Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
76 online now:
dwise1, kjsimons, Tanypteryx (3 members, 73 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,162 Year: 4,274/6,534 Month: 488/900 Week: 12/182 Day: 12/28 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An ID hypothesis: Front-loaded Evolution
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1175 days)
Posts: 852
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 replied

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

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1175 days)
Posts: 852
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 replied

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

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1175 days)
Posts: 852
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 replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Percy, posted 03-04-2012 8:18 AM Genomicus has taken no action

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1175 days)
Posts: 852
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 replied

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

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1175 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 212 of 216 (654793)
03-04-2012 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by RAZD
03-04-2012 12:05 PM


Re: The (deist) Front Loaded Universe
What we don't know is how that life got there. Your delivery system requires a previously developed life\being while mine only requires observed systems for delivery of observed materials from space to the surface of a planet. With no evidence of your delivery system you must admit that this is an extremely weak link in your hypothesis: you have to assume that it existed.

But this part of your thesis is not that different from plain ole' panspermia, where meteorites or other cosmic bodies deliver already-formed life on our planet. The delivery system of non-directed panspermia relies on observed systems for delivery of life. Directed panspermia involves an intelligence. The phrase "extremely weak link" is a subjective one, is it not?

You forget the age of these interstellar clouds - because of their distance from earth what we are seeing were there before the earth formed. Thus the absence of identifiable interstellar cells is problematic for a panspermia concept.

See here: F. Hoyle and C. Wickramasinghe. On the Nature of Interstellar Grains, Astrophysics and Space Science, 1979. They found evidence of freeze-dried bacteria and algae in outer space.

So you would agree then that there is nothing special about life existing on earth?

Special is a subjective term. To me, life is extraordinarily special regardless of its origin.

And yet you are still only copying an existing system for making life.

The FLE hypothesis does not address the origin of life. Your thesis does. That's a fundamental difference between our two viewpoints.

Being able to construct life from pre-biotic materials would be a prediction of FLU but not of FLE, yes? Does FLE predict that this will not be possible? It certainly seems to imply it to me, otherwise why is FLE necessary?

Why on earth would FLE predict this to not to be possible? If one was able to construct life from pre-biotic materials, it would have little relevance to the validity (or lack thereof) of the FLE hypothesis. It wouldn't matter either way for the FLE hypothesis, since the FLE hypothesis is not a hypothesis about the origin of life. It is a hypothesis about the development of life here on earth, regardless of life's ultimate origin.

A scientific hypothesis, as opposed to a philosophical one, is based on objective evidence or objective observation (rather than on personal intuition: see Percy Message 210), AND it is testable.

The FLE hypothesis is based on objective evidence and it is testable. We find evidence of key eukaryotic proteins sharing deep homology with functional but unnecessary prokaryotic proteins. This is not expected from conventional evolutionary theory, as I explained here:

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 couldn’t 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 couldn’t really front-load anything at all with a minimal genome. You couldn’t 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 couldn’t 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.

Curiously, I'm pointing out that your hypothesis is not testable - or at least you have not demonstrated how it could be properly tested.

I certainly have. Here:

