Since Frontloading is a Hot Topic Again…

_{Jonathan Bartlett

January 21, 2012

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Since frontloading is becoming a hotter topic in ID circles, I thought I would repost a video covering, in just 5 minutes, a short explanation of what is being proposed, and some of the evidences for it. There are minimalist and maximalist views of frontloading, but I think all of them share a fascination with what we are finding out about mutations today.

Comments

ogre:
If the principles of ID cannot distinguish, even in theory between pure randomness and design, then how in the world can it possibly distinguish between something designed by an intelligence and something designed by several hundred million years of evolution?
1- YOUR position says it can distinguish between design and natural selection or randomness 2- Archaeology and forensic science say they can determine design from non-dsign also.
In fact, it’s easily arguable that the ‘I’ part of ID has nothing to do with anything. There is nothing in the ID literature that requires the ‘I’ part… well except for a bunch of people saying, “oh, it’s really complex and we can only think of one thing that makes complexity” (which, BTW, is wrong).
Ummm the "I" in ID stands for agency: Intelligent Design is not Optimal Design:
was recently on an NPR program with skeptic Michael Shermer and paleontologist Donald Prothero to discuss intelligent design. As the discussion unfolded, it became clear that they were using the phrase "intelligent design" in a way quite different from how the emerging intelligent design community is using it. The confusion centered on what the adjective "intelligent" is doing in the phrase "intelligent design." "Intelligent," after all, can mean nothing more than being the result of an intelligent agent, even one who acts stupidly. On the other hand, it can mean that an intelligent agent acted with skill, mastery, and eclat. Shermer and Prothero understood the "intelligent" in "intelligent design" to mean the latter, and thus presumed that intelligent design must entail optimal design. The intelligent design community, on the other hand, means the former and thus separates intelligent design from questions of optimality. But why then place the adjective "intelligent" in front of the noun "design"? Doesn't design already include the idea of intelligent agency, so that juxtaposing the two becomes an exercise in redundancy? Not at all. Intelligent design needs to be distinguished from apparent design on the one hand and optimal design on the other. Apparent design looks designed but really isn't. Optimal design is perfect design and hence cannot exist except in an idealized realm (sometimes called a "Platonic heaven"). Apparent and optimal design empty design of all practical significance. A common strategy of opponents to design in biology (like Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, and Francisco Ayala) is to assimilate intelligent design to one of these categories--apparent or optimal design. The problem with this move is that it constitutes an evasion. Indeed, it utterly sidesteps the question of intelligent, or actual, design. The automobiles that roll off the assembly plants in Detroit are intelligently designed in the sense that human intelligences are responsible for them. Nevertheless, even if we think Detroit manufactures the best cars in the world, it would still be wrong to say they are optimally designed. Nor is it correct to say that they are only apparently designed.
ogre:
If you think of evolution (i.e. natural selection) as a designer, then most of what ID people say actually makes sense. Of course, it’s already been explored scientifically, so they aren’t saying anything new (not that they really are anyway).
What is the evidence that natural selection can design anything?
But all that is a side note to the real point. If ID cannot distinguish among design and random, then there isn’t a chance that it can do the one that it MUST do, which is distinguish between intelligent design and evolution.
1- Intellignet Design is NOT anti-evolution 2- Your position, archaeology and forensic science all claim to be able to distinguish design from not- strange taht you can't get that through your thick skull.Joe_{January 23, 2012
January
01
Jan
23
23
2012
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT}

My apologies for posting these on this thread, but I asked a couple of questions on Genomicus's post last Friday, but I suspect they're not going to come out of moderation. They're relevant, being about front-loading (unlike much of the discussion on that thread. *sigh*), so I'm asking one again here:
The front-loading hypothesis also predicts that the earliest life forms on earth were quite complex, complete with ATP synthases, sophisticated proof-reading machinery, and the like.
I’m curious, how would one test this, without resorting to a time machine?Heinrich_{January 23, 2012
January
01
Jan
23
23
2012
02:13 AM
2
02
13
AM
PDT}

