We Were Absolutely Stunned
by BilboMike Gene doesn't post here any more, for family reasons. So I thought I would post the latest from his blog, The Design Matrix:
Recent research concerning tyrosine kinases continues to strengthen the case for front-loading evolution:
When it comes to cellular communication networks, a primitive single-celled microbe that answers to the name of Monosiga brevicollis has a leg up on animals composed of billions of cells. It commands a signaling network more elaborate and diverse than found in any multicellular organism higher up on the evolutionary tree, researchers at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies have discovered.
[…]
This treasure trove of diverse and novel tyrosine kinases took the study’s lead author Gerard Manning, who heads the Razavi-Newman Center for Bioinformatics, by surprise since it was long thought that tyrosine kinases are restricted to multicellular animals where they handle communication between cells.
“We were absolutely stunned,” says Manning. “Based on past work, we had expected maybe a handful of these kinases but instead discovered that this primitive organism has a record number of them. Two other essential parts of the tyrosine kinase network – PTP and SH2 genes – are also more numerous than in any other genome, showing that it is the whole network that is elaborated here.”
[…]
The Monosiga kinases are more divergent than anything previously seen in animals, which may help scientists understand the fundamentals of how all tyrosine kinase signaling works. Despite their extreme diversity, Monosiga kinases time and again arrive at the same solution to a problem, as do animal kinases, but using a distinct method for instance to create a sensor structure that emerges from the cell, or to target a kinase to a specific part of the cell. “This convergent evolution suggests that there are only a limited number of ways build a functional network from these components,” says Manning.
With all this new information, one obvious question remains unanswered: what is a single-celled organism doing with all this communications gear? “We don’t have a clue!” says Manning, “but this discovery is the first step in finding out.”
That a single-celled organism contains a signaling network more elaborate and diverse than found in any multicellular organism clearly indicates the plausibility of such an ancestral, front-loaded state. What’s more, note that the system has been set up such that similar outputs are reached through convergent evolution. I’ll be commenting on this in more detail a little later.
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:21 pm
http://kinase.com/monosiga/
Comment by Rock — July 22, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:08 pm
This is difficult for me to say. I want to find evidence to support the idea of an Intelligent Designer, but Front Loading bothers me.
The reason is simple. To say that there is Front Loading means the Designer did indeed plan to have man Fall. I for one don't like the idea that man's fall was planned by The Designer.
That would mean The Designer meant for sin to enter the world.
Comment by lcd — July 22, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Or it could mean that he knew that sin would enter the world and prepared for it check this out.
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2006.05.christian_theodicy.pdf
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 22, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:40 pm
If god created the universe and he knew that sin was inevitable that still leaves him culpable for creating sin. Doesn't sound very benevolent.
If I created a car that would burst into flame if you shifted into second gear I would certainly expect to lose some law suits. That's the problem with imaginary sky faeries, its very hard to make them mesh with reality.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 22, 2008 @ 6:40 pm
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Thanks, Todd – we needed that brilliant little insight on how the idea of a good God is just stoooooopid. Where's the nearest atheist recruiting office?
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — July 22, 2008 @ 7:24 pm
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Fifth Monarchy Man
But as a few of my atheist and non-religious friends, like our friend Todd, would point out that if our God did if fact know about sin entering His perfect Creation, it wouldn't be perfect and, well again as Todd pointed out, would make God less than benevolent.
So no, I don't think that The Designer would Front Load to plan for the Fall of Man.
Comment by lcd — July 22, 2008 @ 8:06 pm
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:24 pm
In an attempt to bring this thread back on topic…
Let's do Science!
The web site Rock (via Mike Gene) linked to include a link to this Proceedings of National Academy of Science article…
"Tyrosine kinase signaling has long been considered a hallmark of intercellular communication, unique to multicellular animals. Our genomic analysis of the unicellular choanoflagellate Monosiga brevicollis discovers a remarkable count of 128 tyrosine kinases, 38 tyrosine phosphatases, and 123 phosphotyrosine (pTyr)-binding SH2 proteins, all higher counts than seen in any metazoan."
To test my comprehension allow me an attempt to summarize…
This is the latest in Mike "Consilience of Clues" showing that early life was more developed with more tools suitable for higher life forms than would resonably be expected.
The discovery of fossils of single-celled life very early in Earth's history compresses the timeline for things like an RNA World.
I suggest that are choices of explanations for this are getting refined…
1. OOL occurred on earth and was an extremely lucky and compressed process. Or had help from a deity, deities or space aliens.
2. OOL occurred in space and seeded the Earth while it was forming. This could be in the form of a deity, deities or space aliens.
3. Some natural process exists that has eluded scientific detection would make OOL on Earth a given. Deities or space aliens are probably not included in this category.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 22, 2008 @ 8:24 pm
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:50 pm
That's a theological position, not a scientific, or even quasi-scientific argument. It's just like when atheists look at the eye and say "a god wouldn't have done it that way."
