Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9071 total)
580 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, jar, Tanypteryx (4 members, 576 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,056 Year: 4,168/6,534 Month: 382/900 Week: 88/150 Day: 19/42 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An ID hypothesis: Front-loaded Evolution
jar
Member
Posts: 33884
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 4 of 216 (653214)
02-19-2012 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Genomicus
02-19-2012 5:43 AM


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.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 5:43 AM Genomicus has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Admin, posted 02-19-2012 9:32 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33884
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 6 of 216 (653218)
02-19-2012 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Admin
02-19-2012 9:32 AM


Genomics writes:

We can test the front-loading hypothesis through several ways, two of which I will describe here:
1) The front-loading hypothesis predicts that 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. It predicts that 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.

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.

Genomics writes:

2) The front-loading hypothesis predicts that prokaryotic homologs of important eukaryotic/metazoan proteins will be more highly conserved in sequence identity than the average prokaryotic protein. This prediction makes sense from a rational design perspective because designing these prokaryotic homologs with functions that conserve their sequence identity will ensure that their 3D shapes will not be significantly changed by the blind watchmaker, preventing the appearance of eukaryotes (I realize that this prediction might sound a bit confusing – it’s past midnight where I am – so I’d be more than willing to elaborate on this).

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.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Admin, posted 02-19-2012 9:32 AM Admin has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 1:05 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33884
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 9 of 216 (653237)
02-19-2012 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Genomicus
02-19-2012 1:05 PM


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.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 1:05 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 1:43 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33884
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 11 of 216 (653242)
02-19-2012 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Genomicus
02-19-2012 1:43 PM


more just plain incorrect assertions.
All scientific hypotheses are based on an initial "assumption," that is, the premise. For example, Darwinian theory "assumes" that common descent has occurred; evidence is then found to support that idea.

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

The FLE model proposes that the course of evolution was planned to some degree and that the earth was seeded with advanced unicellular organisms; evidence could then be found to support that proposal.

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.

Of course that's what they imply because I was describing the front-loading hypothesis, a teleological hypothesis. I wasn't saying that those statements were necessarily true; I was saying that that is what the FLE model proposes.

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.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 1:43 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 2:21 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33884
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 15 of 216 (653246)
02-19-2012 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Genomicus
02-19-2012 2:21 PM


Re: more just plain incorrect assertions.
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.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 2:21 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 2:39 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33884
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 20 of 216 (653257)
02-19-2012 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Genomicus
02-19-2012 2:39 PM


Re: more just plain incorrect assertions.
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.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 2:39 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 3:44 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33884
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 24 of 216 (653264)
02-19-2012 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Genomicus
02-19-2012 3:44 PM


Re: more just plain incorrect assertions.
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.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 3:44 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 4:16 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33884
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 28 of 216 (653268)
02-19-2012 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Genomicus
02-19-2012 4:16 PM


Re: more just plain incorrect assertions.
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?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 4:16 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 5:01 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33884
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 35 of 216 (653279)
02-19-2012 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Genomicus
02-19-2012 5:01 PM


Re: more just plain incorrect assertions.
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 )


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 5:01 PM Genomicus has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33884
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 41 of 216 (653286)
02-19-2012 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dr Jack
02-19-2012 5:32 PM


Re: Miller on Front-Loading
It's not that there is a silent library, it's that the active genes guide life's evolution down a desired path.

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.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dr Jack, posted 02-19-2012 5:32 PM Dr Jack has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33884
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 71 of 216 (653477)
02-21-2012 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Trixie
02-21-2012 3:25 PM


Selection pressure
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.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Trixie, posted 02-21-2012 3:25 PM Trixie has seen this message

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33884
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 84 of 216 (653535)
02-22-2012 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Wounded King
02-22-2012 11:00 AM


Re: The best of error minimizing codes?
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.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Wounded King, posted 02-22-2012 11:00 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Wounded King, posted 02-23-2012 5:03 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33884
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 99 of 216 (653634)
02-23-2012 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Wounded King
02-23-2012 5:03 AM


Re: The best of error minimizing codes?
Does it go into how and why the standard code evolves over time?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Wounded King, posted 02-23-2012 5:03 AM Wounded King has seen this message

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33884
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 168 of 216 (654080)
02-26-2012 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Genomicus
02-26-2012 6:24 PM


Re: The Role Of Chance
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


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Genomicus, posted 02-26-2012 6:24 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Genomicus, posted 02-26-2012 6:36 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33884
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 170 of 216 (654082)
02-26-2012 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Genomicus
02-26-2012 6:36 PM


Re: The Role Of Chance
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.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Genomicus, posted 02-26-2012 6:36 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