"Because, that presents ID with a serious problem. Not only can you not tell, even in theory, if any string of 500 bits is random or designed, you can’t even tell if it was designed to be random… or (for that matter) if it is random that just happens to look designed." Ogre - Clearly you have not read much about ID. This is clearly covered in most ID books. If (A) can cause (X), and (B) can cause both (Y) and (X), then, if we find (X), we can't tell for sure between (A) and (B), but if we find (Y), then we can. This is the point of the design inference, and is explained quite fully in both "The Design Inference" and "The Design Revolution", and, I imagine, pretty much anywhere else you find this line of reasoning, and it basically invalidates the rest of your points. The fact that (X) doesn't differentiate between (A) and (B) in no way invalidates the fact that (Y) does. If a lamp in my house was broken, I don't know whether my 4-year-old or my 9-year-old did it. But if someone wrote me a note and left it on the counter, I can tell which of the two did it. The fact that the first case doesn't allow me to distinguish does not in any way prevent me from distinguishing in the second case. If you post a string of 500 characters which makes sense, we'll know that it wasn't from random.org. If you post a string of 500 characters which looks like gibberish, then we won't be able to tell the difference. (Well, technically, it would probably be pretty easy to tell a string of characters that came from random.org, but that's beside the point).johnnyb_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
09:35 PM
9
09
35
PM
PDT}

"That there are alleles that can be modified to become different things by mutation or other form of expression. Let’s be honest, how exactly is this different from evolution? It’s not." Ogre - You aren't quite explaining it right. The difference is that ID frontloading says that there are *mechanisms* which organisms use to modify the existing genes. There is a great book called "The Implicit Genome" which discusses a lot of what this looks like. ID says that evolution is based on information (hence the evolutionary informatics lab at Baylor). This does not mean, as per your (A), that every possible allele existed beforehand. It simply means that the modification of alleles often occurs based on information in the genome - heuristics as to what parts of the genome should change in response to what stresses, etc. Many ID'ers also take an additional step, and point out that having evolution presuppose information points to the fact that evolution could not occur without information, which means that life must have started information-rich rather than information-poor.johnnyb_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT}

To be pure frontloading, it has to appear, fully complete, in the genome of the organism before it was expressed.
that is false. you are clueless and dishonest.Joe_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

front-loading is evolution, duh. Is citrate utilization something new? Perhaps- what's your point? No one denies evolution occurs.Joe_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT}

Kevin:
Tell me Joe, why is that when I ask for evidence for ID, you can only respond by asking for evidence for my position?
Because you don't seem to know what evidence is and I need to know what you will accept so you can't retreat and flail away.
So, let’s clear this up, Joe. What is my position that I need to support?
The current theory of evolution. And I answered you stupid questions- what part of my answer didn't you undersatnd? Heck I have been asking questions of evos for decades and you chumps still can't answer them.Joe_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

Kevin, No one has ever said that RNAs cannot be a catalyst. ID claims that the OoL requires a designer.
2) You didn’t say “new function”. But OK… so, like a organism whose fundamental characteristic is not being able to utilize citrate as an energy source, but is now able to? Like that kind of new function?
You are clueless. 3- Another non-sequitur
ANOTHER goalpost shift... OK, maybe it's not a hoal post shift. Red herring? Non sequitur? Oh yeah, that's funny... you using non-sequitur to hide your non-sequitur. BTW: How about answering the question? Is utilization of citrate a new function? Or is this an example of front-loading? If so, then where, exactly, was the citrate allele, before it was expressed? To be pure frontloading, it has to appear, fully complete, in the genome of the organism before it was expressed. Otherwise, there is no difference between frontloading and evolution.OgreMk5_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

You cannot support your claim that your "challenge" is relevant to ID. You are a coward.Joe_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

Ogre:
Excellent, so what agency generated that strong of numbers, me or random white noise?
Random white noise didn't generate any string of numbers. A number genrator did using the random white noise. And a human designed taht number generator. Can't answer simple questions? That would be you. Archaeologists can't say who designed Stonehenge. they can't say how it was built. And you haven't presented any examples of anything except examples of strawman humping. Arguing? You're not intelligent enough to argure...Joe_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT}

we are all waiting for examples with evidence for teh claims of your position
Tell me Joe, why is that when I ask for evidence for ID, you can only respond by asking for evidence for my position? I provide tons of it, but you don't even understand what my position is. At least you think you do, but you keep making mistakes. So, let's clear this up, Joe. What is my position that I need to support? Why won't you provide the information I asked for. In 16 years of ID, there hasn't been a single answer to those questions.OgreMk5_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT}

