|
Author
|
Topic: Front Loading
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 06. January 2003 15:47
Science is not just about collecting obscure facts. Science is also about constructing, testing, and applying scientific theories, particularly predictive theories. As I mentioned on Mike Gene’s thread, the phenomena called front loading (also called non-random biological design or directed design) raises serious theory construction issues for both ID and traditional biology. The purpose of this thread is to address the theory construction issue raised by front loading.
WHAT IS FRONT LOADING
The mathematical concept of front loading can be defined in terms of complexity (N/Nf) or improbability(Nf/N) and search processes. For simplicity in discussion let Nf=1. For a complexity of N, a random trial and error search will find the functional or teleological form in .5*N trials or cycles. Front loading or non-random search means that the functional or teleological form can be found in less than . 5*N trials.
If anyone has an alternative mathematical definition they are welcome to present it.
DO BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS EXHIBIT FRONT LOADING?
IMO, the existence of front loading or directed design on a massive scale is an obvious and easily observed phenomena of biological systems. Life forms routinely find very complex adaptations to the problems of survival very quickly.
IMO, it is a waste of time, but if anyone actually doubts that front loading occurs, we can discuss the subject. Unless someone has a good argument against it, I suggest we proceed on the assumption that front loading exists in biological systems.
Scientific determinism is the assumption that changes in nature are determined by or caused by laws of nature or deterministic causal relationships. The questions raised here are 1)what ‘type’ of deterministic law of nature are ASSUMED to govern the processes which generate biological designs and 2)what are the implications of the assumption for evolutionary biology and ID. The options to be considered are 1) biological design processes are controlled by permanent and universal laws and 2)biological design processes are controlled by dynamic and teleological laws of nature.
IF THE LAWS GOVERNING THE CREATION OF BIOLOGICAL DESIGN ARE PERMANENT AND UNIVERSAL
If the laws governing the creation of biological designs are permanent and universal (i.e. they have existed unchanged since the beginning of time) AND front loading exists at a high level, then the biological designs we observe today from elephants, wings to the Mona Lisa were partially pre-designed at or before the beginning of time. Given the existence of high levels of front loading and the assumption that design processes are governed by permanent and universal laws, then the religious ‘creationist’ views and the neo-Darwinian views are essentially the same. If anyone has an actual logical counter argument to the above I would be interested in hearing it.
BIOLOGICAL DESIGN GOVERNED BY DYNAMIC AND TELEOLOGICAL LAWS
The logical alternative to the above scenario is the assumption that the creation of biological design is controlled by ‘dynamic and teleological laws of nature’. In everyday terminology, the design generating processes changed or evolved in such a way that search processes can find adaptive or teleological solutions much faster than would happen by random search processes. [As defined here, a law of nature is dynamic and teleological if the form of the law change in the direction of improving the likelihood of achieving a goal or purpose such as survival.]
I do not believe anyone would question that biological design processes can and have evolved. I also don’t believe anyone would seriously doubt that the ‘redesign of biological design processes can and has produced front loading’. I will be glad to hear comments to the contrary.
THE IMPLICATIONS OF DYNAMIC AND TELEOLOGICAL LAWS FOR EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
If evolution and other biological design processes are controlled or determined by ‘dynamic and teleological laws’, then it would follow that a scientific theory of a biological change process would take the form of models of dynamic and teleological causal relationships.
Clearly no such models or theories exist in conventional biology, because the technical problems associated with such theories and models have not been solved. Since the available facts suggest a certain type of theory, and such no such theory exists, then it is obvious that no valid predictive theory of evolution exists.
THE IMPLICATIONS OF DYNAMIC AND TELEOLOGICAL LAWS FOR ID
If the laws governing biological design processes are assumed to be dynamic and teleological, then there are an unlimited number of ‘possible’ explanations for irreducible complexity, specified complexity, front loading etc.. The assumption that the laws governing design are dynamic and teleological would lend support to observations made by ID scientists regarding, but any suggestion that such observations could ‘infer an external designer’ would be invalid( except in the general sense that the existence of the world suggests a designer).
SUMMARY
As outlined above, it appears that both conventional ID and conventional evolutionary theory are based on the assumption that the laws governing biological design are permanent and universal. The permanent and universal law assumption does not appear to be produce a useful scientific interpretation of biological systems.
