Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-10-2017 10:50 PM
338 online now:
Coragyps, Coyote, NoNukes (3 members, 335 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,005 Year: 28,611/21,208 Month: 677/1,847 Week: 52/475 Day: 52/58 Hour: 1/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
10111213
14
15Next
Author Topic:   An ID hypothesis: Front-loaded Evolution
Percy
Member
Posts: 16293
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 196 of 216 (654327)
02-29-2012 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Genomicus
02-28-2012 11:08 PM


Re: General Response to Objections
You already presented your clue in Message 1, the genetic code - nobody's buying it. And you also described your testable predictions - the first wasn't a prediction, the second is already accounted for by evolution.

If you've got any actual evidence you should perhaps cut to the chase.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Genomicus, posted 02-28-2012 11:08 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Genomicus, posted 02-29-2012 5:35 PM Percy has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7271
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 197 of 216 (654353)
02-29-2012 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Genomicus
02-28-2012 11:08 PM


Re: General Response to Objections
(a) describe the testable predictions made by the FLE hypothesis

They are the same as the theory of evolution. You try to point to widely conserved homologs, but this is certainly a possible outcome of evolution. Occam's Razor cleanly slices FLE away.

(b) describe what the FLE hypothesis is all about

It is a combination of the Sharpshooter Fallacy and Begging the Question. It boils down to "If we assume that the genome was front loaded then we conclude that it was front loaded".

Implicit in the argument is that the biodiversity (in general) we see today was a planned outcome. I have never seen this supported, other than to assume it. It can also be argued, with equal validity, that the designer or designers only meant to front load organisms so that they would never get past the single cell stage. For all we know, they were planning on life stopping at something like stromatolites so that they would have an oxygen rich planet to move into in the future. Perhaps they planned to move their own domesticated species onto a planet where they would have no competition. Somehow, their plans were foiled as complex multicellular organisms did evolve contrary to their plans.

(c) offer some responses to objections to the FLE hypothesis.

Our main objection is that you do not offer any evidence for your claims. For example, you claim that specific proteins were designed into organisms (e.g. rhodopsins), but offer no evidence for this.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Genomicus, posted 02-28-2012 11:08 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 29 days)
Posts: 846
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 198 of 216 (654363)
02-29-2012 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Percy
02-29-2012 8:44 AM


Re: General Response to Objections
You already presented your clue in Message 1, the genetic code - nobody's buying it.

It's debatable.

And you also described your testable predictions - the first wasn't a prediction, the second is already accounted for by evolution.

And I clearly explained exactly why evolution does not make those predictions in my second essay (and incidentally, both are predictions - I explained that in my second essay). The only responses so far are: (a) that I'm using the Sharpshooter fallacy - this is not in any way equivalent to showing that these predictions are also made by conventional theory, and (b) that the prediction regarding the cilium is also made by the modern synthesis. And I will respond to that claim.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Percy, posted 02-29-2012 8:44 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Percy, posted 02-29-2012 10:14 PM Genomicus has acknowledged this reply

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 29 days)
Posts: 846
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 199 of 216 (654365)
02-29-2012 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Trixie
02-27-2012 4:23 PM


Re: General Response to Objections
Hi Trixie,

This will be my follow-up response to your post on your BLASTn searches.

You quoted this statement of mine:

Perhaps, but I think you'd be willing to agree that loading the first genomes with rhodopsins, globins, actins, kinesins, - or their sequence/structural homologs - that this would increase the chances of Metazoan-like life forms appearing on the scene.

Your response to this comment completely missed the point, unfortunately. In this comment of mine, I was not arguing that we can find traces of sequence/structural homologs of these proteins in prokaryotes. I was merely pointing out that if the first genomes were loaded with these proteins - or their analogs - that the chances of Metazoan-like life forms appearing on the scene are increased.

Also, you often implicitly said that "such-and-such a protein is a serving a function in prokaryotes, so how can you cite that as evidence for the FLE hypothesis?" The fact is that of course they would be serving a function - otherwise the front-loading designers couldn't possibly hope for their basic 3D structure to be preserved over deep-time.

