Raevmo: Secondly, occasional loss of traits is no problem at all for standard theory. We all know the examples of cave-dwelling animals having secondarily lost sight, presumably because there was no selection against mutations causing blindness in an environment without light.

I completely agree that there is no problem saying that completely undirected natural processes can explain loss. Loss of sight, loss of flight, and loss of ability to metabolize some substance (e.g. a harmful agent) are all excellent examples.

I'm also not claiming to have proven to what extent undirected natural processes tend to be lossy.

Raevmo: What is the additional explanatory power of front-loading (whatever it may be)?

The point of my metaphor was that, while there may not be significant distinction with regard to loss or various kinds of running downhill, the question is how one gets to the top of the hill of potential to start with.

In evo-devo terms, it may be all well and good that a small tweak to the toolkits and layered networks of switches might cause significant changes in the organism. (There is still much unknown, but let's grant all that for now as a given.)

Even so, it is quite a different thing to try to explain the existence of toolkits and layered networks of switches that open up this capacity for significant change.

To use another metaphor just to illustrate the distinction, knocking over one domino in a row of standing dominoes can lead to large, interesting consequences. But setting up lines of dominoes such that this can happen is a different kind of challenge. That is only a metaphor, not any kind of evidence, but I hope it conveys the distinction.

I am suggesting that attempts to explain the existence of those switches and toolkits will inevitably run into the problem that unguided natural processes cannot think ahead and cannot pursue future benefits. That is the province of intelligent design.

Unguided processes can be quite fulfilled and "content" making uninteresting mush and goo. They don't have any need for the infrastructure that a front-loaded preparation for evolution would need. There is no impetus or means to build such an infrastructure without intention. It's benefits will be future.

Have I proven anything here? No, I don't claim to. I'm only offering an indication of what I believe is a reasonable place to expect and look for a meaningful distinction between these explanations. I'm not proving the scientific outcome, only illustrating that the distinction can be meaningful.

p.s. I've added a response to an earlier post of yours on another thread here.

One way in which I see a potential point of distinction is in regard to the lossy nature of evolution. It is not a problem for front-loading if evolution is predominantly an unwinding and running downhill process, in terms of turning potential into reality.

First of all, evolution is not "lossy"; it is clearly "gainy" on average. Secondly, occasional loss of traits is no problem at all for standard theory. We all know the examples of cave-dwelling animals having secondarily lost sight, presumably because there was no selection against mutations causing blindness in an environment without light. What is the additional explanatory power of front-loading (whatever it may be)?

Raevmo Says: Please tell us, if evolution had not been front-loaded, in what way would the biosphere look differently today? Whatever pattern we observe today, one can always claim it was meant to be this way. Without any evidence of the actual process by which the front-loading occurred, there is just no way to tell, or is there?

I expect Mike will have a better answer, as he has thought quite a bit about this. Here are a couple thoughts of my own.

I believe one prefacing point to clear the ground of confusion would be that front-loading is not fairly equated to a vague "claim it was meant to be this way" regarding some organism. I doubt that this is how Mike would characterize the nature of front-loading.

One way in which I see a potential point of distinction is in regard to the lossy nature of evolution. It is not a problem for front-loading if evolution is predominantly an unwinding and running downhill process, in terms of turning potential into reality.

But from an non-teleological perspective, there remains the significant problem of how unguided processes might first find their way to the top of the hill, i.e. a position of rich evolutionary potential. It is one thing to say a small tweak to the switches and toolkits can cause big changes, once you have them. It is quite another to say that accidental tweaks could create the multi-layered switch networks and toolkits in the first place.

So, while they might look similar with regard to a process of rolling down from the hilltop in a diverse variety of paths, climbing to the top of the hill may require forward thinking and pursuing future benefit. That is the province of teleology.

Come on, Mike. Practically all ID-proponents think that God is the intelligent designer. Don't you agree?

But that is a sociological fact that is irrelevant to the concepts and proposals about ID. The sociological fact is relevant only in that it likely clouds Carroll's thinking about all this.

Please tell us, if evolution had not been front-loaded, in what way would the biosphere look differently today? Whatever pattern we observe today, one can always claim it was meant to be this way. Without any evidence of the actual process by which the front-loading occurred, there is just no way to tell, or is there?

Good questions. In fact, I'll try to write up a posting that takes a first stab at this.

It's not that interesting since front-loading was invented to be friendly to the reality of evolutionary history.

Ah, but I did not "˜invent' front-loading "to be friendly to the reality of evolutionary history." I became interested in ID as an evolutionist and have always been interested in ID as an evolutionist. The front-loading perspective was birthed when I began to think about the exchange between Behe and Miller about pseudogenes and ID, where Behe offers up an extreme version of front-loading.

Or, as one might say, front-loading is a way a teleologist might attempt to process an evolutionary history that was indeed ateleological.

Sure.

P.S. You should also correct Jason's name at ARN's ID Classifieds Observatory.

Thanks. I'll hop on over to correct that one.

You wrote…

Or, as one might say, front-loading is a way a teleologist might attempt to process an evolutionary history that was indeed ateleological.

I happen to have no desire to support the ID Movement (quite the opposite) but I have been presenting a front-loading hypothesis, a Third Choice.

This hypothesis provides some explanations for things that a purely "ateleological" presumption has not. For example, the rise of consciousness. Also, the holistic, interconnected nature of DNA. For years it was thought DNA was way too simple to be doing what it does. It's been accepted as reality, but the logic still holds. DNA IS too simple to do the things it does. The same kind of situation exists in quantum mechanics. Experimental data explains what happens leaving the how and why as a mystery. Dr. Hameroff suggests DNA strands are quantum computers (along with microtubules). I agree with him.

The front-loading of quantum mechanics is evidenced by oldest of evolutionary processes and fossils, photosynthesis and Vernanimalcula guizhouena (pre-Cambrian organism that could touch, see, taste, smell and, therefore, was probably conscious of its surroundings).

You did listen to Mike's interview, right? You do realize he answered that question, right?

Sad to say, but he is yet another one who hears "God" when "ID" is spoken/written and reacts accordingly and predictably.

Come on, Mike. Practically all ID-proponents think that God is the intelligent designer. Don't you agree?

Please tell us, if evolution had not been front-loaded, in what way would the biosphere look differently today? Whatever pattern we observe today, one can always claim it was meant to be this way. Without any evidence of the actual process by which the front-loading occurred, there is just no way to tell, or is there?

It makes it all the more interesting in that his ideas, and evo-devo itself, are extremely friendly to front-loading. In fact, one might say, they represent the way a non-teleologist would attempt to process an evolutionary history that was indeed front-loaded.

It's not that interesting since front-loading was invented to be friendly to the reality of evolutionary history. Or, as one might say, front-loading is a way a teleologist might attempt to process an evolutionary history that was indeed ateleological.

P.S. You should also correct Jason's name at ARN's ID Classifieds Observatory.

I was really realliy surprised that he didn't like ID yet the term "toolkit gene" fit what he was doing so naturally. Must just be a coincidence I suppose.