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 07. January 2003 03:27
So far the claim of existence of front loading remains unsupported although it is claimed to be obvious it would perhaps benefit from some actual evidence.
It seems so far obvious to me that front loading is NOT obvious or even self evident in nature. So it's not a matter of 'Unless someone has a good argument against it' but 'until someone has a good argument in favor of it'.
Perhaps Warren can provide us with some evidence? Proof by assertion never impressed me.
Looking forward to such evidence.
[ 07. January 2003, 03:30: Message edited by: Frances ]
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 07. January 2003 10:08
Frances,
The issue being discussed here is not front loading but the implications of front loading for the construction of scientific theories. The primary issue of concern here is the nature of the causal relationships controlling evolutionary/biological design processes. Are the causal relationships or laws of nature controlling evolution/biological design 1)permanent and universal, 2)dynamic and teleological (as I propose) or 3)some other form.
You question, suggests you are primarily interested in the implications of front loading related to conventional science which limits you to the assumption that the laws governing biological design are permanent and universal. If the laws governing biological design processes are permanent and universal, if the ‘program controlling life does not and has not changed’, then logically, any adaptive change that is not produced or calculated by the design process must have been front loaded at the beginning of time. If you accept the permanent and universal assumption, then you also accept the assumption that any biological design not produced by the permanent and universal processes must have been front loaded at the beginning of time.
Existing scientific conventions suggest that in constructing a scientific theory of evolutionary or biological design processes we must start with the ASSUMPTION that the natural laws governing change are permanent and universal. Conventional science does not provide techniques for applying the scientific paradigm using theories constructed from any other type of assumption. [This does not mean that the paradigm can not be applied to theories constructed from other types of assumptions.]
Using the permanent and universal law assumption, it is possible to construct two different types of theories. The first type of theory is a descriptive or pre-scientific theory. Such a theory has the general form " Factors X and Y may in some way be associated with the process Z". The second type of theory which can be called a predictive, testable, hard science theory has the form "Under ideal conditions, some function F of factors X and Y define and predict process Z".
Given the above background, we can now ask two key questions:
1. What claim are you, Frances, making with respect to RM&NS as an explanation of evolution? Are you making the claim that RM&NS is a descriptive theory, are you making the claim that RM&NS is a valid predictive theory, or are you making some other type of claim?
2. What is the basis for your claim? Do you claim to have direct knowledge of the information supporting your claim, are your claims based on reliance on some identifiable reviewable source, or is there some other basis for your claim?
If your position is that "RM&NS is a predictive scientific theory", then I can site as examples of front loading relative to your claim, 1)the evolution of evolutionary processes, 2)the ‘adaptive’ re-growing of leaves on trees each spring, and 3)the Mona Lisa.
SUMMARY
Front loading in biological design processes, which might also be called ‘non-random design’, ‘learning to learn’ or ‘the evolution of evolutionary processes’, despite Frances doubts, is a common phenomena in biological systems. The phenomena is interesting with respect to constructing scientific theories because of the current scientific convention of assuming that real world processes are controlled by permanent and universal laws. Any predictive theory of biological design constructed using the permanent and universal assumption, suggests that design not explained by the proposed theory is explained by front loading which must logically have occurred at the beginning of time.
The obvious and rational conclusion from this analysis is that biological design processes, including evolutionary processes can not be explained in terms of permanent and universal laws. The obvious and rational conclusion, I suggest, is that it is appropriate to assume biological design processes are controlled by dynamic and teleological laws or causal relationships, and to develop theories and apply the scientific paradigm accordingly. This is the positive implications of front loading.
As a secondary application, front loading analysis can be used to examine the claims made by or beliefs held by people like yourself with respect to theories like RM&NS. If as outlined above, the belief that RM&NS is a predictive theory leads logically to scientifically unsound conclusions, what is the basis for justifying the belief. Is the belief based on blind conformity to peer beliefs or some other ‘design process".
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 07. January 2003 11:20
May I point out that despite claims of obviousness, Warren has yet to show any evidence of front loading in biology relevant to the discussions. Front loading btw is for all practical purposes indistinguishable from natural processes.
I will be awaiting Warren's evidence of front loading.