Of course, you will object that evolutionary theory also makes this prediction. But I have responded to that claim already:

I argue that the FLH predicts that proteins of major importance in eukaryotes and advanced multi-cellular life forms (e.g., animals, plants) will share deep homology with proteins in prokaryotes. I have discussed this prediction with various critics of the FLH, and the most common objection seems to be that non-teleological evolution also makes this prediction. I disagree, so let me explain.
Life seems to require a minimum of about 250 genes (Koonin, Eugene V. How Many Genes Can Make a Cell: The Minimal-Gene-Set Concept, 2002. Annual Reviews Collection, NCBI) a proto-cell would not require that many genes. Thus, it would be perfectly acceptable, under the non-teleological model, that the last common ancestor of all life forms had approximately 250 genes, add or take a few. From this small genome, gene duplication events would have occurred, subsequently followed with mutations in the new genes, would lead to a novel protein. Over time, then, and through gene and genome duplication/random mutation, this small genome would evolve into larger genomes. This model is perfectly acceptable with the non-teleological hypothesis, and the non-teleological hypothesis does not predict otherwise. However, this model where a minimum genome gradually evolves into the biological complexity we see today, through gene duplication, genome duplication, natural selection, and random mutation is not compatible with the front-loading hypothesis. This is because front-loading requires that the first genomes have genes that would be used by later, more complex life forms. Of the 250 or so genes required by life, none of them could encode proteins that would be used later in multicellular life forms (excluding the proteins that are necessary to all life forms). A front-loading designer couldnt possibly hope to stack the deck in favor of the appearance of plants and animals, for example, by starting out with a minimal genome.
Look at it this way. With a minimal genome of 250 genes that are involved in metabolism, transcription, translation, replication, etc., evolution could tinker with that genome in any way imaginable, so that you couldnt really front-load anything at all with a minimal genome. You couldnt anticipate the rise of animals and plants. Such a genome would not shape subsequent evolution. If the last common ancestor of all life forms had a minimal genome, and if you ran the tape of life back, and then played it again, a totally different course of evolution would result. But if you loaded LUCA with genes that could be used by animals and plants, you could predict that something analogous to animals and plants would arise. If you loaded this genome with hemoglobin, rhodopsin, tubulin, actin, epidermal growth factors, etc. or homologs of these proteins something analogous to animal life forms would probably result over deep-time.
Given that you couldnt really front-load anything with a minimal genome consisting of about 250 genes, under the front-loading hypothesis, it is necessary that LUCA contain unnecessary (but beneficial) genes that would later be exploited by more complex life forms. Non-teleological evolution does not require this. It has no goal, unlike front-loading. It tinkers with what is there and if a minimal genome was all that was there, it would tinker around, eventually producing endless forms most beautiful as Darwin so famously put it. On the other hand, front-loading is goal-oriented: a minimal genome does not allow one to plan the origin of specific biological objectives.
Thus, under the front-loading hypothesis, we would predict that important proteins in eukaryotes, animals, and plants will share deep homology with unnecessary but functional proteins in prokaryotes.
Non-teleological evolution does not predict this. Non-teleological evolution could explain that observation, but it does not predict this. And this is the important point to understand. There is nothing in non-teleological evolution that requires multi-cellular proteins to share deep homology with unnecessary prokaryotic proteins but front-loading demands this. There is nothing in non-teleological evolution that requires that LUCA have a genome larger than the minimum genome size but for front-loading to occur, this must be the case. I conclude, then, that this prediction is made by the front-loading hypothesis, but it is not made by non-teleological evolution, and so front-loading is certainly testable.

Please respond specifically to the arguments I make in the above paragraph, where I suggest that the FLE hypothesis makes a prediction regarding deep homology that non-teleological evolution does not make.

