8 Responses to “Thoughts on Front-loading from 2002”

1. Bradford Says:
   November 9th, 2007 at 12:43 am

   Let me merely say that we have just begun to understand evolution and I think we will one day find that the processes of evolution are far too sophisticated to fit comfortably in the Modern Synthesis. Darwin helped us to understand things like finch beaks and the spread of antibiotic resistance. His concept has been extrapolated to all other origin events merely because we don't understand evolution very well and have no better explanation. Those days are changing.

   I hope so. The dynamics underlying finch beaks are simple and inadaquate to serve as a model for the complexities of modern biology. There are many unknowns. We've barely scratched the surface of RNA function in all its variety and it seems presumptuous to assume theoretical stasis in view of the much that we do not understand.

Comment by Bradford — November 9, 2007 @ 12:43 am

2. kornbelt888 Says:
   November 9th, 2007 at 4:18 pm

   What strong evidence exists for front loading?

   Is there a philosophical or theological bias amongst IDers against progressive input from an intelligent agency?

Comment by kornbelt888 — November 9, 2007 @ 4:18 pm

3. Guts Says:
   November 9th, 2007 at 4:52 pm

   I really find it interesting that the evidence points to unicellular eukaryotes having molecular systems involved in cell communication, cell contact, etc. etc. — thus, the high frequency of convergent acquisition of multicellularity among eukaryotes.

   It's also rather interesting that a lot of the evidence for FLE started to pick up steam from 2003 onward (AFAIK)(e.g. for the complexity of the urbilateria).

Comment by Guts — November 9, 2007 @ 4:52 pm

4. Raevmo Says:
   November 9th, 2007 at 7:18 pm

   Let me merely say that we have just begun to understand evolution and I think we will one day find that the processes of evolution are far too sophisticated to fit comfortably in the Modern Synthesis.

   The Modern Synthesis was 70 years ago. There's been some progress since then. The arrogance of amateurs who think they know better never ceases to amuse me.

   Darwin helped us to understand things like finch beaks and the spread of antibiotic resistance. His concept has been extrapolated to all other origin events merely because we don't understand evolution very well and have no better explanation. Those days are changing.

   Ah, the old micro-evolution vs macro-evolution canard. Actually we do understand quite a bit about speciation and other origin events. I recommend you read Maynard Smith and Szathmary's "The Major Transitions in Evolution". A bit old by now, but a good and not too technical introduction. Leo Buss' "The Evolution of Individuality" is also a must-read.

Comment by Raevmo — November 9, 2007 @ 7:18 pm

5. Bradford Says:
   November 9th, 2007 at 7:25 pm

   Raevmo:

   The Modern Synthesis was 70 years ago. There's been some progress since then. The arrogance of amateurs who think they know better never ceases to amuse me.

   Are you a professional expositor on the subject of Modern Synthesis? Where is the evidence of arrogance?

Comment by Bradford — November 9, 2007 @ 7:25 pm

6. nullasalus Says:
   November 9th, 2007 at 7:34 pm

   Where is the evidence of arrogance?

   Oh, I think there's some on clear display in the post preceding yours.

Comment by nullasalus — November 9, 2007 @ 7:34 pm

7. Raevmo Says:
   November 9th, 2007 at 7:39 pm

   Bradford:

   Are you a professional expositor on the subject of Modern Synthesis? Where is the evidence of arrogance?

   No, I'm a professional evolutionary biologist. The arrogance (combined with ignorance - that lethal cocktail) is in the statement I quoted. The implicit belittlement of the work of thousands of scientists since the modern synthesis, coming from someone with no credentials whatsoever. It's a bit rich.

Comment by Raevmo — November 9, 2007 @ 7:39 pm

8. Bradford Says:
   November 9th, 2007 at 7:57 pm

   Raevmo, let me break down the quote:

   Let me merely say that we have just begun to understand evolution…

   I do not see arrogance here. Maybe you think there is nothing more substantial to learn or agree so far but have a problem below. Let's see:

   and I think we will one day find that the processes of evolution are far too sophisticated to fit comfortably in the Modern Synthesis.

   Is this where the arrogance lies in your view?

Comment by Bradford — November 9, 2007 @ 7:57 pm

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.