"Since the design of the first cells entailed the propagation of design through reproducing entities, and reproduction entails evolution, a truly intelligent designer would anticipate evolution. ... Front-loading is the investment of a significant amount of information at the initial stage of evolution (the first life forms) whereby this information shapes and constrains subsequent evolution through its dissipation. This is not to say that every aspect of evolution is pre-programmed and determined. It merely means that life was built to evolve with tendencies as a consequence of carefully chose initial states in combination with the way evolution works. ...
"Front-loading, by definition, is about designing the future through the present. It is about imposing some kind of constraint on evolution, or more simply put, it is using evolution to carry out design objectives."
I want to draw your attention to the bold type. "...using evolution to carry out design objectives." What does it mean to "use evolution"?
IMO, this entails engineering-like knowledge. Engineers need to have extensive and detailed knowledge of the materials they are working with along with the relevant mechanisms involved. In FLE, this means the designer requires the same knowledge with regards to the materials of life and evolutionary mechanisms.
FLE implies that the designer utilised this knowledge in the design of the first life form to map out probable outcomes based on how the evolutionary mechanisms would affect the life form and its descendants. However, a caveat is required:
"This is not to say that every aspect of evolution is pre-programmed and determined. It merely means that life was built to evolve with tendencies as a consequence of carfully chosen initial states in combination with [evolutionary mechanisms]."
Mike Gene, Chapter 7, The Design Matrix
Now, I shall attempt to expand upon the FLE hypothesis. Thanks to a commenter at Telic Thoughts (TT), I shall call this the "engineering hypothesis" (but I get 100% of the royalties once I trademark it).
In my first TT post, Common Descent & Common Design - An Unexpected Outcome, I wrote how I found it unexpected, yet reasonable, that through the lens of FLE that the differences between common descent and common design evaporate and that common descent would be a design preference for the designer. Using evolutionary mechanisms to do the work through time is using the available energy and materials in an efficient manner. Why re-invent when one can "borrow" from previous designs? This also limits the amount of interventions by the designer to a minimum. To clear any confusion and misunderstanding, common design used in this fashion is different than what is used by human engineers in that it is front-loaded in the first designed life form rather than inserted at various times.
One commenter stated:
"...JJS seems perilously close to admitting he expects no detectable differences between the process in his engineering hypothesis and the process currently accepted by biologists."
There is a big difference. The "engineering hypothesis" implies the currently accepted processes, while valid for accounting for the variation of biological organisms, are not sufficient to start life. Thus, the process in the "engineering hypothesis" differs from the currently accepted process at the beginning of the process.
I should state that this is not a scientific way to detect design in nature, but merely an expansion of an origin of life hypothesis, of which there are many. I hope to be able to expand upon this in future posts, both here and at TT.
Even at the origins of life, FLE is indistinguishable from processes "currently accepted by biologists". Which makes it pretty much an irrelevancy, an exercise in imagination that tells us nothing about life.
ReplyDeleteJJS, ask me why or how, and I'll elaborate.
*pops the popcorn, melts the butter, gets a beer out of the fridge, getting comfy on the sofa*
ReplyDeleteAlright, I'll bite. Please elaborate.
The requirements for co-evolution of obligate mutualism (i.e., total co-dependence of two different kinds of organisms, e.g., bees and flowering plants) are a problem for front-loaded evolution as well as Darwinian evolution. In such co-evolution, unlike in evolutionary adaptation to widespread fixed physical or quasi-physical (e;g., forests) features of the environment, e.g., air, land in its different forms, and water in its different forms, there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism is likely to be locally absent. Even where the co-evolution of obligate mutualism can be gradual, the gradual changes must exist in both organisms at the same time and place in order to be mutually reinforcing. Often co-dependent organisms can interact only in large numbers, making it necessary for large numbers of both kinds of organisms to suddenly appear at the same time and place. Hence, in front-loaded evolution of obligate mutualism, it may be necessary to trigger the changes in both organisms at the same time and place. The evolution of extremely complex parasitic relationships -- including multiple-host relationships -- can also be a problem. Co-evolution is discussed in the "Non-ID criticisms of evolution" post-label group of articles on my blog.
ReplyDeleteHi, sorry I'm so slow in getting back to this.