That said - and Mr Jack has already raised this point - but for any of you who do BLAST searches, understand that protein sequence comparisons allow us to look back over longer periods of time than nucleic acid sequence comparisons - BLASTn searches are not appropriate for deep-time searches, so use BLASTp. Hopefully, that's clearer now

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Trixie, posted 02-27-2012 4:23 PM Trixie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Taq, posted 03-01-2012 11:47 AM Genomicus has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16293
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 200 of 216 (654395)
02-29-2012 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Genomicus
02-29-2012 5:35 PM


Re: General Response to Objections
Hi Genomicus,

You're missing the point. We know we haven't convinced you, and that isn't an issue of any concern to us. Our key point is that you're not going to get anywhere without evidence. Whether you yourself are able to see this is beside the point, though it would save you from wasting your time. Really neat ideas but with no evidence seem to be able to convince maybe as many as 1% of scientists, especially if bolstered by religion, and that's about where they stay. To do better than that you need evidence.

Your situation is reminiscent of relativity. Newtonian physics worked great, still does for most things, but up until 150 years ago we had no inkling that it might not be the whole story. The discovery of discrepancies in the precession in Mercury's orbit was the first hint, but it was a hint grounded in hard facts. You need evidence like that.

Let me go over this again. The reason you're not convincing anybody is not because you're not explaining your position clearly. It's not because you're not being methodical in your presentation. It's not because you're uninformed or have your facts wrong, because as far as I can see, you don't.

It's because you lack evidence.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Genomicus, posted 02-29-2012 5:35 PM Genomicus has acknowledged this reply

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7271
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 201 of 216 (654425)
03-01-2012 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Genomicus
02-29-2012 5:54 PM


Re: General Response to Objections
Genomicus writes:

Thus, under the front-loading hypothesis, we would predict that important proteins in eukaryotes, animals, and plants will share deep homology with unnecessary but functional proteins in prokaryotes.

The theory of evolution states the same, but it also allows for homologs shared by prokaryotes and eukaryotes to also be necessary and functional as well as unnecessary and functional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Genomicus, posted 02-29-2012 5:54 PM Genomicus has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19292
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 202 of 216 (654435)
03-01-2012 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Genomicus
02-19-2012 5:43 AM


The (deist) Front Loaded Universe
Hi Genomicus, and welcome to the fray.

I have abstained from participating thus far to see how things developed.

At this point I have a simple question:

The front-loading hypothesis proposes that (a) early in earths history, the earth (or the solar system) was intentionally seeded ...

My question is -- how does this differ from the (deist) hypothesis that the universe is "front loaded" for life to develop on planets such as this, and evolve in the manner we have seen here, due to the "front loading" of all the mechanisms of physics, chemistry and biology to act in the way we have observed in this one instance?

See Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I) for some additional information.

quote:
From these information sections it seems to me that the building blocks needed for beginning the creation of life were plentiful, not just on Earth but in space in general and from the earliest of times. Probably they have been around since long before even the Earth formed from the cosmic debris left behind by the life and death cycle of previous stars and planets, back to the beginning of time. These "seeds of life" no doubt extend through the far reaches of the universe as well as the depths of time (cue Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young ... "We are star dust ...").

It also seems to me that the natural processes for forming more complex structures from those basic building blocks were likely prevalent on the earth 4.5 billion years ago in a variety of forms, levels of completion and locations. We end with a scenario that has a random combination of plentiful and multitudinous organic molecules forming amino acids all over the earth, with a membranous system to contain and concentrate those molecules and their interactions within a protocell type capsule. We also see that random combination of plentiful and multitudinous amino acids into peptides and proteins is feasible, and that concentration and recombination within the membranous protocells enhances the probability that random combinations of them into the first "replicators" (the predecessors to RNA and DNA) is not as far fetched as it seemed at first. A simple building block process where the probability of a successful combination is almost inevitable: it is no longer a matter of "if" but of "when" it will occur under these conditions ... and once self replication occurs the frequency of replication will necessarily outpace the random action, and replicators that are faster and stronger will outpace their competition ... life seems inevitable when given the conditions for life.


and Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) for more information.

quote:
This does not explain all the questions of how life developed on earth over 3.5 billion years ago, but it goes a long way in showing how possible it was for life to develop from existing chemicals in the conditions that existed in the pre-biotic earth. The sheer number of possibilities also can hint that such processes were quite active, with many variations vying for resources, and that the replication system that life developed from was likely the best at self-replication - the fastest, most stable and aggressive replicators outcompeting their competitors. The likelihood is that, even if they had not existed, that another replication system would have been able to develop into life. Some initial elements of evolution - random variation and feedback selection - were evident in this pre-biotic world.

In other words, it appears that all this has occurred naturally, or it is all "front-loaded" to occur through the "front loaded" mechanisms involved.

Note that this extends your hypothesis back further in time to the formation of pre-biotic molecules in space and methods\mechanisms to deliver them to the surface of planets, as well as broadening it to include the way that solar systems form and elements are created.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

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 203 by Genomicus, posted 03-02-2012 9:15 PM RAZD has responded

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 29 days)
Posts: 846
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 203 of 216 (654695)
03-02-2012 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by RAZD
03-01-2012 2:40 PM


Re: The (deist) Front Loaded Universe
My question is -- how does this differ from the (deist) hypothesis that the universe is "front loaded" for life to develop on planets such as this, and evolve in the manner we have seen here, due to the "front loading" of all the mechanisms of physics, chemistry and biology to act in the way we have observed in this one instance?

Well, it differs considerably because no deities need be invoked. The FLE hypothesis simply posits that some intelligence seeded the earth with life forms that contained the necessary genomic information to bias evolution in planned ways. In short, the FLE hypothesis does not address the origin of the universe (if there was one), the origin of the solar system, planets, chemical and physical laws, etc. It's simply a hypothesis about biology on our planet.

Hope this helps!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2012 2:40 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Percy, posted 03-02-2012 10:07 PM Genomicus has responded
 Message 207 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2012 10:21 AM Genomicus has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16293
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 204 of 216 (654698)
03-02-2012 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Genomicus
03-02-2012 9:15 PM


Re: The (deist) Front Loaded Universe
Hi Genomicus,

RAZD was actually just asking why your preference for one front loading hypothesis over another. Maybe genomes were front loaded to produce certain outcomes. Maybe the laws of the universe were front loaded to produce certain outcomes. How do you choose?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Genomicus, posted 03-02-2012 9:15 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Genomicus, posted 03-02-2012 11:58 PM Percy has responded

    
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 29 days)
Posts: 846
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 205 of 216 (654701)
03-02-2012 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Percy
03-02-2012 10:07 PM


Re: The (deist) Front Loaded Universe
RAZD was actually just asking why your preference for one front loading hypothesis over another. Maybe genomes were front loaded to produce certain outcomes. Maybe the laws of the universe were front loaded to produce certain outcomes. How do you choose?

Well, in the first place, how could you test the thesis that the laws of the universe were front loaded to produce certain outcomes? I prefer the FLE hypothesis I describe above because IMHO it's much more testable.

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Percy, posted 03-02-2012 10:07 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Percy, posted 03-03-2012 7:47 AM Genomicus has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16293
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 206 of 216 (654715)
03-03-2012 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Genomicus
03-02-2012 11:58 PM


Re: The (deist) Front Loaded Universe
Okay. It makes sense to expend the effort looking for evidence in the easiest places first.

But to continue with RAZD's point, your decision to focus on FLE rather than FLU has nothing to do with the available evidence, but more to do with your personal intuition about which might more likely eventually produce evidence.

And there's nothing wrong with that. It is, for example, SETI's intuition that extraterrestrial life exists, and therefore they look for evidence of it.