It is important for a hypothesis to make testable predictions. Here, I will try to briefly describe how the FLE hypothesis makes predictions that are not made by conventional theory. Before beginning, however, I would like to point out that, in this thread, I do not intend to discuss in depth the issue of whether some of these predictions have, in fact, been confirmed. In this thread, I am primarily interested in discussing if these predictions differ from those generated by conventional theory.
Let me begin with a prediction concerning the origin of molecular machines like cilia. Intra-flagellar transport (IFT) particles are involved in ciliary function in most eukaryotes. These proteins contribute to ciliary function, and any eukaryotes that lack these IFT proteins – such as Plasmodium -- are probably “degenerate” cilia and do not represent the structure of the “last cilia common ancestor.”
The point is this: under the non-teleological framework, co-option events are primarily responsible for the origin of this motility organelle and its IFT proteins. Under this model, random co-option events of proteins in the cell resulted in the functional association of different proteins, which would have been preserved by natural selection – and over time, through repeating this step, finally a cilium arose. This is, in essence, the non-teleological hypothesis for the origin of the eukaryotic flagellum.
Given that the existence of Metazoa seems to require the existence of cilia, under the FLE model, cilia were front-loaded. How would cilia be front-loaded? The FLE hypothesis is only at its beginning stages, so one should not expect, at the present moment, a rigorous FLE model for the origin of the cilium. However, I can offer a cursory model for the FLE origin of the cilium. In this model, the first genomes would be designed with components that would later be used by the cilium. In other words, homologs of the core, necessary IFT proteins would be designed into the first genomes. They’d be given a function, such that their basic 3D shape is conserved over deep-time. If they were given a function where their 3D shape would be substantially changed over deep-time, then the front-loading designer couldn’t possibly hope that when these proteins associated, their shapes would complement each other correctly such that a cilium could arise.
From here, we can develop our FLE prediction. The non-telic hypothesis for the origin of the cilium does not require or predict that the prokaryotic homologs of IFT proteins be well-conserved in sequence identity. In fact, it’s certainly possible that the non-telic hypothesis predicts that most of the prokaryotic homologs of the core IFT proteins will be loosely conserved in sequence identity: a protein that is not under stringent functional constraints will be more likely to be co-opted into a novel role by chance without being deleterious. For example, H4 histone is one of the most highly conserved proteins in eukaryotes. To me, at least, it seems that it would be much more likely that if H4 histone was duplicated and then co-opted into an entirely novel function a non-adaptive effect would occur than if a fibrinopeptide, for example (which are not at all highly conserved), were co-opted into this novel role. This would be an interesting line of research, but I don’t intend to explore this argument further, because the fact remains: the non-telic hypothesis for the origin of the cilium does not require or predict that the prokaryotic homologs of core IFT proteins be well-conserved in sequence identity, while the FLE hypothesis for the origin of the cilium predicts that the prokaryotic homologs of core IFT proteins would be well-conserved in sequence identity, more so than the average prokaryotic protein. This is a testable prediction: we would need to find a prokaryotic homolog of a core IFT protein, and then conduct pairwise comparisons of that IFT homolog with its prokaryotic orthologs, and check its degree of sequence conservation. There is nothing in the non-telic hypothesis that predicts this hypothetical prokaryotic homolog will be highly conserved in sequence identity, more so than the average prokaryotic protein. You will not find anything like this prediction in the scientific literature.

But you have to admit that it is not a scientific hypothesis, but an assumption based on personal intuition\opinion\wish\hope, and that your FLE hypothesis is founded on that assumption.

But there is evidence for front-loaded evolution. See above.

If the prediction is for something that cannot differentiate FLE from FLU or NFLU, then confirmation of a prediction just means that it is not falsified, while the validity of the hypothesis is not tested.

I disagree, based on several considerations (such as the discussion of the origin of the TTSS in the scientific community). For example, evolutionary theory predicts a nested hierarchical pattern. Can creationism explain this observation? You bet it can. It merely needs to say that goddunnit. Thus, based on your logic, evolutionary theory has not been tested by the existence of an NHP; it simply has not been falsified.

First, what is your evidence for "deep homology" and how is this specifically predicted by FLE as opposed to being a post hoc ergo propter hoc observation? (ie -- if it is something known before your hypothesis was developed, then it would be, should be, relegated to the objective evidence used to form the hypothesis not to test it). You need to predict something unknown and then test for it.

I have explained above how it is specifically predicted by FLE. It has been confirmed for a number of proteins (objective evidence for FLE), but it has yet to be confirmed for other proteins (a test for the FLE model). Then there is the example from IFT particles in cilia, which is a test for the FLE hypothesis.

Second, how do you know that "deep homology" is not predicted by FLU or NFLU? (ie-- by "natural (FLU/NFLU) laws"). Just stating that it isn't does not meet scientific criteria.

See above where I explain why FLE predicts "deep homology" with unnecessary but functional proteins in prokaryotes, while other conventional theory do not. There is nothing in NFLU that would predict this, either.

The ToE predicts that divergent speciation results in a pattern of nested hierarchies of descent from common ancestor breeding populations, of clades within clades, and this pattern necessarily results in "deep homologies" within the branches of each of the clades, and the deeper you go into the nested hierarchy ancestry the deeper you go into the "deep homologies" that are present.

Again, see above where I explain why ToE does not predict the specific pattern of deep homology that I am referring to.

This pattern is not predicted by FLE...

Ummm, why do you think that?

No, it is just evidence that the hypothesis is not invalidated, a seemingly minor but important distinction, and that it has not been tested to differentiate it from hypothesis B. Particularly if you have not show that it is not predicted by hypothesis B.

But if hypothesis B does not make that prediction, while A does, then confirmation of that prediction is evidence for A, even if B can explain it through ad hoc rationalizations.

To be a proper test of an hypothesis you need to predict something that cannot occur by the other hypothesis or vice versa.

Really? The "flagellum first" hypothesis for the origin of the TTSS predicts that the flagellum will be more widely distributed among bacteria phyla than the TTSS. The "sister group" hypothesis could explain this observation (through lateral gene transfer) but it does not predict it. Thus, confirmation of the above prediction is evidence in favor of the "flagellum first" hypothesis. That's how investigators of the origin of the TTSS see it, and that's how I see it.