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 07. January 2003 12:26
It may be easier to visualize the issue being discussed here if we start with the construction of theories rather than starting with front loading. The logic of the argument being presented is as follows:
1. Based on currently accepted conventions, essentially all predictive scientific theories, including theories of evolution and biological design, are based on the assumption that the laws or causal relationships governing the processes being analyzed are permanent and universal.
2. Design processes, of which evolutionary change in an example, can be described or defined mathematically as search processes. If a design process is successful is producing or finding a design, and if it is assumed that the design process does not change( is permanent and universal) over the period studied, then the production of the design is entirely the product of 1)the design process or program and 2)conditions existing at the beginning of the design process(called front loading).
3. If you define or construct a model or theory of a design process using the permanent and universal assumption then the observed design must logically be entirely the result of 1)the defined process and 2)the front loading that existed at the beginning of the period being modeled. Using the permanent and universal assumption, this would be the beginning of time.
4. If a model or theory based on the permanent and universal theory is incomplete or inadequacy, then the incompleteness would logically imply that the observed result was due to front loading at the beginning of time. From a scientific perspective, this is not a reasonable or appropriate conclusion.
5. CONCLUSION- The permanent and universal assumption is inappropriate or flawed. Since essentially all life science theories are based on the permanent and universal assumption, essentially all life science theories are potentially flawed.
The above argument defines an apparent paradox. This is an ‘apparent’ paradox because the permanent and universal law assumption is not the only form of scientific determinism that can be used in applying the scientific paradigm. The issue being discussed here is an apparent paradox or logical flaw in the way the scientific paradigm is applied in the life sciences.
Frances,
I started this thread in part because you suggested you might be interested in discussing the impact of front loading on theory construction. The evolution of evolutionary processes is a well documented example of front loading relative to RM&NS.
Making inappropriate demands for information, refusing to accept or recognize relevant information when it is provided, and most important, failure to state your position and arguments is not discussion. You on numerous occasions have expressed the opinion or believe that RM&NS is a valid scientific theory which explains evolutionary change. As discussed, such a claim is not compatible with the current convention that scientific theories describe permanent and universal causal relationships.
It is certainly your prerogative not to discuss or explain the apparent inconsistencies in the opinions you express. It is not, at least in my opinion, appropriate to suggest that the comments you have posted in any way constitute an effort to either discuss the topic of this thread or in any way counter any of the arguments presented.
[ 07. January 2003, 14:37: Message edited by: warren_bergerson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Nel
Member
Member # 614
|
posted 07. January 2003 19:11
I've noticed that evidence of front-loading come from several areas:
More recently, cytosine deamination. That C-T transition increase hydrophobicity and removes helix breakers. And, hydrophobicity plays a large role in protein folding and structure. The ID implications for protein evolution are profound.
The degradosome as a machine that is poised to function in three different contexts, leading to a prediction about the function of enolase.
That the existence of H1 in protozoa may best be explained by the existence of H1 in metazoans.
Etc. Etc.
However, I have been thinking along this line a while back, about if the front-loading concept would be just as evident , if not more evident, in development. For example, Majorie Grene in "Time and Teleology", cited in Neil Broom's book "How Blind is the Watchmaker", shows that in some animals amputation of part of the organ results in reformation of the organ from a tissue that is not involved in the generation of the original organ. Or perhaps even in studies of Pax-6, how eye genes have been front-loaded for seeing. Yes? Maybe? No?
[ 07. January 2003, 19:11: Message edited by: nanosoliton ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 07. January 2003 23:01
Dear Nanosolution,
I have yet to see evidence of actual front loading . Certainly teleological assumptions themselves do not make for very convincing arguments of front loading. In fact all these examples of 'front loading' have played out through, no surprise there, natural, evolutionary mechanisms.
Even Mike Gene seems to accept that the evidence for front loading seems to be lacking so far. In fact I would argue, ala Murray that front loading and methodological naturalism are indistinguishable.
Warren continues his series of unsupported assertions such as quote:
The evolution of evolutionary processes is a well documented example of front loading relative to RM&NS.
I would say that this is quite begging the question. In fact I would argue that this shows that front loading can be fully natural and non-teleological.
I understand that you may be somewhat frustrated by my 'Making inappropriate demands for information' but you yourself invited discussion of front loading and its existence in biology. I will understand of course if you are willing to drop your so far unsupported assertions or otherwise I will be looking forward to you providing some supporting evidence.
