Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
79 online now:
dwise1, jar, Tanypteryx (3 members, 76 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,162 Year: 4,274/6,534 Month: 488/900 Week: 12/182 Day: 12/28 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An ID hypothesis: Front-loaded Evolution
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 216 (653387)
02-20-2012 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Genomicus
02-19-2012 5:43 AM


Arguing that the sub-optimal codes once did exist early in life’s history, but vanished once the optimal codes came on the scene (i.e., that they were outcompeted), looks awfully ad hoc.

Wait, why? Isn't that exactly what is expected to have happened?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 5:43 AM Genomicus has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Omnivorous, posted 02-20-2012 8:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 216 (653459)
02-21-2012 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Genomicus
02-20-2012 10:24 PM


Actually, the capacity for eye development is encoded at the root of the phylogenetic tree of life. Pax6 is a gene involved in eye development, for example. When you BLAST (blastp; default search parameters) the protein encoded by Pax6 (accession number: P63015) against the domain Prokaryota, you get significant hits (E-values < 1e-05). A PSI-BLAST search would almost certainly uncover hits with even greater significance. This suggests that eyes (and other major organs in Metazoa) were anticipated by the first genomes.

But with the ToE, we wouldn't expect a gene to come about from nothing. Its going to have to be a modification of a previous gene. Your evidence is consistent with the ToE so it doesn't suggest front-loading over it.

I have a hypothesis that gravity is caused by little invisible angels dancing on top of everything. If I let go of a ball, and it falls to floor, then that suggests that there are little invisible angels dancing on everything, right?

This is from my Message 61:

quote:
Arguing that the sub-optimal codes once did exist early in life’s history, but vanished once the optimal codes came on the scene (i.e., that they were outcompeted), looks awfully ad hoc.

Wait, why? Isn't that exactly what is expected to have happened?

I'm still wondering why you call that "ad hoc" and why you think it is.

Further, I don't see any reason or evidence to think that some ancient aliens seeded our planet*. What you've got is the idea that something like that happened, and then you're looking for evidence that would be consistent with that happening. You can do that all day, but if that same evidence is consistent with a better idea, then that idea's gonna stay on top until you overturn it. A better approach would be trying to prove that front-loading did NOT happen. What would you expect to find if there was no front-loading and can you find that?

*The only reason I can think of to introduce front-loading would be to leave room for introducing god into the equation. What other reason is there?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Genomicus, posted 02-20-2012 10:24 PM Genomicus has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 216 (653460)
02-21-2012 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Omnivorous
02-20-2012 8:32 PM


Re: Presto!
Thanks for the kudos, Omni. I hope Geno explains himself.

Oh, and if you're getting me a cigar, please take all the tobacco out of it and replace it with weed. Thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Omnivorous, posted 02-20-2012 8:32 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Omnivorous, posted 02-21-2012 3:13 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022