The difference here, of course, is that one evolutionary trajectory is planned, while the other is simply the result of contingency.
Not true at all. Random mutations are anything but random. The mutations possible are constrained by the nature of the DNA molecules and their chemical and structural relationships to one another. Expectant mothers everywhere can rest assured that whatever horrible afflictions might plague their newborn, the child's carbon atoms being replaced by hydrogen atomsa truly random eventwill not be one of them.
The physical, biological, and chemical 'laws' of the Universe are pretty much the only predetermined biases in play. And they seem quite capable of keeping things in order on their own.
Note, however, that any supposed poor design must be thoroughly analyzed before concluding that no rational designer would have done it that way.
Of course not. There's no need to look for a designer under every rock. That'd be a foolish waste of time.
Precisely because a phylogenetic tree consisting of sub-optimal codes in basal lineages is not what we would expect under front-loading; we would expect a universal optimal genetic code (or several optimal genetic codes), not a phylogenetic tree of genetic codes like I describe above. I guess it's not quite accurate to say "that it does not exist is evidence in favor of the front-loading hypothesis." Better would be: that there is a universal optimal genetic code, instead of a phylogenetic tree of genetic codes (as I describe above), is evidence in favor of the front-loading hypothesis? Why? Because it is expected under the FLE model. We'd predict that the first designed genomes were highly optimized such that when complex life forms do appear on the scene, they don't have to cope with a sub-optimal code, which could even lead to their extinction.
What can be inferred about the nature of the supposed designer(s) based on this, and what can that add to our understanding of genesis?
Jon
Love your enemies!
™ Version 4.2