If there is any 'relevant information' which you believe I 'refuse to accept or recognize' then please provide some examples. If you want to distract by raising issues related to RM&NS then I suggest you start a different thread and use this thread to elaborate on your speculative comments.
Looking forward to you supporting your claims, after all if they are so obvious...
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 08. January 2003 09:35
Nelson,
You list two examples which are relevant to the issue of front loading. I think the developmental example is particularly interesting. The developmental processes illustrate that while traditional theory suggests the form of an organisms is front loaded in genetic material, the actual evidence suggests there must be dynamic design or redesign processes operating during the developmental process.
Anyone who has worded in modeling knows that it takes a great deal of ‘front loaded’ information to generate a developmental process under controlled conditions. The amount and complexity of information needed increases rapidly if the developmental process is to occur under uncontrolled or changing conditions. The amount of front loaded information increases exponentially if the front loaded information needs to account for multiple contingencies or paths.
Rather than front load information to deal with all possible contingencies, the practical solution to the problem of development under uncontrolled conditions is to introduce feedback or ‘redesign processes’ which continuously modify the design to adjust for changing conditions. There seems little doubt that the survival of organisms depends heavily on such teleological redesign mechanisms.
If as seems obvious, developmental processes involve feedback or teleological redesign processes, then it seems equally possible that such processes can change (the processes are dynamic) and changes in the redesign processes can and do produce changes in the form of the organisms. In my terminology, the evidence suggests that 1)the form or phenotype of an organism is determined by assembly instructions which are dynamic(changeable) and teleological (associated with improving an organisms chances of survival), 2)the assembly instructions are continuously modified or redesigned by within life time design processes which are dynamic and teleological, and 3)the within lifetime design processes are redesigned by higher level processes which are also dynamic and teleological.
Getting back to the original point of this thread, design or changes in design are produced by 1)a design processes and 2)front loading. Any portion of a design change not attributable to a design process is attributable to front loading. If in developing a model, theory or explanation of a design change you place undue or inappropriate constraints on design processes, then you are placing undue or inappropriate reliance on front loading to explain the design change.
By the conventions currently used in the life sciences, essentially all scientific theories are constructed using the permanent and universal interpretation of the scientific determinism principle. This means that any existing design process theory, which would include any evolutionary theory, assumes that the laws or causal relationships governing the design process are permanent and universal.
It is difficult, impractical, and not very useful to describe, define or model a dynamic and teleological process as a permanent and universal process. Given the available evidence, it appears obvious that evolution is a dynamic and purposeful(it increases the likelihood of survival) process. It would be difficult, impractical, and not very useful to describe, define or model evolution or any complex biological design process in terms of permanent and universal processes. But using existing conventions, it is only possible to develop theories based on permanent and universal processes.
Many academics like Frances appear to make the claim that there currently exist valid scientific theories of evolution. Despite the fact that the claims appear to be widely accepted as valid, the fact that such theories would have to rely on permanent and universal processes makes the claims highly questionable. [It is interesting to note that the widespread acceptance of a ‘obviously false belief’ by a group of ‘intelligent professionals’ is not an uncommon human phenomena. ]
Thanks for bringing up a useful and well documented example of front loading. Development is an example of a process where the theory suggests that the design is front loaded, but the evidence suggests the existence of a design process.
Frances,
Are you suggesting front loading doesn’t exist? As Nelson’s example points out, front loading is a central part of any attempt to develop evolutionary theory.
Quote WB: The evolution of evolutionary processes is a well documented example of front loading relative to RM&NS.
Quote Frances: I would say that this is quite begging the question. In fact I would argue that this shows that front loading can be fully natural and non-teleological.
Your comments suggest you don’t understand the concepts and terminology being used. Since your interpretations/understandings are probably close to the interpretations/understandings of many of the readers here, a bit of elementary education might be in order.
The basic or starting point RM&NS theory states that evolutionary change occurs as the result of random variation and natural selection. Since all conventional life science theories are constructed based on the assumption of permanent and universal causal relationships, the starting point theory suggests/predicts that RM&NS would be the same everywhere and always.
