An ID hypothesis: Front-loaded Evolution

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.

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. 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.

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.

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

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.

That is simply not a prediction, just word salad. It is no different than saying the puddle was shaped to hold the water. It is just a nonsense assertion.If you actually had read Stephen Freeland's work you would know that he has said 'that despite the continuing and widespread use of the phrase "universal genetic code", no such thing exists.'Not only is there no such thing as a universal genetic code, there is no indication that any genetic code is 'optimal' other then within the confines of that particular incident, just as the puddle is perfectly shaped to hold the water and the water fits optimally within the bounds of the puddle. In addition it is optimally placed to reflect the trees.

Is it that you can't read or that you refuse to read?You did read that the very source you are using says that there is no universal genetic code?And that particular incident refers to any particular incident you select, just as every puddle is optimized for the water it holds and the water it holds is optimally designed to fit the puddle it's in.Your use of the term 'optimal' is just word salad, nonsense; as absurd as all of the Intelligent Design crap.

Okay, so we now know that you admit that there is no universal genetic code.Now let's try to deal with your optimized bullshit.What makes you think the genetic code is any more optimized than the water is to fill the puddle or the puddle is to fit the water?

Although I happen to be a Christian I doubt you can find anywhere I say anything like "(e.g., "It also smells, more than a little, of a convoluted Christian apologetic, wherein humans are the result of front-loading by the Christian god")."However should you ever feel capable of providing either evidence some planner exists or provide a model of how that planner actually "front loads" a genome (for example using really small John Deere tractors) then I look forward to your input.But until then you have nothing but word salad and I will continue to point out examples of your trying to insert the dime into the little kid's ear.Edited by jar, : replace " with the missing )

If so, that is the con as I have tried to point out.It is that insertion of "desired path" that is without evidence and the magic trick.

It's really important to emphasize that there is evidence that it is selection pressure driving the conservation while NO evidence has ever been presented for any, plan, any planning process, any planner or any method for the planner to influence genomes.

I'm curious if you have read Freeland's 2010 paper I quoted from and linked to way back up thread and if so what significance it might have related to what Freeland says today.

Does it go into how and why the standard code evolves over time?

When you bring in the "front loader" and present the method/model the "front loader" used, then, and only then, will FLE be worth anything more than a laugh.AbE: And did you notice the topic title? It's a little late to claim that you are not just trying to market the good old ID con job.Edited by jar, : see AbE

Oh, rest assured I am.Did you not say:

quote:

---

I am perfectly aware that the ID movement has a religious agenda. Did I say the ID lobby were my fellow travelers? The problem, though, is that the FLE hypothesis was not proposed by the ID movement. The ID movement guys would far rather prefer intelligent intervention over front-loading, IMHO. Anyways, I'm not a part of the ID movement, I don't share their obvious (and awfully unscientific) religious agenda, so the point is...?

---

and:

quote:

---

Yes, maybe it did. What predictions would you propose for this idea? You can advocate that idea if you wish; personally, based on various factors, I'm not inclined to advocate that idea (e.g., why didn't the front-loader put modern prokaryotes on earth from the start?).

---

in Message 167?Sure sounds just like the Intelligent Design movement once again just trying to mislead folk into thinking that FLE really is not ID which everyone knows is just Creationism repackaged.