ReplyDeleteAs for FLE being indistinguishable from processes "currently accepted by biologists", it's really very simple. One might hypothesize that, in an FLE scenario, some primordial organism possessed genes capable of encoding all proteins we see in the biosphere today. Now, what if there are some limits to the extents that new proteins may originate. Then the primordial genome must have been large enough to get to where we are today. Given the rate with which new protein-coding genes seem to be discovered (with all the caveats Ian Musgrave and others, including yours truly, have added to this topic), this means the primordial genome must have been large - truly, stupendously enormous, once one considers that we really have only scratched the surface of the genome of the biosphere. This is a nice idea, but it really flies in the face of everything we know about ancient life. And I suspect that the adherents of FLE would reject this possibility, because genomes orders or magnitude (10, 20, or more) larger than the largest we see today are but fantasy.
So the alternative is that new protein function can evolve, that a small number of primordial proteins could have evolved, and continue to evolve, into the vast array of functions we see today. In FLE parlance, this is tantamount to "front-loading" remarkable evolvability into something such as the nature of the chemistry of life. This renders FLE indistinguishable from processes "currently accepted by biologists".
(Before you reflexively retreat to that mythical time before proteins arose, please keep in mind that evolvability of new protein function means in essence an inherent "ability" of non-descript polymers, in the prebiotic world, to possess functionality. Again, FLE and the more standard POVs are identical.)
Good day Art. My apologies for the delay. I actually expected a longer reply.
ReplyDelete"So the alternative is that new protein function can evolve, that a small number of primordial proteins could have evolved, and continue to evolve, into the vast array of functions we see today."
I believe Mike Gene touches on this in Chapter 7 of The Design Matrix. If you haven't read it yet, I high encourage you to do so.
The reason I defer to DM is I hate repeating myself (which I found myself doing constantly with a TT commenter lately) and I don't like to quote the whole book in order to make my point. I am simply building off of FLE as stated in DM.
This calls for a challenge (more details in an EE post coming soon, like maybe today) :)
In addition to my comment above...
ReplyDeleteI am still digesting the implications of Mike Gene's latest post, which I believe also addresses Art's point above.
Um, my point was not in the long paragraph that has aroused some contention, but rather in:
ReplyDelete"So the alternative is that new protein function can evolve, that a small number of primordial proteins could have evolved, and continue to evolve, into the vast array of functions we see today. In FLE parlance, this is tantamount to "front-loading" remarkable evolvability into something such as the nature of the chemistry of life. This renders FLE indistinguishable from processes "currently accepted by biologists"."
It is when FLE speculates about new proteins arising via evolutionary processes that it become indistinguishable from "Darwinism".
Maybe someone here can point out some differences between the two. Or, if not, explain whyever one would (or should) consider the added baggage attendant with FLE, luggage totally unnecessary for explaining or studying life as we know it.
OK, it's late, so I'll try my best to address your points.
ReplyDelete"So the alternative is that new protein function can evolve, that a small number of primordial proteins could have evolved, and continue to evolve, into the vast array of functions we see today."
This sounds an awful lot like "moonlighting" proteins that Mike Gene covers in Chapter 7 of The Design Matrix.
"It is when FLE speculates about new proteins arising via evolutionary processes that it become indistinguishable from "Darwinism"."
With the exception of OOL, which is where FLE's primary focus is centred upon.
However, Mike states one of the expectations of FLE is for the present to explain the past (PREPA), so the investigation is not solely concentrated at OOL.
Is FLE really distinguishable from processes "currently accepted by biologists" at the OOL? Think about it - if new protein function can evolve from pre-existing proteins, then the question becomes one of the number of these pre-existing proteins. On-going research is narrowing this number down on a pretty regular basis, and there is more evidence for this number being zero than for any other value. And that is the point where, even at the OOL, FLE = processes "currently accepted by biologists".
ReplyDeleteArt, I wish OOL researchers all the best in their efforts, but at the end of the day, it's still a speculative effort. FLE still deserves consideration.
ReplyDeleteHave you considered my challenge yet? C'mon. You know you want to. ;)
Speculative? Yeah, in the way that pre-W&C research into the structure and functioning of the genetic material was speculative.
ReplyDeleteAs for your challenge, you'll have to give me some bona-fide examples of stuff that wasn't bandied about on the old ARN and ISCID boards (and before). I sort of think I had a front-row seat to the making of the first draft. Can't get a better perspective than that, I'm afraid.