Didn't CS misunderstand this as a complement? And didn't you misunderstand CS as endorsing Genomicus's characterization of ad hoc? What I thought CS was saying was that optimal replacing sub-optimal is precisely what we would expect of a process of successive selection over generations, meaning that it isn't ad hoc at all.
Apologies if the misunderstandings are all mine...
Perhaps you could focus on what I said in response to what you said? I think I am allowed to disagree with other posters.
I don't think you and Mr. Jack are disagreeing. Mr. Jack said that we should expect to find some of our genes represented in the descendants of ancient bacteria, and we do. And you were responding to the example of a specific gene, saying that we should expect to find it in earlier ancestors.
What you actually said was that we should expect to find it in the "earliest ancestors", which implies ancient prokaryotes or before, but of course many of our genes arose later. That may be why Genomicus thinks he sees a contradiction.
The message for Genomicus is that all genes in existence today stem from a process of random mutation and natural selection. Some genes are of recent origin, some of ancient origin. We should expect to find some of our genes in the descendants of ancient archaea, some in the descendants of ancient prokaryotes, some in the descendants of ancient eukaryotes, some in the descendants of ancient fish, some in the descendants of ancient amphibians, some in the descendants of ancient mammals, and some in the descendants of ancient apes. And that's exactly what we find.
Were there frontloading we would expect to see the remnants of that frontloading still hanging around in some lineages, but we don't.
Much of the objection to your FLE hypothesis seems to be that it's really just ID, and I think the discussion has taken this turn because of one key quality it shares with ID: lack of evidence. You could stop the accusations of "FLE is ID" by producing evidence that requires an FLE interpretation.
But what you're instead doing is the same thing creationists and IDists before you have done: attempting to develop scenarios that are not contradicted by existing evidence while at the same time de-emphasizing the lack of positive evidence.
In essence your FLE hypothesis is another celestial teapot.
People who have evidence talk about evidence. People who don't have evidence claim that they first require a lot of prelude.
Threads here usually end around 300 messages (generally not while active and productive discussion is still ongoing). You're 2/3 through, you might want to pick up the pace, though of course there can always be follow-on threads.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?