Is your theology more important than what the physical evidence suggests? If so, this blog and others like it may not be for you.
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 22, 2008 @ 8:50 pm
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:56 pm
It depends on what the purpose of life on earth is for. Maybe it's a game for bored super-cosmic beings, and you're one of the players (currently with amnesia) who actually helped to create it.
Who the hell knows. Apparently you don't, so what does it matter what you say on the subject?
It's difficult to make any philosophy mesh with reality, including yours. (Consciousness from matter alone. Sure thing.) Reality is weird. And humans are just smart enough to know how stupid we are. Your skepticisms amount to nothing compelling. Yawn.
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 22, 2008 @ 8:56 pm
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Had you read the article FMM linked, you would know it's yet another failed attempt to reconcile a benevolent Christian god with the problem of evil. If you think god's a bored teenager or just some imperfect guy then the problem of evil doesn't really present an obstacle. More power too you if that's the case.
Do you claim your constant ad hoc dismissals of all contrary ideas amount to something more?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 22, 2008 @ 9:37 pm
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:18 am
kornbelt888 wrote:
I don't think the evidence says anything about Front Loading. Yes, that is from my personal beleifs in a personal God and my savior, Jesus Christ. Now reading the rest of your statement, see below, evidence can lead one astray. The "evidence" is what Darwinists use constantly.
kornbelt888 wrote:
Perhaps. But the sad thing is I will say it out loud is that "God Did It". I find the idea that God would Front Load anything as that would point to Him knowing that the Fall was going to occur. So who did the Front Loading? Why did they do that? If one is not going to put what they want to say out in the open and say it like they mean it, they are deceiving themselves.
When you've deceived yourself, there isn't much work for others needed to keep you down that path of deception.
I remembered the other thread for discussion in this blog. "The Road to Truth" or something like that. I liked that thread. It was good at pointing out that there is what we think we see and then there is the Truth. What we see as evidence can be misleading and take us down the wrong path. One of the lines is that "evidence can be superficial". So I take the "evidence" that things look to be Front Loaded as "superficial".
I believe in the Scriptures and that God made everything and that is the Truth. If one is going to put things that God did into their science that puts God in a very poor light I reject that right of the bat. So kornbelt888, is the Truth that God created everything or not? If it wasn't God who created the DNA, who did? The Rileans(sp?)? Where in scripture do we see anything about a people that came before Man?
I am saying it again, "God Did It". Do you agree or disagree with that statement kornbelt888? Is that the real Truth? I'd like to hear what you say.
I will pray for you kornbelt888.
Ed
Comment by lcd — July 23, 2008 @ 7:18 am
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:58 am
Hello Ed,
On this theological question, might I recommend David Hart's The Doors of the Sea?
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — July 23, 2008 @ 11:58 am
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Thought Provoker,
Would you agree that the evidence from this study lends some small amount of support to the intelligent design paradigm?
Comment by chunkdz — July 23, 2008 @ 1:12 pm
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:24 pm
[Caveman say thank you to Uncle Rock or whoever make link to Mike's place look nice. ]
And thank you to TP and chunkz for trying to stay on topic. Unless I delete everyone else's posts, I guess it's really too late to save this thread.
Comment by Bilbo — July 23, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:21 pm
To be on topic, Front Loading indicates that the Designer was aware of needs before they arose.
The question I have is why would they front load the genome? If we are to keep God out of the equation, something I fully support when it comes to Front Loading, what else is Front Loaded? Why did the designer of these bacteria Front Load them?
Are humans Front Loaded and if so, Front Loaded how? How do we detect Front Loading? How do we find what is being Front Loaded and how can we predict it vs coming in after the fact?
Comment by lcd — July 23, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Preprogrammed robots – or – life with free will… Why must front loading be one or the other? If I build a car and humans ‘decide’ to drive it, should I also prevent ‘any’ accident? Obviously, I must program robots and a crash would be my fault. I would say life, or more specifically ‘human life’, is either imaginary or real and this is totally dependant on free will. A non-theist should be totally comfortable with an ultimately predetermined life without meaning because this is just the way things happened and ‘we’ can do nothing to change the things such as; love, beauty, joy – that don’t ‘actually’ exist in a totally mindless universe.
JMHO – FWIW…
Comment by Good ID — July 23, 2008 @ 8:39 pm
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:36 pm
lcd:
The way it speaks to me… it was all 'good' before the choice to know good AND evil. God didn't make the choice, but he did put the choice (by means of reverse psychology) in front of humanity. I doubt he was all that surprised by the outcome, because the back-question is…
Why did God create humans? If he wanted good slaves, he could have made some. The stock was here. Apparently he didn't need more heavenly hosts and adoring cherubim. Or maybe didn't want more of the same old same old. Who knows? I don't, but I sure don't see the question as a God-Killer.