Usually when people formulate a hypothesis it is to explain some piece of available evidence that has not yet been explained, so I think many in this thread think that you believe you have evidence for FLE.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Genomicus, posted 03-02-2012 11:58 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Genomicus, posted 03-03-2012 11:48 PM Percy has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19292
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 207 of 216 (654725)
03-03-2012 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Genomicus
03-02-2012 9:15 PM


Re: The (deist) Front Loaded Universe
Hi Genomics,

I think Percy (another deist btw) has the gist of it.

Well, it differs considerably because no deities need be invoked.TheThe FLE hypothesis simply posits that some intelligence seeded the earth with life forms that contained the necessary genomic information to bias evolution in planned ways. In short, the FLE hypothesis does not address the origin of the universe (if there was one), the origin of the solar system, planets, chemical and physical laws, etc. It's simply a hypothesis about biology on our planet.

The FLU hypothesis simply posits that some intelligence seeded the universe with the subatomic forms that contained the necessary information to bias the formation of stars, planets, atoms, molecules in planned ways. I still see your concept as secondary to this process, like looking at the evolution of a toenail instead of the whole foot.

When I look at what this means for the formation of life on earth, going to the toenail from the foot, if you will, I see front-loaded pre-biotic molecules distributed in space that carry the necessary chemical information to bias the development of life in planned ways. These are distributed throughout space in such a way that they will be readily delivered by front loaded mechanics (asteroids etc) to the surfaces of planets that are preloaded to support the formation of life, including earth.

As far as evidence goes, we can look into deep space and see clouds of pre-biotic molecules, and we can find them in near earth orbits, but we don't see any good unequivocal evidence for space born cells, nor do we see any evidence for such cells in near earth orbits. See Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I) for more information in this regard:

quote:
From these information sections it seems to me that the building blocks needed for beginning the creation of life were plentiful, not just on Earth but in space in general and from the earliest of times. Probably they have been around since long before even the Earth formed from the cosmic debris left behind by the life and death cycle of previous stars and planets, back to the beginning of time. These "seeds of life" no doubt extend through the far reaches of the universe as well as the depths of time (cue Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young ... "We are star dust ...").

... A simple building block process where the probability of a successful combination is almost inevitable: it is no longer a matter of "if" but of "when" it will occur under these conditions ... and once self replication occurs the frequency of replication will necessarily outpace the random action, and replicators that are faster and stronger will outpace their competition ... life seems inevitable when given the conditions for life.


Of course this means that earth and the life on earth are not special creations of some intelligent design but part of a larger process, and this does not bother me.

Well, it differs considerably because no deities need be invoked. ...

Well, that would be why deism is an honestly admitted faith\philosophy rather than an attempt at being a scientific hypothesis based on the faith\philosophy of a hypothetical interstellar vastly intelligent alien being acting like a god during the formation of life on earth.

In my opinion ID would be in a much better intellectual position if it said:

  1. hypothesis #1: god/s exist or existed at some time in the past,
  2. hypothesis #2: the existence of such god/s are detectable from their actions,
  3. hypothesis #3: the detection is made by finding aspects of life the universe and everything that are not explained by natural means

Note that these hypothesis are not testable scientific hypothesis, but philosophical\theistic ones. One can assume that #1 and #2 are true for the sake of further argument, thus providing the basis for #3, but hypothesis #3 can only be considered testable if you can isolate natural means from non-natural means, ie - you need to show that x-y-z could not occur by natural means.

Hence the attraction of Irreducible Complexity and it's off-spring.

Message 205: Well, in the first place, how could you test the thesis that the laws of the universe were front loaded to produce certain outcomes? ...

By comparing them with other universes that have not been front loaded, the same way you would (ultimately) test for the existence of god/s. Admittedly that makes it difficult to test, and certainly not testable by current methodologies, and this is why it can only be considered an hypothesis at this point.

Certainly one cannot claim that, just because x-y-z is predicted by the FLU hypothesis and we see x-y-z all around us, that this is evidence for the FLU - as opposed to a natural formation of the universe that just happens to have the physical etc characteristics so that x-y-z happens: one would need to be able to show that x-y-z cannot occur in a non-front loaded universe (NFLU) before one could make such a claim.