Although at one time highly controversial, it now accepted that evolutionary processes can and have changed over time. It is also generally known or recognized that changes in evolutionary processes which increase the chances of survival are more likely to survive than changes in processes which reduce the chances of survival. We therefore know that evolutionary processes are both dynamic(they change) and teleological(changes are associated with a goal or purpose.) From these known or accepted facts, we conclude that there are features front loaded into today’s evolutionary processes which increase the probability of evolutionary change achieving the goal of survival.
There is no question here of natural versus unnatural change. The question here is the ability of models or theories to explain change. Because it must be based on the permanent and universal assumption or interpretation, the basic RM&NS model clearly can not and does not predict or explain evolutionary change of evolutionary processes. While it might be possible to develop a new form of RM&NS (still using the permanent and universal interpretation) which incorporates the evolution of evolutionary processes, no one appears to have actually attempted to produce such a theory (For the obvious reason that it will have the same flaw as the basic RM&NS theory.).
You have been provided examples of both 1)teleological front loading where the basic evolutionary theory says it should not occur(evolution of evolution) and 2)lack of teleological front loading where the basic theories say it should exist(developmental processes).
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 08. January 2003 10:38
An aside -
Frances: Even Mike Gene seems to accept that the evidence for front loading seems to be lacking so far.
What I said is that discussions about "evidence" are rather complicated (often entail miscommunication because of lack of shared definitions, concepts, and background notions) and I don't want to get distracted by a "my position vs. your position" argument at the moment. In this case, for example, we can see that the "evidence" you want is something that is not natural.
I would like to ask you to refrain from the "even Mike Gene says/believes" comments, which often filter my views through your perceptions. Instead, if you feel it is important to refer to me, simply provide the relevant quote/link.
[ 08. January 2003, 10:39: Message edited by: Mike Gene ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 08. January 2003 12:36
Warren
quote:
Are you suggesting front loading doesn’t exist? As Nelson’s example points out, front loading is a central part of any attempt to develop evolutionary theory.
Nelson has done no such thing. His example does not establish front loading as existing in biology.
Some corrections to Warren's arguments
quote:
the starting point theory suggests/predicts that RM&NS would be the same everywhere and always.
Nope, RM&NS only comes into play once an imperfect replicator has arisen.
quote:
Although at one time highly controversial, it now accepted that evolutionary processes can and have changed over time.
There is no controversy over the fact that there are many mechanisms of evolution, lateral gene transfer, neutral drift, genetic drift, RM&NS.
and the very common misconception
quote:
We therefore know that evolutionary processes are both dynamic(they change) and teleological(changes are associated with a goal or purpose.)
There is no goal or purpose in evolutionary processes. This is a common and basic misunderstanding of the processes of evolution.
So far may I point out to the interested reader, Warren has failed several times to back up his claims with any supporting data.
So far we have seen some assertions about teleology in biology which seem to be based mainly on a misunderstanding of the processes of evolution. While such misunderstanding is in fact relatively common it should not be used as evidence of teleology or front-loading.
quote:
While it might be possible to develop a new form of RM&NS (still using the permanent and universal interpretation) which incorporates the evolution of evolutionary processes, no one appears to have actually attempted to produce such a theory (For the obvious reason that it will have the same flaw as the basic RM&NS theory.).
Begging the question. No flaws of the RM&NS theory have really been identified beyond the statement that there are more mechanisms. Perhaps it would be helpful to familiarize oneself with the present thinking on evolutionary mechanisms before one makes such generalized and erroneous claims about such basic concepts.
Warren, I understand your arguments and I also realize that they are based on what I believe to be shakey evidentiary grounds hence my request for supporting evidence.
Mike:
I apologize if me paraphrasing you led to some distress on your part. You seem to still be somewhat confused about my requests/arguments in this area. I am not asking for unnatural evidence, I am asking for evidence that will distinguish front loading from methodological naturalism. You seem to suggest that your approaches are unique to ID but so far I would say that your approaches are for all practical purposes non distinguishable from methodological naturalism.
My statement was that In fact I would argue that this shows that front loading can be fully natural and non-teleological. If there is any evidence of teleological/natural mechanisms one will have to address the teleology part.
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 08. January 2003 12:49
Warren
quote:
Are you suggesting front loading doesn’t exist? As Nelson’s example points out, front loading is a central part of any attempt to develop evolutionary theory.