What's my claim Joe? That you can't tell the difference between a random string and a designed string? I can support that... the simple fact that you haven't even tried. Or that it is important? So, you don't think it's important to actually use the principles of ID in a real world situation? OK, fair enough... no one else does anyway.OgreMk5_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT}

Excellent, so what agency generated that strong of numbers, me or random white noise? Joe, instead of telling me I'm ignorant, why don't you start explaining and giving examples and answer questions... instead of telling me how ignorant I am. But you can't answer simple questions. You can't give me a single example of any ID calculation for a single organism. You can't say who the designer was (but context is needed for those calculations, so you can't answer my simple string question). You can't say the mechanism of how the designer acts, but you know he does. You can't say when the designer acts, even though we continue to present examples of things that IDists say are impossible without a designer. Ah well... I'm getting bored too. I'll go watch reruns of Stargate Atlantis. Much more fun that arguing with you. At least GEM pointed me to a resource, even though it was fundamentally wrong.OgreMk5_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

And Kevin, YOU are making a claim so it is up to YOU to support it. Now stop being a coward and support YOUR claim.Joe_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT}

Kevin, No one has ever said that RNAs cannot be a catalyst. ID claims that the OoL requires a designer.
2) You didn’t say “new function”. But OK… so, like a organism whose fundamental characteristic is not being able to utilize citrate as an energy source, but is now able to? Like that kind of new function?
You are clueless. 3- Another non-sequiturJoe_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT}

1) Goal post shift
It’s a proven fact that RNAs as small as 5 nucleotides can catalyze metabolic reactions.
So what? a living organism is much more than that.
We were not talking about living organisms. We were talking about RNA being a catalyst. Well, I was, you interjected your own thing here that had nothing to do with what I was talking about. 2) You didn't say "new function". But OK... so, like a organism whose fundamental characteristic is not being able to utilize citrate as an energy source, but is now able to? Like that kind of new function? 3) Ummm... you do know how proteins act as catalysts right? By binding? nevermindOgreMk5_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT}

Kevin, You are a fool as I provided the words of the ID leadership and to a person they all say that ID is not anti-evolution. Obviously you have serious mental issues. ID claims that some or even most of the mutations would be directed.
Which ones? Why? When? How? By Whom? Give examples with evidence…
1- we are all waiting for examples with evidence for teh claims of your position 2- SCIENCE as in that is what science is for to help us answer those questions- again your ignoarnce is amusing but not a refutation.Joe_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT}

Kevin, All strings of numbers require agency involvement. THAT is what ID claims it can determine- when agency involvement is required- reference all that Dembski, Meyers, Wells, and ratzsch have ever said. Baby steps would be for you to actually read some pro-ID literature because your ignoarnce is boring.Joe_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT}

Again Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution
You may THINK that ID is not anti-evolution, but the leading proponents of ID disagree with you. As we have already discussed and you refused to listen... here: http://ogremk5.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/intelligent-design-is-anti-evolution-support-opening/
ID claims that some or even most of the mutations would be directed.
Which ones? Why? When? How? By Whom? Give examples with evidence...OgreMk5_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT}

Ogre:
1) What are the odds, Joe, for 5 random nucleotides to come together when there are four different possible nucleotides to choose from? But, nice try on changing the goal posts… again.
What goalposts did I try to change? Please be specific.
2) define ‘new’, what level of difference is required for something to be ‘new’? Is it something that hasn’t existed before (like the new sequence)? Is it something with a new function? Is a 90-fold improvement in function sufficient? Why or why not?
Improving an existing function is not producing a new function. Even the scientists acknowledged taht in the SciAm interview.
3) “reaching the goal requires five or six coherent mutational steps” (p. 134)and that “three or four” of the “five or six” amino acid changes necessary for a new protein interaction “might cause trouble if they occur singly” (p. 134)
Dude, Behe places the edge of evolution at two new protein-to-protein binding sites. You ahve no idea what you are saying and you have no idea how it relates to the debate.Joe_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

Well, since you have done nothing to show I'm wrong beyond shout "You're wrong" over and over again... I'm waiting for you to come up with a constant, coherent notion. Heck, you've moved goal posts once already on this thread. Again, I ask you, if you cannot tell the difference between a string that is designed and one that is random, then how can you tell the difference between one that is designed by an intelligence and one that is designed by evolution. baby steps dude, baby steps.OgreMk5_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT}