Todd B.:
The 'problem of evil' isn't as big a problem as you like to believe. Humans are evil. What else in nature can make that claim?
Comment by Joy — July 23, 2008 @ 9:36 pm
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:48 pm
That depends on your definition of evil. For example, if killing things because you're bored counts as evil then much of the animal kingdom qualifies. It's interesting though that you would imply that it is only god's most precious and penultimate creation, man, that is evil. If the only evil you see is the only animal made in god's image that doesn't speak well to god's benevolence either.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 23, 2008 @ 9:48 pm
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:04 pm
If, as a non-theist, you teach your children about the ‘imaginary’ in an ultimately mindless universe such as love, beauty, and joy – is this akin to teaching children about imaginary gods that they should believe in? What is the ultimate difference? Is imaginary beauty better than imaginary morality or is the imaginary happenstance of happiness better?
The old argument of – “I just believe in one less god then you” – can be reversed by any theist to say – “I believe that love, joy, beauty, morality, etc. actually does exist”.
Comment by Good ID — July 23, 2008 @ 10:04 pm
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Todd B.:
Lions are what they are – lions. They eat gazelles. Tornadoes blow, hurricanes rain, earth quakes, volcanoes blow. You'll have this. None of it's got a real choice, isn't that what you keep telling us? Surprise, surprise. I believe it too.
Humans are indeed qualitatively different, thus quite possibly quantitatively different. The Book says humans had a choice, and made it. It doesn't give anything else a choice. I'm just talking about what the metaphors and allegories in Genesis say to me, per that tradition. What I learned mostly from my godparents. They were Jews, whose origin mythology Genesis *is*. I've never considered it anything else – a description of the situation humanity finds itself in, how and why it came about, and that sets the stage for the entirety of history that follows. History is a human endeavor, you know. It's not an endeavor of beavers or turtles.
I do pretty much believe in consciousness and freedom of will. Thus I believe in choice. Humans are nothing if not adept at blaming their bad choices on somebody else, but I've never found that the least bit convincing. Too many children – including juvenile delinquents – in my life. It's kind of like the 12-year old brat who hits that girl he likes WHILE you're looking right at him, then whines to high heaven that "I didn't do it! It's not my fault!" Horsehockey.
That Jesus guy made it so simple that nobody's ever going to come up with anything easier to understand. Love One Another. Forgive their trespass. We can't even accomplish that much. And you want to blame GOD for that? [sheesh!]
Comment by Joy — July 23, 2008 @ 10:23 pm
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Are you asking a question with morality in mind? Your morality or a snails morality? Where does this morality exist but within construct of 'your' mind and originating from what many believe is a mindless beginning? Where does morality exist in mindless matter from a mindless origin?
You tell me why killing in the animal kingdom is OK but killing mankind is bad. Intelligence? Fine… Define intelligence (who should live and die). Do this with only science in mind. I don’t want to see any theology brought into the picture.
Comment by Good ID — July 23, 2008 @ 10:55 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Icd, I'm not quite sure why you think Front Loading means that God planned the Fall. Looks like a non sequitur. Perhaps you can explain that one to me.
Meanwhile, the designer, God, aliens, or other, may have front loaded the cells in order to exploit the inevitable forces of Darwinian evolution, where random mutation and natural selection are bound to happen. Realizing this, the designer front-loaded information into the first cells that would eventually be revealed by evolution.
All good questions. Right now, Mike Gene is just trying to answer the question, Is Front Loading Evolution even plausible? And he keeps finding information that suggest that it is.
Comment by Bilbo — July 25, 2008 @ 10:41 am
July 28th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
“Is Front Loading Evolution even plausible?”
Mike Gene may correct me on this, but I was always under the impression that the biological evolutionary process was designed, "front-loaded."
What say you, Bilbo?
So “critics” who argue that “front-loading” = evolution are arguing “design” = evolution.
Uh, duh. (Or is it "Dough!!")
What's the difference? What's the difference between design and evolution? Other than "theosophical" repsonses, I've never heard a scientific answer.
According to Mike gene's critics there is none!
Comment by Rock — July 28, 2008 @ 6:41 pm
July 28th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Whoa! I mean, "Dough!!"
Comment by Rock — July 28, 2008 @ 6:41 pm
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Why should anything about life be “surprising” to biologists? Assuming that they know the theory that accounts for, informs their theoretical expectations, is true?
Life, its existence and evolution is explained. Nothing surprising about it. The only source of surprise by individual researchers must be due to their ignorance of theory. Existing theory has already predicted their results. They shouldn’t be surprised.
So what's up with that "surprise"?
Comment by Rock — August 22, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Z. keeps talking about predictions. So where are they?! Evolutionary scientists have an excellent track of successful prediction. But where’s that prediction definitive of the difference between evolution and design?
Comment by Rock — August 22, 2008 @ 4:41 pm