front loading: did evos get it backwards

For clarity, let me preface this proposed thread with the comment that I don't subscribe to front loading ID theories about evolution necessarily, but at least think they have some scientific merit as a potential hypothesis, being rooted in some facts, as oppossed to NeoDarwinism. By front loading ID theories, I mean the hypothesis commonly known as front loading. Front loading advocates generally accept, as far as I can tell, either common descent from a number of original forms and organisms or an original, single organism and genome. They are usually thought of as ID theories since the information is considered to be programmed into the front loaded organism but I suppose one could imagine a non-ID front loaded theory as well. NeoDarwinism, on the other hand, posits a slow accumulation of genes via mutations which are selected for by organisms adapting an acquired trait granting them a natural selective advantage. With that being said, I think the topic deserves a fair hearing. Note the following: Page Not Found | University of CaliforniaApparently there is significant evidence, assuming common descent, that the ancestor to all plants and animals had a genome with "more types of genes" than is present in any plant or animal today and that evolution, assuming it occurred at all, proceeded through loss and changes of genes rather than the slow accumulation of them as envisioned by NeoDarwinism.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Minor mods to 1st para for consistency.

I added some more. Seems pretty clear what the topic is. As far as William Loomis or any other scientist, I don't see how what camp they are in is all that relevant. Certainly, we can discuss factual findings from anyone I would think. Whether Loomis has attached significance or not to the fact isn't the thread topic. It would be interesting to know his ideas on how all those types of genes got there so early, but whether he's publicized that or not shouldn't derail the thread.

Ok, made the change.Note....many claim ID is creationism and so using the term ID is problematic as well here. The point is that front loaders accept that things evolve, though not in a Darwinian fashion primarily.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Looks the same to me on my screen. Could be a technical problem or maybe I am missing something. It is OK as it appears on my screen.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

It means types of genes (genes that were present that no longer are, not just modified genes but whole types of genes were lost). Perhaps the following comment in the paper can add some clarity. Specialization (evolution into new forms) "appears to lead to LOSS [my caps] of genes." Obviously, he is saying that genes were present and were lost. Seems pretty clear to me.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Misleading? You seem to admit that the simplist, earliest common ancestor to plants and animals was indeed front loaded with all the types of genes that future plants and animals would need. This is in stark contrast to the NeoDarwinian hypothesis of a slow accumulation of genes via random mutation and natural selection.

Nice attempt to avoid the thread topic with circular reasoning. Problem is you don't observe "evolution" as defined by the origin of new and the higher taxa. All you observe is something you claim is "evolution" and define it so, but clearly is not the mechanism, assuming common descent even occurred, that produced life as we know it. In other words, it must be impossible because NeoDarwinism just has to be true. The fact that contrary to ND, we don't see a gradual evolving of new genes as new traits are acquired but that all these types of genes pre-existed the theoritical evolution of plant and animal lineages just cannot be, eh? Has to be impossible....darn the facts.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

If that was all evos do, I wouldn't object to it, but that's not the case as can be clearly seen when one takes a comprehensive and close look at the data. As typical of so many evos, you ignore the facts raised and launch into character assassination. Why not simply deal with the facts presented here? As far as circular reasoning, you cannot define "evolution" as one thing and say it is observed, and then claim a different definition of evolution has been observed.
Furthemore, you cannot merely discount a fact by saying it is impossible based on evo theory being true as somehow evidence for evo theory. You are SUPPOSSED to deal with the facts, not claim the facts cannot be true because you believe your theory is true.

How is opposite? The ancestor to all plants and animals had more types of genes than plants and animals today. If you are objecting to the term, "front loading," just restate it to say you agree that the ancestor to all plants and animals had present more types of genes than are present in animals and plants today, and that assuming evolution occurred, it occurred via a loss of genes or modification of genes rather than the slow accumulation of genes via mutation that in turn resulted in new traits being selected for.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

---

"Haeckel's much-criticized embryo drawings are .... evidence for evolution."Richardson and Gerhard Keuck, 2002 paper

Ok, let's go with the latest common ancestor (theoritical) because that is what I meant. Do you agree that the latest common ancestor for all plants and animals had more types of genes than plants and animals today?If so, then don't we see the opposite of ND; rather than a slow accumulation of genes via mutation and natural selection, we see them at this early stage despite the fact the theoritical organism would be quite primitive (meaning early) and simple. Evolution primarily via a loss of genes rather than a slow accumulation of genes is the opposite of ND. Plus, how can natural selection be involved with the origination of all of these genes if the organism did not express the complexity that comes along later?Just handwaiving this away doesn't do, btw.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

---

"Haeckel's much-criticized embryo drawings are .... evidence for evolution."Richardson and Gerhard Keuck, 2002 paper

I think you are missing the pattern. This is not some bump in the road but a general pattern and it conflicts completely with the ND hypothesis on evolution. There is not a slow accumulation of genes via random mutation and natural selection, at least not for the bulk of plants and animals. So when people observe microevolution, they are not observing the process that evolved the design of organisms, their genes.

So you disagree with Loomis. That's fair but keep in mind this isn't the only study indicating front loading. Remember the paper on the mollusk where a very simple organism was found with genes corresponding to complex nerve function? They also felt their study indicated greater genetic complexity, in their paper for the common metazoan ancestor and that at least "with many animal lineages", there was a "massive loss of genes" during the evolutionary process.It seems clear that whenever someone says they observe evolution, meaning microevolution, they are not observing the process the design of organisms, their genes.

---

"Haeckel's much-criticized embryo drawings are .... evidence for evolution."Richardson and Gerhard Keuck, 2002 paper

I think you are not seeing the forest for the trees here. Take a step back and really consider the ND paradigm of morphology and genetic evolution roughly parralleling one another. We can argue about degrees of difference, but what we are seeing under any interpretation is a RADICAL departure from the predictions of NeoDarwinism.You can't start out (latest common ancestor) with some master genome, nor can you start out with some massive or complex genome and fit the paradigm. ND predicts a gradual accumulation of genes and genetic complexity with random mutation and natural selection resulting in novel traits. Now, I know plenty of evos try to avoid this and say, well, evolution can occur via a loss of genes....sure, but the pattern predicted by ND means that you can't just get some massive, complex genome without new morphology.What we are seeing is not NeoDarwinism.Let me put it this way. There is one camp that predicted this and one or a few that did not. The front loaders predicted it. Evos based on their ideas (their theory) find it surprising, paradoxical, etc,....they predicted a simpler genome with a simpler organism morphologically. Now, evos can pretend all they want this is no big deal and I suppose evos have a theory so elastic they can fit any fact into it whatsoever, but if we want to be honest, there is the fact evos didn't expect this. It doesn't fit the ND paradigm.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

So the theory of evolution doesn't say anything about the evolution and origination of genes?

Uh huh? So the theory of evolution doesn't explain how the genes evolve and novel genes are developed, eh?All that bit about random mutation and natural seleection just doesn't apply to originating genes?Edited by randman, : No reason given.

---

"Haeckel's much-criticized embryo drawings are .... evidence for evolution."Richardson and Gerhard Keuck, 2002 paper