Nelson has done no such thing. His example does not establish front loading as existing in biology.
Some corrections to Warren's arguments
quote:
the starting point theory suggests/predicts that RM&NS would be the same everywhere and always.
Nope, RM&NS only comes into play once an imperfect replicator has arisen.
quote:
Although at one time highly controversial, it now accepted that evolutionary processes can and have changed over time.
There is no controversy over the fact that there are many mechanisms of evolution, lateral gene transfer, neutral drift, genetic drift, RM&NS.
and the very common misconception
quote:
We therefore know that evolutionary processes are both dynamic(they change) and teleological(changes are associated with a goal or purpose.)
There is no goal or purpose in evolutionary processes. This is a common and basic misunderstanding of the processes of evolution.
So far may I point out to the interested reader, Warren has failed several times to back up his claims with any supporting data.
So far we have seen some assertions about teleology in biology which seem to be based mainly on a misunderstanding of the processes of evolution. While such misunderstanding is in fact relatively common it should not be used as evidence of teleology or front-loading.
quote:
While it might be possible to develop a new form of RM&NS (still using the permanent and universal interpretation) which incorporates the evolution of evolutionary processes, no one appears to have actually attempted to produce such a theory (For the obvious reason that it will have the same flaw as the basic RM&NS theory.).
Begging the question. No flaws of the RM&NS theory have really been identified beyond the statement that there are more mechanisms. Perhaps it would be helpful to familiarize oneself with the present thinking on evolutionary mechanisms before one makes such generalized and erroneous claims about such basic concepts.
Warren, I understand your arguments and I also realize that they are based on what I believe to be shakey evidentiary grounds hence my request for supporting evidence.
Mike:
I apologize if me paraphrasing you led to some distress on your part. You seem to still be somewhat confused about my requests/arguments in this area. I am not asking for unnatural evidence, I am asking for evidence that will distinguish front loading from methodological naturalism. You seem to suggest that your approaches are unique to ID but so far I would say that your approaches are for all practical purposes non distinguishable from methodological naturalism.
My statement was that In fact I would argue that this shows that front loading can be fully natural and non-teleological. If there is any evidence of teleological/natural mechanisms one will have to address the teleology part.
IP: Logged
|
|
Nel
Member
Member # 614
|
posted 08. January 2003 19:01
Frances:
I have yet to see evidence of actual front loading .
Nelson:
Ok then, I look forward to a reply that specifically addresses the following (I hope this is ok with the moderator):
I am going to forego discussion of IHE and C-T transition as they are here for all to see, however, I'll summarize some of the topics discussed elsewhere.
I will discuss one specific area at a time and see if we can at least get some descent discussion concerning all these areas of front loading. If so I want full credit for this thread (just kidding).
In this paper: Cell 100: 1-11, 2000, which Mike Gene discussed on his website, Morris states:
Speaking of sponges:
quote:
their biochemistry includes elements that seem to foreshadow the immune system of vertebrates. Sponges do not have nerve cells, but paradoxically they possess neuronal-like receptors….With such features, sponges seem to be almost "animals in waiting": everything is in place but nothing happens.
and
quote:
the diversity of life is, in molecular terms, little more than skin deep. Most, perhaps all, of the basic building blocks necessary for organismal complexity were available long before the emergence of multicellularity.
And here is Morris' most provactive statement:
quote:
Just as phenotypic diversity of life excites the imagination of the naturalist, so the range of molecules and the sophistication of their biochemistries impress the molecular biologist. In comparison, the underlying constraints on form and the inevitability of convergences have received less emphasis. Why should this be so? There seems to be two reasons. The first is that if evolution is in some sense channeled, then this reopens the controversial prospect of teleology; that is, the process is underpinned by a purpose.
Conway Morris then cites Michael Denton's book. In one example that Denton spoke of, was the Lobster eye, that may go along with my discussion of eyes. Lobster eyes are a perfect square. These squares are needed for reflection. The light reflects off these perfect squares which enable it to take all the incoming reflected light and perfectly target them all on a single point on the retina. Imagine how the units in some transitional eye, halfway between a hexagon and a square and between a lens, and a reflecting surface. Moreover, because reflecting eyes can only focus an image if the optics of the system are just right: the units must be perfect squares.