Equally, however, one cannot claim that just because x-y-z occurs according to what are perceived as natural laws in a NFLU that this is evidence for the NFLU, yes?

... I prefer the FLE hypothesis I describe above because IMHO it's much more testable.

So how do you test for it? Specifically how do you test that the occurrence of x-y-z in the early earth is necessarily due to front loading by an alien intelligence and not due to either natural NFLU processes or FLU processes?

Percy writes:

But to continue with RAZD's point, your decision to focus on FLE rather than FLU has nothing to do with the available evidence, but more to do with your personal intuition about which might more likely eventually produce evidence.

And there's nothing wrong with that. It is, for example, SETI's intuition that extraterrestrial life exists, and therefore they look for evidence of it.

Usually when people formulate a hypothesis it is to explain some piece of available evidence that has not yet been explained, so I think many in this thread think that you believe you have evidence for FLE.

Do you have evidence of x-y-z occurring that cannot be due to NFLU processes, and what is your filter\test to rule out NFLU processes?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Genomicus, posted 03-02-2012 9:15 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Genomicus, posted 03-04-2012 12:28 AM RAZD has responded

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 29 days)
Posts: 846
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 208 of 216 (654769)
03-03-2012 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Percy
03-03-2012 7:47 AM


Re: The (deist) Front Loaded Universe
But to continue with RAZD's point, your decision to focus on FLE rather than FLU has nothing to do with the available evidence, but more to do with your personal intuition about which might more likely eventually produce evidence.

Not only does it have to do with personal intuition, but also with the very simple fact that I view the reality of life in the light of genomics, molecular evolution, etc., and not so much in the light of cosmology. In other words, I'm approaching the discussion of biological origins with a different perspective than (I suppose) RAZD, who seems to be approaching biological origins more from the perspective of a physicist or cosmologist. To summarize: my passion lies in molecular biology and related disciplines, while RAZD's passion (I'm making an assumption here) seems to lie more in philosophy, cosmology, physics, etc. That helps to explain why my focus is on FLE rather than FLU.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Percy, posted 03-03-2012 7:47 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Percy, posted 03-04-2012 8:18 AM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 29 days)
Posts: 846
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 209 of 216 (654770)
03-04-2012 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by RAZD
03-03-2012 10:21 AM


Re: The (deist) Front Loaded Universe
Hi RAZD,

The FLU hypothesis simply posits that some intelligence seeded the universe with the subatomic forms that contained the necessary information to bias the formation of stars, planets, atoms, molecules in planned ways.

So far, this is perfectly compatible with front-loaded evolution.

I still see your concept as secondary to this process, like looking at the evolution of a toenail instead of the whole foot.

I really think that has more to do with our differing perspectives and backgrounds. I don't have that much interest in the origin of the universe, and the origin of natural laws. I am more interested in the history of life on earth. To you, it might seem that FLE is secondary, but to me it does not seem secondary at all.

When I look at what this means for the formation of life on earth...

That's assuming life arose on earth.

When I look at what this means for the formation of life on earth, going to the toenail from the foot, if you will, I see front-loaded pre-biotic molecules distributed in space that carry the necessary chemical information to bias the development of life in planned ways. These are distributed throughout space in such a way that they will be readily delivered by front loaded mechanics (asteroids etc) to the surfaces of planets that are preloaded to support the formation of life, including earth.

But this assumes life developed here, on our planet, instead of being delivered to our planet through panspermia.

As far as evidence goes, we can look into deep space and see clouds of pre-biotic molecules, and we can find them in near earth orbits, but we don't see any good unequivocal evidence for space born cells, nor do we see any evidence for such cells in near earth orbits.

Well, this observation can be interpreted differently. Clouds of pre-biotic molecules can easily be the remnants of once-alive cells. Meteorites with nucleic and amino acids could easily be evidence that cells were once present on these meteorites. We wouldn't expect to find large amounts of clouds with bacteria cells, because it's far easier for the chemical constituents of the cells to survive in space than for the cells themselves to survive. Just saying.

