Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8739 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-28-2017 1:51 PM
407 online now:
DrJones*, kjsimons, PaulK, ringo, Theodoric, xongsmith (6 members, 401 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,662 Year: 10,268/21,208 Month: 3,355/2,674 Week: 771/961 Day: 83/150 Hour: 3/13

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
15NextFF
Author Topic:   An ID hypothesis: Front-loaded Evolution
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 813
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.9


(3)
Message 1 of 216 (653209)
02-19-2012 5:43 AM


Intro

The front-loading hypothesis is an ID hypothesis that builds on Crick and Orgels directed panspermia hypothesis. In 1973, in a paper published in Icarus (Directed Panspermia), Crick and Orgel proposed that the earth was intentionally seeded with unicellular life forms. Here, I will (a) describe the front-loading hypothesis, (b) provide one or two nice clues in favor of the front-loading hypothesis, and (c) list a couple of ways it can be tested.

What is front-loading?

The front-loading hypothesis proposes that (a) early in earths history, the earth (or the solar system) was intentionally seeded with unicellular life forms (i.e., directed panspermia) and (b) these life forms contained the necessary genomic information to shape future evolution, such that the course of evolution was biased in pre-determined trajectories. Thus, evolution would be biased by the genomic information designed into the first genomes on our planet. There is evidence for the notion of panspermia, which I will discuss briefly. A genomic clock based on increases in genome sizes throughout the history of life on earth suggests that life may be roughly 10 billion years old (Sharov, 2006), which would indicate that the first organisms from which all present taxa descended did not originate on earth.
Front-loading does not propose that all aspects of evolution were programmed and determined. There would be nothing stopping the blind watchmaker from taking its own unplanned courses alongside the front-loaded objectives. What might these objectives be? To use front-loading as a working hypothesis, it is assumed that multicellularity was an objective of the front-loading designers, as well as the origin of animals and plants. Further, the front-loading hypothesis proposes that the designers were rational agents; thus, poor, sloppy design in a biological system would count against the thesis that that system was designed into the first genomes.

The genetic code: a clue in favor of front-loading

The genetic code is highly optimized for error minimization (Freeland et al., 2000). This optimal genetic code is nearly universal across all taxa. Curiously, there is no phylogenetic tree consisting of less optimal codes present in basal lineages, with more optimal codes being in late-branching taxa. This is interesting because if the genetic code evolved gradually, starting with less optimal codes (there are far more sub-optimal codes than there are optimal codes) which were gradually fine-tuned to produce the universal optimal code, we might expect such a phylogenetic tree to exist. Arguing that the sub-optimal codes once did exist early in lifes history, but vanished once the optimal codes came on the scene (i.e., that they were outcompeted), looks awfully ad hoc. For starters, it is often argued by non-teleologists that flagellar genes would have non-flagellar homologs in the form of functional precursors. But if this truly is a prediction of the Darwinian/non-telic theory, then we must wonder why the Darwinian theory doesnt predict that we should find a phylogenetic tree consisting of different genetic codes as described above. Significantly, the fact that less optimal genetic codes do exist in nature (see Freeland et al., 2000; note that these sub-optimal codes are secondarily derived that is, they evolved from the canonical genetic code, not the other way around) is proof-of-concept that the universal optimal code can exist without causing less optimal codes to vanish from the scene. The below image illustrates a hypothetical phylogenetic tree consisting of less optimal genetic codes in deep-branching lineages. It exemplifies what could have been the case, with different codes evolving into more optimal codes.

Figure. Here, all branches on the tree are colored differently. Each different color represents a different genetic code; in this diagram, the deeper-branching lineages have sub-optimal codes. The higher you go on the tree, the more optimal the genetic code is. If such a tree existed in reality, it would be an extremely convincing piece of data against the front-loading hypothesis. That it does not exist is evidence in favor of the front-loading hypothesis.