Why would these creatures take an extremely dangerous road from refraction to reflection when it's eyes are functioning quite well as they are? Maybe these organisms were endowed with the ability to do so, which is also front-loading.
Teleological assumptions are no different then naturalistic assumptions in their utility. Both Darwinian evolutionists and ID theorists use assumptions in their inferences. To say that ID theorists can't do this is using a double standard. However, in my post, I didn't mention many assumptions except for possibly the last paragraph of my post. I mentioned specific instances in areas of microbiology and development that may point to front-loading.
I do agree that in some instances, RM&NS is indistinguishable from front-loading, but that also means that front-loading is indistinugishable from RM&NS. As a teleologist I wouldn't mind this at all, and probably wouldn't care, if I am interested in furthering the ID concept rather than the naturalistic one, that is certainly my perogative. After all, so many evolutionists complain that all IDers do is attack evolution, when IDers don't attack evolution, evolutionists complain that they are not attacking evolution. I find that quite fascinating. If after 100 years of research and millions of scientific papers all you can point to is that front-loading is indistinushable from the RM&NS hypothesis then I think ID is already off to a good start in this area.
I'm not going to speak for anyone else but I happen to go along with the hypothesis that evolutionary mechanisms were themselves intelligently designed. Moreover, what front-loading accentuates is foresight, this is the anti-thesis of methodological naturalistic thinking. Look at it this way, naturalistic thinking emphasizes that natural processes are working on past-usefulness. Whereas, these front-loading ideas emphasize that the designer is using principles that work on future-usefulness. That I would incorporate cytosine, despite the fact that it is predisposed to deamination, in order to essentially "force" protein evolution is future-based thinking.
I don't think Mike Gene said that the evidence is lacking for front-loading, however, he is here and can (and has) spoken for himself on the subject and I'll leave it at that. For anyone interested in his views on evidence in general , here is a good place to start:
http://www.idthink.net/back/evid/index.html
[ 08. January 2003, 19:30: Message edited by: Nelson_Alonso ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 08. January 2003 21:13
Frances,
I can assure you that I suffered no distress over your paraphrase. Yes, I am somewhat confused by your persistent demands for "evidence." For example, you ask me for evidence that distinguishes between front loading and methodological naturalism. But front-loading is a particular view of ontology while methodological naturalism is a particular form of epistemology. Your request is thus inherently confusing. You claim you are not asking for unnatural evidence, yet your problem with evidence for front loading is "all these examples of 'front loading' have played out through, no surprise there, natural, evolutionary mechanisms." Why is this a relevant observation? Of course front loaded evolution is going to play out by natural evolutionary mechanisms. The only way to make sense of your observation is to conclude you want something other than "natural evolutionary mechanisms." Ergo - unnatural evidence.
You assert my approach is indistinguishable for methodological naturalism (MN). If that is true, I would like you to account for a fact.
Non-teleologists argued, in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, that no engineer would have included cytosine in the DNA. This is a fact.
Now, please name one person in the entire global MN community who objected to this argument and tackled it head on.
We can proceed from there.
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 09. January 2003 00:17
Dear Mike
quote:
Now, please name one person in the entire global MN community who objected to this argument (that no engineer would have included cytosine in the DNA) and tackled it head on.
I fail to see the relevance, you have not shown that engineers would not have included cytosine, you have merely shown that evolution has made the best of a situation which causes many problems for the organism. But cytosine may have been the best available at the time. I am not sure how you are going to address the claim that an engineer would have done it this way since as far as I can tell your argument does not rely really on this detail.
In fact your findings seem to be similar to the findings in the mainstream literature.
Nelson:
I appreciate your quote of Morris but you may have missed the relevant part of his argument although it was raised in this thread
Charlie D wrote
quote:
This, however, is a distorted view. First, many of the basic building blocks and processes found in the metazoans are very widespread among eukaryotes and must have originated much earlier than the first animals. Second, sponges are well adapted, abundant, and diverse. They are highly organized, capable of coordinated response, and despite the relative simplicity of their bodyplan, some sponges demonstrate a radical reorganization concomitant with a shift to carnivory.
[/qb]
There is a big difference between noting that teleology under certain circumstances may have played a role and actual evidence for such front loading.
