious as any fictional character man can dream up. The whole presumption behind Tod's reasoning is that he has already made up his mind as to what is a real and what is not. Of course, with such an attitude you can handwave anything away. How about we start with the multiverse, Tod? My golly, I'm sure there are as many universes as there are pixies.
Surely the God hypothesis (even Dawkins admits as much) in terms of the origin of the universe and everything in it is a serious philosophical and scientific question. Greater minds than Tod have pondered that question. No doubt though, dogmatic atheists will argue a creator to be irrelevant. How else could they? It is their base presumption.
Comment by Jean — August 25, 2008 @ 6:56 am
August 25th, 2008 at 8:08 am
There is nothing to keep the mechanism from evolving so that it no longer has the extra function.
Not necessarily. But without an actual example, it would be hard to propose alternative hypotheses.
Comment by Zachriel — August 25, 2008 @ 8:08 am
August 25th, 2008 at 8:45 am
kornbelt888:
I agree.
Comment by Bradford — August 25, 2008 @ 8:45 am
August 25th, 2008 at 10:25 am
There is an equal amount of evidence for my Gremlins as there is for your Front-Loading gene hibernation mechanism. Why is one absurd but the other plausible? Why aren't they both absurd? My gremlin solves a non-existent problem of steering atoms, your gene hibernation solves a non-existent problem of preserving front-loaded data. I forget that the religious mind is all about deep belief in mere possibilities, the need for evidence simply doesn't exist in such a mind.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 25, 2008 @ 10:25 am
August 25th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Todd:
Because one lends itself to empirical testing and the other is a reference to mythology.
Comment by Bradford — August 25, 2008 @ 10:33 am
August 25th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Maybe, maybe not. Such a mechanism could be such that any alterations would cause all replication to cease, along the lines MikeGene describes in his book. My point for jumping in was to say that the conserved genes themselves need not have any function until far in the future, if some other multi-purpose-resistent-to-variation mechanism kept them conserved.
Thank you for a reasonable reply. (Unlike Todd's.)
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 25, 2008 @ 9:42 pm
August 25th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Bradford: Because one lends itself to empirical testing and the other is a reference to mythology
Right. And furthermore, one is conceivably achievable in theory by humans with nano-engineering. How the talk of gremlins adds anything to a rational consideration of the issue is far beyond the slicing point of Occam's razor.
Todd knows that, I think. He's just doing what good trolls do.
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 25, 2008 @ 9:48 pm
August 26th, 2008 at 9:50 am
So, any mutation to the region would cause the organism to cease reproducing. One hundred percent negative selection should be easy to detect. Do you have any evidence?
Comment by Zachriel — August 26, 2008 @ 9:50 am
August 26th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Right.
Over deep time with the evidence available? I don't think so. And the mechanism could be single purpose now, subject to much variation after the intended variation was accomplished.
Not yet. I'm positing a plausible mechanism. Worthy of a prediction. Something to look for. Time will tell. A fitting discussion for Telic Thoughts.
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 26, 2008 @ 3:03 pm
August 26th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
How inconvenient.
It seems far from a plausible mechanism, nor empirically predictive. But you're free to speculate. You're even free to look for evidence. Let us know what you find.
Comment by Zachriel — August 26, 2008 @ 3:30 pm
August 27th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Zachriel, now your acting trollish. You knew the obvious answers to the questions you asked, and gave me permission to do something I was already doing on a blog and thread that exists for the very purpose of doing it. So, now, what was the real purpose of that waste of bandwidth? Nothing better to do? Now, that seems hard to believe. Or maybe not. Whatever floats your boat.
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 27, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
August 27th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
kornbelt888,
There is nothing wrong with speculation. Nor is there anything wrong with pointing out flaws in your ideas. Your speculations are not only unsupported by the evidence, but apparently contradicted by it. That means you need to modify your ideas, or find supporting evidence.
Comment by Zachriel — August 27, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
August 27th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
That's a statement worth making.
If I were a life engineer assigned the task of designing a bio system such as earth's, with the goal of human like beings, it's difficult to imagine how the job could get done without many such subsystems operating.
What evidence contradicts the idea that dual purpose mechanisms could have been responsible for preserving sets of latent genes across deep time for the purpose of later function?
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 27, 2008 @ 8:29 pm
August 27th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Why? If you were an life engineer assigned the task of designing a bio system such as earth's, with the goal of human like beings, how would you do it without such a mechanism?
Perhaps. However, if such a mechanism were found, over deep time, it would strongly suggest a telic source. What if all the genes responsible for human intellect and other talents were found latent in dinosaur DNA? Or something more primitive? And also found was dual purpose DNA that preserved those latent genes? How would you explain that setup?
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 27, 2008 @ 8:37 pm
August 29th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Because the dual purpose mechanism would be just as subject evolutionary change as any other biological mechanism. There is no advantage to such a mechanism, and whatever benefit you think it might have, it would still have it if decoupled from the protected regions.
You might start by specifying a goal. By far the largest biomass on Earth are prokaryotes. Perhaps life was made for bacteria, and humans are just kept around as habitat.
Without actual evidence, that is not necessarily the case. You would want to examine the actual case.
We already have a good idea the content of dinosaur DNA. It more closely resembles a chicken than a human.
Comment by Zachriel — August 29, 2008 @ 10:46 pm
September 1st, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Not if any change to it would result in failure to reproduce.
It couldn't do that if it would result in failure to reproduce.
How about human like entities. Other than front loading the DNA with fail safe mechanisms that would either conserve various latent structure thru deep time or utterly fail to reproduce, what else could have been done, other than periodic periodic intervention by the designer?
True. But this is Telic Thoughts, and speculating about how a designer of life might plausibly accomplish certain goals is fair game. If that's not your bag, then fine.
I wonder if they tasted like chicken.
Comment by kornbelt888 — September 1, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
September 1st, 2008 at 2:41 pm
If a genie *consistently intervened* to prevent reproduction in those with unwanted variations of the conserved genes, then they would tend to be conserved. You haven't shown any *plausible* mechanism that would do this.
Comment by Zachriel — September 1, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
September 2nd, 2008 at 1:50 pm
A genie? You can't help yourself, can you.
Right. I haven't posited a genetic specification, only a functional specification. Remember, this is Telic Thoughts. We're allowed to think along those lines.
At any rate, nothing you've said, and no evidence contradicts the idea, as you've said. Or else you're using a definition of contradiction that I'm unaware of.
Comment by kornbelt888 — September 2, 2008 @ 1:50 pm