What would demonstrate that FL is not there?

Guts and Todd already have given you feedback. I'll add Mike's comment that is taken from this blog entry:

Yes indeed, evolution is achieved primarily through recycling old genes into new functions, as opposed to evolving entirely new genes from scratch. That's one reason front-loading is plausible.

You can trace the trail. Since I've begun looking into this I've been surprised by the degree to which precursor gene candidates are buried in deep homology. That's from an evolutionary perspective. From an origins perspective front loading genomic repair mechanisms makes variation possible because it eliminates the natural barrier to it namely, genomic self-destruction.

What would demonstrate that FL is not there?

Positive proof of not FL. Keywords: mutual exclusivity.

If FL means purposeful arrangement of genomic data, then not-FL is ANY form of stochastic arrangement of data. RM+NS is the main stochastic contender.

What would demonstrate that FL is not there?

Discontinuity.

Thank you for responding. The answer you just gave was not obvious from your previous comments, all of which clipped my question and went on to something else.

The "classic exchange" does however contain a logical fallacy which the dragon example illustrates. More on this below.

The front loading of genomic repair mechanisms has no contrasting plausible theory against which it can be compared. You may think that the not FL in this particlular instance is the old RM+NS standby but that has never been experimentally confirmed. Testing the relative merits of the opposing ideas is possible though.

Perhaps the confusion lies here. The "not FL" is in fact not FL. I did not mention RM+NS, and I did not propose comparing FL with RM+NS. The first order of business is to compare FL with not-FL. Compare the dragon exists with the dragon is not there.

What would demonstrate that FL is not there?

Your point is moot as I have already said that I will concede anything you wish about the dragon example. Its purpose was to illustrate one aspect of a scientific hypothesis, and it does it well.

The example was dumb. It illustrated nothing about scientific hypotheses. It was conceived to suit a stereotype and not very cleverly done at that.

The confusion you claim is not shared by others. You asked if when given a new hypothesis X, evidence must be shown which would rule out X to convince me that X is not true right? I correctly responded no and pointed out to you that truth is not what we determine by testing hypotheses. X could be true with no scientific evidence in its favor whatsoever. You also do not have to "rule out" a hypothesis. You can fail to find evidence in its favor or get inconclusive results. I already made this point about the inappropriateness of the truth test when I referenced the distinction between empirical testing and exercises in logic. I'll have to assume you are trolling if you continue along these lines.

Your point is moot as I have already said that I will concede anything you wish about the dragon example. Its purpose was to illustrate one aspect of a scientific hypothesis, and it does it well. That is all.

In my previous post I said

Now, why haven't you clarified your remarks earlier? Honestly I have never been in a discussion where one side will not even address a question one way or the other. This is the seventh request.

You even ignored this. Truly remarkable. Since the original is now getting up in the list, I will quote it yet again.

Me: [W]hat would convince you that [front-loading] is not present?

Bradford: [C]onvincing evidence would be evidence favoring a non-FL option.

Me: You appear to be saying this: Given a new hypothesis X, in order to be convinced that X is not true, evidence must be shown which would rule out X. Is that right?

Bradford: No. "¦

Me: Would you explain further? It appears that you are saying that.

[no response]

Bradford, why do you keep ignoring this? You won't say a word about it. Do you stand behind your remarks above? We are left wondering, as you remain mute.

Todd: And the proteins required for that translation!! How can that plausibly happen without guidance?

The functional value of the proteins lies in their ability to facilitate the synthesis of other proteins, some of which facilitate the synthesis of DNA itself. This type of circular causal chain is not uncommon. It is seen when an observed outcome is the product of a purposeful, intelligent cause.

The dragon was the extreme example for illustrative purposes. A hypothesis X, in order to be called scientific, must distinguish itself from not-X. The dragon is an uncontroversial example, far-out enough for there to be no disagreement that in this case X is indistinguishable from not-X.

The front loading of genomic repair mechanisms has no contrasting plausible theory against which it can be compared. You may think that the not FL in this particlular instance is the old RM+NS standby but that has never been experimentally confirmed. Testing the relative merits of the opposing ideas is possible though.

The actual not X dilemna pertains to standard beliefs. How is one to falsify the belief that genomes and their repair mechanisms arose when the pathways by which this would have been accomplished are unspecified and unknown?

The dragon was the extreme example for illustrative purposes. A hypothesis X, in order to be called scientific, must distinguish itself from not-X. The dragon is an uncontroversial example, far-out enough for there to be no disagreement that in this case X is indistinguishable from not-X.

Let us not lose sight of the issue at hand. For the moment I will concede anything you wish about the dragon example. Now, why haven't you clarified your remarks earlier? Honestly I have never been in a discussion where one side will not even address a question one way or the other. This is the seventh request.

Codons of nucleic acids are symbolic representations of the amino acids whose translation enables the synthesis of proteins…

And the proteins required for that translation!! How can that plausibly happen without guidance?