Thus when I ask for evidence of front loading, it seems not very helpful that you point out that front loading may exist.
And your comment about the eyes of the lobster seem to be relying on outdated information. I found much of such information on a variety of websites all referencing Sarfati.
What is the reality of eye evolution? Your question Why would these creatures take an extremely dangerous road from refraction to reflection when it's eyes are functioning quite well as they are? seems to have turned the world upside down. Present theory and evidence suggests that refracting and reflecting eyes both evolved from a common ancestor.
Pax6:
[quote]
Our work on Pax6 as a master control gene for eyemorphogenesis and the implications for eye evolution have been summarized for Trends in Genetics (Gehring & Ikeo, 1999). Pax genes from various animal phyla are capable of inducing ectopic eye morphogenesis, indicating that Pax6 is a master control gene for eye development. It is proposed that contrary to the dogma, the various eye-types found in metazoa, are derived monophyletically, from a common prototype. In order to explain the evolution of the different types of eyes, we have advanced the hypothesis that different genes are intercalated into the prototypic eye developmental pathway in the various animal phyla.
See Gehring, W.J., and Ikeo, K.: Pax 6. Mastering eye morphogenesis and eye evolution. Trends in Genetics 15, 371-377 (1999).
A helpful website shows some of the (tentative) details. See also this Powerpoint presentation
There is a wealth of research out there far more recent and relevant than the ones found relating to the 'problems of eye evolution and the lobster'
Not everyone agrees with the monophyletic origins of the eye, Russell D Fernald in Evolution of eyes describes his scenarios.
or Molecular phylogenetic evidence for the independent evolutionary origin of an arthropod compound eye by Todd H. Oakley and Clifford W. Cunningham.
This website discusses some of the ideas
[ 09. January 2003, 00:33: Message edited by: Frances ]
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 09. January 2003 08:07
It might be useful to repeat that the topic of this thread is the relationship between front loading and theory construction. The ‘permanent and universal’ law assumption which is used in constructing all conventional evolutionary theories imposes severe restrictions on front loading.
By mathematical definition, a design or design change between T=0 and T=1 is the result of 1)the design process operating during the interval and 2)the front loading existing time T=0. If you construct a scientific theory using the permanent and universal law assumption, and this is the only approach currently recognized in any of the life sciences, then you not only specify the operation of the design process, but you also implicitly impose requirements on front loading.
If you construct a theory asserting that evolution is the product of random mutation and natural selection, then you also assert that the front loading applicable to this design process does not change in any systematic manner. In other words, the permanent and universal assumption combined with the RM&NS theory predicts or demands that the evolution of evolutionary processes can not occur.
Similarly, the genotype to phenotype mapping which is part of neo-Darwinian theory, combined with the permanent and universal assumption, requires that the developmental processes which transform genetic code into full grown organisms must rely entirely on front loading. The permanent and universal assumption does not allow the possibility of 1)within life time design processes operating during the development process, nor 2)does it permit the possibility that these developmental processes could change or evolve.
The confusion and conflict arises here because 1)scientists have clearly abandoned the permanent and universal assumption when interpreting data, but 2)equally clearly, scientists have not abandoned the assumption in constructing theories because there is currently no alternative available. This transition in scientific thinking explains in part why academics like Frances make claims for the existence of valid scientific theories of evolution when no such theories can be produced.
I think Mike Gene went a long ways in explaining Frances’ request on the one hand for evidence, and on the other hand his refusal to recognize the validity of the evidence provided. Frances is operating on the assumption that any known and recognized piece of evidence must be incorporated into existing theory. If, this assumption suggests, a phenomena such as front loading contradicts evolutionary theory, then such a conclusion must be based on evidence with which the scientific community is not currently familiar.
Biological design concepts provide, IMO, an interesting and potentially very productive approach to the analysis of the complex, dynamic and purposeful features of life forms. It is, IMO, unfortunate that this useful approach must waste so much time and effort addressing the gap between evidence and theory in evolutionary biology.
It might also be useful to add that the ‘positive’ theme or proposal in this thread is possibility of constructing scientific theories based ‘dynamic and teleological’ laws rather than on ‘permanent and universal’ laws.
[ 09. January 2003, 08:43: Message edited by: warren_bergerson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic