Re: Of Martian Sculptures (was: Re: [asa] on science and meta-science)

Hi David,

"If one puts this idea together with the theological requirement that God foreknew and fore-ordained our individual souls, then this theory of biological front-loading fundamentally depends on some sort of theory of supervenience."

Not so. In fact, this is no more true of front-loading than it would be true to argue that the theological requirement that God foreknew and fore-ordained our individual souls means mainstream evolutionary theory or embryology depends on some sort of theory of supervenience. As I have explained before, God chose from an infinite set of possible realities and he chose to bring this particular one into existence precisely because it is our reality. Theologically speaking, it does not matter HOW we came into existence. However it happened, it had to happen that way because that is OUR history.

Everything is connected - so much so that this reality exists because of us.

"However, that is not why I don't believe in front loading. I don't understand how front loading itself can be supported by science."

In 2002, I posted the following:

"As for the second test, I already explained that the outcome of FLE is the thing in question. But logically, the best place to start, after positing that the original life forms were unicellular organisms seeded on this planet, would be to investigate whether such cells were front-loaded to evolve into multicellular organisms. So I'll put that hypothesis on the table."

and

"My perspective explores the possibility that unicellular organisms were designed in such a way that the evolution of multicellular organisms was made more likely."

Since that time, science has supported this hypothesis by finding multiple examples of gene products in protozoa which were once thought to be metazoan-specific. In 2005, a skeptical scientist showed up on a blog I used to post on to make the following claim:

"It seems to me that front-loading of genetic information makes the very strong prediction that we should find in the genomes of simple species remnants of genes whose functions are specific to complex species. If all of the genetic information to make vertebrates (for example) was front-loaded into the earliest bacterial species, followed by functional loss of information from the genomes of species that did not need particular genes, we should see remnants of at least some of those lost genes. Are there, for example, remnants of metazoan-specific genes found in the genomes of protozoa or bacteria? As far as I am aware, there are not. For instance, a search of genomes for a large class of metazoan-specific genes that encode tyrosine kinase receptors, a distinctly metazoan innovation (from the evolutionary perspective), reveals nothing in the way of related pseudogenes or gene remnants in any bacterial or protozoan genome. This is the sort of evidence that one would have to produce for the idea of front-loading to be taken seriously."

Yet that "distinctly metazoan innovation" predates the existence of metazoans:

http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2009/02/07/the-tyrosine-kinase-toolkit-sets-the-stage/

 It is worth noting the initial reaction of one of the lead scientists behind this discovery:

"It's amazing." King says. "We interpret that as evidence that some of the protein machinery for multicellularity actually evolved before the origin of animals, before multicellularity itself. The proteins predated their current function in animals."

And

"I was surprised to learn that so much of animal biology was in place before the origin of animals," King says. "And I think that's what motivates most scientists--not learning that you were right, but learning that you were wrong."

http://sciencematters.berkeley.edu/archives/volume2/issue17/story1.php

I was not surprised. That protein machinery for multicellularity actually evolved before the origin of animals is something I predicted from the hypothesis front-loading. It's no more suprising for FLE than also finding that the protein machinery for synapses actually evolved before the origin of synapses. :)

Mike

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David Clounch
  To: John Walley
  Cc: David Campbell ; AmericanScientificAffiliation
  Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 9:56 PM
  Subject: Re: Of Martian Sculptures (was: Re: [asa] on science and meta-science)

    I don't know about the others but my TE position of course assumes frontloading, aka, embedded design. I don't see how TE differs from DE otherwise. I know we have had endless discussions about randomness according to our criteria still allowing design to a transcendental Designer but there is no point in conceding that. It seems possible to me that the various groups of control genes may have been programmed to be expressed at certain intervals and that in conjunction with the enviroment and other random factors yielded the desired trajectory.

    I believe the history of life was a combination of randomness, i.e. endosymbiosis, chromosome fusion, etc. and some intentional unfolding of embedded design that was predestined to yield the basic classification system we have today.

  If one puts this idea together with the theological requirement that God foreknew and fore-ordained our individual souls, then this theory of biological front-loading fundamentally depends on some sort of theory of supervenience. Even if the particles had the built-in information allowing them to "unfold" in a timely manner in essentially what was a deterministic process (production of the trajectory) , alongside this was the co-evolution of the non-deterministic process of the mind and soul. The point is the latter does not require causal closure in a material sense.

  What bothers me a bit about the front-loading theory is the lack of the above mentioned theological requirement. That lack makes fron loading theologically unacceptable to me.

  However, that is not why I don't believe in front loading. I don't understand how front loading itself can be supported by science. The idea that meta-information was coded into the DNA of bacteria, and the existence of and the eventual expression of this meta-information as a non-meta-information? And this is the primary cause leading to the construction of higher organisms? Well, its a stretch. Everything I know of science says information devolves and entropy increases.

  But, if someone can publish a scientific theory that shows how an almost zero entropy was preserved over four billion years and produced various local minimas of entropy that we see in life forms, well, I am willing to try to maintain an open mind.

  Think of it though...the idea that the information in the human genome existed as meta-information within something that carried along with the bacterial DNA...is rather mind boggling.

  I have another reason as to why these notions can be construed as being anti-science, but I'll leave that for another day.

  Meanwhile, I will retain my skepticism while someone perhaps points me to scientific literature on this front loading idea.
   
  Thanks,
  Dave C

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.65/2503 - Release Date: 11/14/09 19:42:00

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 16 08:46:48 2009