Imagine that such a phylogenetic tree did, in fact, exist. It would be convincing evidence that the extant genetic code or codes was the result of the blind watchmakers tinkering, gradually fine-tuning some early, sub-optimal genetic code. Yet such a tree does not exist, which is exactly what we would expect if the first life forms were designed with a highly optimized code which follows from the front-loading hypothesis. It is evidence that the first genomes were advanced and fully optimized at the dawn of life. All of this is what we would expect if the first genomes were designed by a rational agent or agents and this is what the front-loading hypothesis proposes. It is predicted by the front-loading hypothesis, as it is good design logic to design the first life forms with a highly optimized genetic code.

Testable predictions of the front-loading hypothesis

We can test the front-loading hypothesis through several ways, two of which I will describe here:
1) The front-loading hypothesis predicts that the first genomes encoded genes that would be unnecessary (but beneficial) to early life forms, but necessary to the appearance of multicellular life forms and plants and animals. It predicts that the first organisms were not proto-cells, but highly advanced cells capable of terra-forming a hostile planet and able to shape future evolution in biased trajectories.
2) The front-loading hypothesis predicts that prokaryotic homologs of important eukaryotic/metazoan proteins will be more highly conserved in sequence identity than the average prokaryotic protein. This prediction makes sense from a rational design perspective because designing these prokaryotic homologs with functions that conserve their sequence identity will ensure that their 3D shapes will not be significantly changed by the blind watchmaker, preventing the appearance of eukaryotes (I realize that this prediction might sound a bit confusing its past midnight where I am so Id be more than willing to elaborate on this).

There are a number of things Im interested in discussing here. Id be interested in hearing the criticisms and objections some of you might have to my above essay or to the front-loading hypothesis. Some of you might have questions like how would future states be front-loaded? and other questions and critiques.

Thoughts?

P.S. Any grammatical or other errors in my essay are a reflection of the late hour, and not an indication of my education or lack thereof.

References

Sharov, Alexei A. Genome increase as a clock for the origin and evolution of life. Biol Direct. 2006; 1:17.

Freeland, SJ, et al. Early Fixation of an Optimal Genetic Code. Mol Biol Evol. (2000) 17 (4): 511-518.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Jon, posted 02-19-2012 9:05 AM Genomicus has responded
 Message 4 by jar, posted 02-19-2012 9:24 AM Genomicus has not yet responded
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 02-19-2012 2:16 PM Genomicus has responded
 Message 21 by Granny Magda, posted 02-19-2012 3:02 PM Genomicus has responded
 Message 23 by Dr Jack, posted 02-19-2012 4:07 PM Genomicus has responded
 Message 29 by DWIII, posted 02-19-2012 4:37 PM Genomicus has responded
 Message 43 by bluegenes, posted 02-19-2012 6:03 PM Genomicus has responded
 Message 49 by Blue Jay, posted 02-19-2012 9:30 PM Genomicus has responded
 Message 52 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-20-2012 12:05 AM Genomicus has acknowledged this reply
 Message 61 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-20-2012 3:15 PM Genomicus has acknowledged this reply
 Message 91 by ScientificBob, posted 02-23-2012 1:55 AM Genomicus has not yet responded
 Message 202 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2012 2:40 PM Genomicus has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12436
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 216 (653211)
02-19-2012 8:51 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the An ID hypothesis: Front-loaded Evolution thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 216 (653212)
02-19-2012 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Genomicus
02-19-2012 5:43 AM


Re: An ID hypothesis: Front-loaded Evolution
... these life forms contained the necessary genomic information to shape future evolution, such that the course of evolution was biased in pre-determined trajectories. Thus, evolution would be biased by the genomic information designed into the first genomes on our planet.

Wouldn't this be true, though, no matter what? Wouldn't the form of the genetic material always create a predisposition simply by virtue of being one thing as opposed to another?

Front-loading does not propose that all aspects of evolution were programmed and determined.

Well I guess it depends on what aspects you're talking about. In a general sense, evolution is simply part of the natural operation of the world to which all reproducing lifeforms are subject.

Further, the front-loading hypothesis proposes that the designers were rational agents; thus, poor, sloppy design in a biological system would count against the thesis that that system was designed into the first genomes.

Well, there are a lot of examples of poor, sloppy design in the living world.

That it does not exist is evidence in favor of the front-loading hypothesis.

Why?


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 5:43 AM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 12:56 PM Jon has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28688
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 4 of 216 (653214)
02-19-2012 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Genomicus
02-19-2012 5:43 AM


Sorry but your tests are simply an example of word salad with no real meaning or design. Even if they were true they offer no indication of either design or the existence of a designer.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 5:43 AM Genomicus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Admin, posted 02-19-2012 9:32 AM jar has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12436
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 5 of 216 (653216)
02-19-2012 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by jar
02-19-2012 9:24 AM


There's not much for Genomicus to reply to. He'll be able to tell you don't buy it, but he won't be able to tell why, leaving him no recourse but to explain again what he just explained. Could you expand a bit on your objections? Thanks.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by jar, posted 02-19-2012 9:24 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 02-19-2012 10:06 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
jar
Member
Posts: 28688
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 6 of 216 (653218)
02-19-2012 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Admin
02-19-2012 9:32 AM


Genomics writes:

We can test the front-loading hypothesis through several ways, two of which I will describe here:
1) The front-loading hypothesis predicts that the first genomes encoded genes that would be unnecessary (but beneficial) to early life forms, but necessary to the appearance of multicellular life forms and plants and animals. It predicts that the first organisms were not proto-cells, but highly advanced cells capable of terra-forming a hostile planet and able to shape future evolution in biased trajectories.

Well, I can start with the fact that a term like "front loading hypothesis" is yet another almost scientific sounding phrase used by con men to fool folk into thinking that science is actually being discussed when all they are really doing is playing with their dicks.

The con is that an assumption is slipped in just as the carny magician slips the coin onto the four year old's ear with the intent of amazing the kid when he pulls a whole dime out of the tykes ear.

The model is to intentionally misuse language so that some intent is implied and then to amaze the audience by pulling "intent" out of thin air.

If you look at the so called first prediction is not a prediction at all but instead simply a distortion of what the evidence actually shows. It implies some intent yet never offers any evidence of either intent or some critter that might have intent. It simply uses charged words to misdirect the audience attention.

Genomics writes:

2) The front-loading hypothesis predicts that prokaryotic homologs of important eukaryotic/metazoan proteins will be more highly conserved in sequence identity than the average prokaryotic protein. This prediction makes sense from a rational design perspective because designing these prokaryotic homologs with functions that conserve their sequence identity will ensure that their 3D shapes will not be significantly changed by the blind watchmaker, preventing the appearance of eukaryotes (I realize that this prediction might sound a bit confusing its past midnight where I am so Id be more than willing to elaborate on this).

The second is pretty much the same. It is NOT a prediction at all but just a jumble of words meant to seem scientific but in reality only an attempt to hide the fact that the carny conman is trying to insert intent without the crowd noticing that the only intent is his intent to insert intent.

Intelligent Design is simply a con, nothing more.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Admin, posted 02-19-2012 9:32 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 1:05 PM jar has responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 813
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 7 of 216 (653233)
02-19-2012 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Jon
02-19-2012 9:05 AM


Re: An ID hypothesis: Front-loaded Evolution
quote:
Wouldn't this be true, though, no matter what? Wouldn't the form of the genetic material always create a predisposition simply by virtue of being one thing as opposed to another?

Yes. The difference here, of course, is that one evolutionary trajectory is planned, while the other is simply the result of contingency.

quote:
Well I guess it depends on what aspects you're talking about. In a general sense, evolution is simply part of the natural operation of the world to which all reproducing lifeforms are subject.

What I meant was that front-loading does not propose that all taxa were front-loaded, or even most.

quote:
Well, there are a lot of examples of poor, sloppy design in the living world.

Yes, and that'd be evidence that those particular biological systems are the result of the blind watchmaker's tinkering. Note, however, that any supposed poor design must be thoroughly analyzed before concluding that no rational designer would have done it that way.

quote:
Why?