Of course this means that earth and the life on earth are not special creations of some intelligent design but part of a larger process, and this does not bother me.

I am not in any way whatsoever proposing that the earth is the result of some special creation. Nor am I proposing that life on earth is the result of "special creation," unless by that you mean engineering, and nothing supernatural. I'm not necessarily saying that life itself is designed, either - I am proposing that the initial genomes on earth were engineered to bias evolution. We've been able to implement our own designs into already-existing genomes for some time now, but we're still a ways from engineering life itself.

Well, that would be why deism is an honestly admitted faith\philosophy rather than an attempt at being a scientific hypothesis...

I wouldn't say FLE is an attempt at being a scientific hypothesis. It is one, by the standard definition of a scientific hypothesis, IMHO. It's not a philosophy, like deism is. It's not a faith either, unless you consider hypotheses like flagellar --> TTSS evolution a faith or philosophy.

Equally, however, one cannot claim that just because x-y-z occurs according to what are perceived as natural laws in a NFLU that this is evidence for the NFLU, yes?

I'm not defending or attacking NFLU or FLU (geez, I almost spelled that "flue"; no offense - humor people, humor ). I really wouldn't care either way, unless you're going to claim that FLU and FLE are incompatible.

So how do you test for it? Specifically how do you test that the occurrence of x-y-z in the early earth is necessarily due to front loading by an alien intelligence and not due to either natural NFLU processes or FLU processes?

Note that I'm not in any way specifying the intelligence behind front-loaded evolution. Having said that, you can test FLE by verifying or disproving its predictions. Confirmation of a prediction of the FLE model is evidence in favor of the FLE model. This does not mean you can rule out the possibility that purely non-telic mechanisms can account for x-y-z. But if non-telic mechanisms do not predict x-y-z, while FLE does, then it is evidence for FLE. This is how science works. The FLU model does not predict that deep homology prediction made by the FLE model; nor does conventional theory predict it. Both the FLU and non-telic models can account for that observation, but they do not predict it, while the FLE model does, so confirmation of that prediction is evidence for FLE.

Do you have evidence of x-y-z occurring that cannot be due to NFLU processes, and what is your filter\test to rule out NFLU processes?

I'm afraid that that's not how you go about gathering evidence for a scientific hypothesis. If scientific hypothesis A predicts x-y-z, while hypothesis B does not predict x-y-z but could explain the occurrence of x-y-z, the occurrence of x-y-z is evidence for hypothesis A. Case in point: the competing hypotheses concerning the origin of the type III secretion system (TTSS). The "sister group" hypothesis suggests that the TTSS and the flagellum are monophyletic, sharing a common ancestor, while the "flagellum first" model posits that the TTSS arose directly from the flagellar system. Confirmation of a prediction of either of these hypotheses would be evidence for that hypothesis, regardless of whether the other hypothesis could explain the observation behind the confirmed prediction. So, IMHO, your above question assumes we must be able to rule out non-telic mechanisms, when we do not.

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2012 10:21 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by RAZD, posted 03-04-2012 12:05 PM Genomicus has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16293
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 210 of 216 (654780)
03-04-2012 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Genomicus
03-03-2012 11:48 PM


Re: The (deist) Front Loaded Universe
Hi Genomicus,

You're missing the point. RAZD didn't raise the FLU because his interests differ from yours. He's raising it to make clear how you've embarked upon a course where your interests dictate where you look for answers. Which is fine, it's not like you head a publicly funded scientific project that's burning through money, but again, and the important point you're missing, where you're looking is not driven by evidence. Whether it's your intuition or your interest makes no difference. It's not driven by evidence.

So since you have no evidence, why should where your personal interests happen to take you be persuasive to anyone?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Genomicus, posted 03-03-2012 11:48 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
10111213
14
15Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017