Also: if we go by your argument, then the NHP is not evidence for common descent, since the appearance of the NHP can also occur under the creationism model (where goddunnit), even though the creationism model does not predict it.

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by RAZD, posted 03-04-2012 12:05 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by RAZD, posted 03-04-2012 11:12 PM Genomicus has replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1175 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 214 of 216 (654829)
03-04-2012 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by RAZD
03-04-2012 11:12 PM


Re: The (deist) Front Loaded Universe

With respect RAZD, I have a feeling that you might possibly be misunderstanding the FLE hypothesis, and you seem to be under the impression that the FLU is completely incompatible with FLE.

And you're making kinda suspicious statements sometimes.

For example, I said:

The FLE hypothesis does not address the origin of life. Your thesis does. That's a fundamental difference between our two viewpoints.

To which you replied:

Yes, it makes mine more complete and comprehensive, while yours still rests on certain incompletely defined assumptions being true without any objective evidence in this area.

But my focus does not lie in the origin of life as much as in the development of life on earth. And I think you need to understand that. I know you're very interested in the origin of life and the origin of natural laws, but I'm not. So when you say it makes your thesis more complete, my answer is: so what? I am interested in the development of life on earth, and not the things you are interested in. How life originated has little relevance to the FLE hypothesis (unless one is going to argue that life evolved here, on our planet).

Here's another interesting statement you made:
I said:

Why on earth would FLE predict this to not to be possible? If one was able to construct life from pre-biotic materials, it would have little relevance to the validity (or lack thereof) of the FLE hypothesis. ...

And you said:

Because (a) otherwise the FLE is unnecessary and (b) the inability to produce results would tend to invalidate the concept of abiogenesis by "natural (FLU/NFLU) laws" - leaving the field open for life being "salted" on earth.

But you fail to realize that the FLE hypothesis does not address the origin of life. You're trying to force it to do so, hence your claim that the construction of life from pre-biotic chemicals would go against the FLE hypothesis. But it wouldn't, since how life originated doesn't matter to the FLE hypothesis.

There's a lot of stuff in your comment that I really haven't got the time to respond to.

I will, however, clarify the "deep homology" prediction of the FLE hypothesis, since for some reason it isn't clear to you:

The non-telic hypothesis for the evolution of life on earth makes no predictions regarding the genome size of the LUCA. But the FLE hypothesis requires that the LUCA have unnecessary but functional genes that would later be used by complex life forms. Thus, the FLE hypothesis requires that the LUCA be unnecessarily complex. Non-teleological evolution does not have this requirement; nor does it make any predictions regarding the complexity of the LUCA.

It also seems to me that you completely misunderstood the prediction regarding IFT particles and the cilium.

There is objective evidence that cilia exist. The proper approach is to take your example of your purported FLE instance (cilia exist), show that this could not occur in a NFLE world...

But that wasn't the prediction of the FLE hypothesis. Of course cilia exist, and its existence isn't the issue here. It's the level of sequence conservation among prokaryotic homologs of ciliary components.

Next, you make the very, very, very strange claim that horizontal gene transfer is somehow not expected by FLE - even though horizontal gene transfer is an extremely good mechanism for forwarding designs into the future.

You make the following claim:

Seeing as all these forms are current living organisms they do not necessarily make any claim about early life. We also know that unicellular life is rife with horizontal transfer of material from one organism to another, even across the designations of the major domains of life (the cells don't care what they are).

But we can test for horizontal gene transfer, and this is a fatal flaw in your above argument (you don't even mention this issue). We can construct a phylogenetic tree of the gene in question, and compare it to 16s rRNA phylogenies to see if they are congruent. If they are not, then HGT is likely at play here. But if they are, then HGT is almost certainly not primarily responsible for the resulting tree.

Yes, I know this isn't at all a reply to many of your points. But before even thinking about replying to your other points, I want to make something clear here. You seem to be under the idea that somehow the FLU and the FLE are at odds, and incompatible. But why do you think that? And, frankly, I don't really know how this thread - which was originally supposed to be about front-loaded evolution - got sidetracked into a discussion on your thesis of FLU. I have no problem with you making issues of the testability etc. of the FLE, but I don't really see any reason to discuss your FLU ideas in this thread. Half of our responses to each other seem to be about the FLU, when I wouldn't care either way.

Hopefully, I'm not coming across as snarky or rude, 'cause I don't mean to be. I'm just saying...

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by RAZD, posted 03-04-2012 11:12 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by RAZD, posted 03-07-2012 11:54 AM Genomicus has taken no action
 Message 216 by Taq, posted 03-07-2012 2:25 PM Genomicus has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022