Precisely because a phylogenetic tree consisting of sub-optimal codes in basal lineages is not what we would expect under front-loading; we would expect a universal optimal genetic code (or several optimal genetic codes), not a phylogenetic tree of genetic codes like I describe above. I guess it's not quite accurate to say "that it does not exist is evidence in favor of the front-loading hypothesis." Better would be: that there is a universal optimal genetic code, instead of a phylogenetic tree of genetic codes (as I describe above), is evidence in favor of the front-loading hypothesis? Why? Because it is expected under the FLE model. We'd predict that the first designed genomes were highly optimized such that when complex life forms do appear on the scene, they don't have to cope with a sub-optimal code, which could even lead to their extinction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Jon, posted 02-19-2012 9:05 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Jon, posted 02-19-2012 2:36 PM Genomicus has responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 813
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 8 of 216 (653236)
02-19-2012 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by jar
02-19-2012 10:06 AM


quote:
The con is that an assumption is slipped in just as the carny magician slips the coin onto the four year old's ear with the intent of amazing the kid when he pulls a whole dime out of the tykes ear.

And what is that assumption that is slipped in?

quote:
The model is to intentionally misuse language so that some intent is implied and then to amaze the audience by pulling "intent" out of thin air.

I'd like to you to present evidence to support the above statement. Thanks.

quote:
If you look at the so called first prediction is not a prediction at all but instead simply a distortion of what the evidence actually shows. It implies some intent yet never offers any evidence of either intent or some critter that might have intent. It simply uses charged words to misdirect the audience attention.

How is the first prediction a distortion of what the evidence actually shows? And what do you mean by a "critter that has intent"? That doesn't seem very relevant to the front-loading hypothesis.

quote:
The second is pretty much the same. It is NOT a prediction at all but just a jumble of words meant to seem scientific but in reality only an attempt to hide the fact that the carny conman is trying to insert intent without the crowd noticing that the only intent is his intent to insert intent.

You're going to have to back up the statement that the second prediction is "just a jumble of words" that is, in reality, only an attempt to be devious.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 02-19-2012 10:06 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 02-19-2012 1:26 PM Genomicus has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28688
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 9 of 216 (653237)
02-19-2012 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Genomicus
02-19-2012 1:05 PM


I did present the evidence, I quoted your word salad.

I also told you what the assumption was, that there was some intent.

Look at the language you used in the attempted con, "the first genomes encoded genes that would be unnecessary (but beneficial) to early life forms, but necessary to the appearance of multicellular life forms and plants and animals." and "the first organisms were not proto-cells, but highly advanced cells capable of terra-forming a hostile planet and able to shape future evolution in biased trajectories".

Those mare both simply bullshit attempts to mislead the audience. They imply that there was some intent to include things that would be needed in the future. Sorry but that is just about as usefull as saying that the river eroded the valley to just fit the river.

Sorry but ID is worth nothing more than a laugh and people that support ID can only be pitied when they are the dupes and condemned when they are the dupers.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 1:05 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 1:43 PM jar has responded

  
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 813
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 10 of 216 (653240)
02-19-2012 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by jar
02-19-2012 1:26 PM


quote:
I did present the evidence, I quoted your word salad.

Huh? I think you mean "word-salad"? I know you claimed that I was doing some word-salad, but your evidence for that is where?

quote:
I also told you what the assumption was, that there was some intent.

All scientific hypotheses are based on an initial "assumption," that is, the premise. For example, Darwinian theory "assumes" that common descent has occurred; evidence is then found to support that idea. The FLE model proposes that the course of evolution was planned to some degree and that the earth was seeded with advanced unicellular organisms; evidence could then be found to support that proposal.

quote:
They imply that there was some intent to include things that would be needed in the future.

Of course that's what they imply because I was describing the front-loading hypothesis, a teleological hypothesis. I wasn't saying that those statements were necessarily true; I was saying that that is what the FLE model proposes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 02-19-2012 1:26 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 02-19-2012 2:10 PM Genomicus has responded
 Message 14 by Theodoric, posted 02-19-2012 2:27 PM Genomicus has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28688
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 11 of 216 (653242)
02-19-2012 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Genomicus
02-19-2012 1:43 PM


more just plain incorrect assertions.
All scientific hypotheses are based on an initial "assumption," that is, the premise. For example, Darwinian theory "assumes" that common descent has occurred; evidence is then found to support that idea.

Wrong again, common descent is not an assertion but rather a conclusion based on the evidence.

The FLE model proposes that the course of evolution was planned to some degree and that the earth was seeded with advanced unicellular organisms; evidence could then be found to support that proposal.

Yes, you seem to begin with a conclusion and then look for evidence that can be twisted to support your conclusion.

BUT...

no one has ever presented any evidence that there has been any plan or any planner, and until you present evidence of those two things ID will remain nothing but a joke at best and a con when marketed by anyone claiming to be a scientist.

Of course that's what they imply because I was describing the front-loading hypothesis, a teleological hypothesis. I wasn't saying that those statements were necessarily true; I was saying that that is what the FLE model proposes.

There is no FLE model, and claiming that there is is simply wrong. Until you present evidence that some front loader exists and the method that the front loader uses to 'front load' the genome (maybe really small wheelbarrows or a teeny tiny John Deere) there is no FLE model.

Now you can assert that there is an FLE fantasy or FLE claim, but there is no model.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 1:43 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 2:21 PM jar has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12584
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 12 of 216 (653243)
02-19-2012 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Genomicus
02-19-2012 5:43 AM


The obvious problem with front-loading
Unless preserved by selection the genome can be changed by mutation at a relatively rapid rate. Any "front-loaded" information that isn't actually in use is unlikely to be preserved unchanged for long enough to become useful.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 5:43 AM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 6:04 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Genomicus
Member
Posts: 813
Joined: 02-15-2012
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 13 of 216 (653244)
02-19-2012 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by jar
02-19-2012 2:10 PM


Re: more just plain incorrect assertions.
quote:
Wrong again, common descent is not an assertion but rather a conclusion based on the evidence.

And similarly, the FLE hypothesis has been advanced based on various clues that has been provided by the world of life.

quote:
Yes, you seem to begin with a conclusion and then look for evidence that can be twisted to support your conclusion.

Actually, I begin with looking for the best explanation for various observations, like the universality of the genetic code. What is the best explanation for the observation of the universal optimal genetic code? In my brief essay, I explained why the non-teleological position does not explain the observation that there is a universal optimal code, found from the deepest branching taxa to later-branching lineages. Front-loading explains this observation nicely, without any ad hoc rationalizations. Thus, this is a clue to support the FLE hypothesis. I then listed two ways we could test the model; if we tested these predictions, and found them to be confirmed, the case for FLE would be strengthened.

quote:
...no one has ever presented any evidence that there has been any plan or any planner...

Did you read my essay? There, I provided a clue in the form of the genetic code that suggests FLE has occurred. You have yet to respond to this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 02-19-2012 2:10 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 02-19-2012 2:31 PM Genomicus has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5762
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 14 of 216 (653245)
02-19-2012 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Genomicus
02-19-2012 1:43 PM


Huh? I think you mean "word-salad"?

Did you actually post that? Wow. There goes any shred of credibility you might have possibly had.

I am willing to think your way of spelling it may have some legitimacy but.. wow!!

Oh a quick search shoes "word salad" is the accepted spelling. You have a source that shows otherwise?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 1:43 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 2:35 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 28688
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 15 of 216 (653246)
02-19-2012 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Genomicus
02-19-2012 2:21 PM


Re: more just plain incorrect assertions.
There is no such thing as "a universal optimal code", that is simply another example of your making stuff up.

There is no FLE hypothesis yet other than the unsupported assertion that YOU think there is some planner or plan.

And as I said in the very beginning of this thread, you offered no predictions or any possible tests that would not be satisfied by pointing how well the puddle fits the water.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 2:21 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 2:39 PM jar has responded

  
1
23456
...
15NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017