Sigh. 1) What are the odds, Joe, for 5 random nucleotides to come together when there are four different possible nucleotides to choose from? But, nice try on changing the goal posts... again. 2) define 'new', what level of difference is required for something to be 'new'? Is it something that hasn't existed before (like the new sequence)? Is it something with a new function? Is a 90-fold improvement in function sufficient? Why or why not? 3) “reaching the goal requires five or six coherent mutational steps” (p. 134)and that “three or four” of the “five or six” amino acid changes necessary for a new protein interaction “might cause trouble if they occur singly” (p. 134) Unfortunately, this has been shown to be incorrect. Harmful mutations can (and are) used as potentiating mutations that result in massive improvements in function when mixed with additional mutations. Dude, please, I know that you think everything I say is wrong. So until you actually take the time to understand what I'm saying, then I suggest you withhold judgement, if only to avoid embarrassing yourself and your beliefs.OgreMk5_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT}

Ogre:
B) That there are alleles that can be modified to become different things by mutation or other form of expression. Let’s be honest, how exactly is this different from evolution? It’s not.
Again Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution. ID claims that some or even most of the mutations would be directed.Joe_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

“Intelligent design is a good explanation for a number of biochemical systems, but I should insert a word of caution. Intelligent design theory has to be seen in context: it does not try to explain everything. We live in a complex world where lots of different things can happen. When deciding how various rocks came to be shaped the way they are a geologist might consider a whole range of factors: rain, wind, the movement of glaciers, the activity of moss and lichens, volcanic action, nuclear explosions, asteroid impact, or the hand of a sculptor. The shape of one rock might have been determined primarily by one mechanism, the shape of another rock by another mechanism. Similarly, evolutionary biologists have recognized that a number of factors might have affected the development of life: common descent, natural selection, migration, population size, founder effects (effects that may be due to the limited number of organisms that begin a new species), genetic drift (spread of "neutral," nonselective mutations), gene flow (the incorporation of genes into a population from a separate population), linkage (occurrence of two genes on the same chromosome), and much more. The fact that some biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent does not mean that any of the other factors are not operative, common, or important.”- Dr Behe
Joe_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT}

Ogre:
My statement doesn’t have anything to do with YOUR version of front-loading, because you don’t understand it.
All YOU do is erect strawmen because YOU don't understand ANYTHING. Read "The Design Matrix"
A) every possible allele already exists in the organism and is just waiting to be expressed by environmental factors. (Curiously, this is the exact definition of front-loadind that you, Joe, use to attempt to discredit genetic algorithms.)
That is false. That you would even say that proves that you are clueless. Mike Gene, not Dembski, not Meyers not wells, not Behe, Mike Gene is the one to reference wrt front-loading. He has a website and I gave you the link. So stop being such a coward...Joe_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

I never said, implied nor thought everything is designed and it doesn't follow from anything I have said. You have serious issues...Joe_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT}

Ogre:
Only Joe even acknowledged the challenge and then just to say it was irrelevant to ID (notice there are no quotes Joe, it’s called a paraphrase).
Where are your quotes showing that it is relevant? So far all we have is Kevin saying it is and then saying it is and then saying it is...Joe_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

So EVERYTHING is designed? There is nothing that happens or exists that is not designed by your intelligent agent... is that your claim now?OgreMk5_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

My statement doesn't have anything to do with YOUR version of front-loading, because you don't understand it. Look, there are two choices that I see. Front-loading is either A) every possible allele already exists in the organism and is just waiting to be expressed by environmental factors. (Curiously, this is the exact definition of front-loadind that you, Joe, use to attempt to discredit genetic algorithms.)
Front loading is a design engineering term generally used to describe design elements inserted for possible use in the future (contingency) as opposed to immediate use.
This came from here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ultra-conserved-dna-with-no-evident-immediate-purpose/ So, this must be what others in ID think. B) That there are alleles that can be modified to become different things by mutation or other form of expression. Let's be honest, how exactly is this different from evolution? It's not. Dembski didn't cover this. If he did, then he didn't understand it properly either... or more likely, he didn't take the next logical step... which is a major problem for ID proponents.OgreMk5_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

Ogre:
It’s a proven fact that RNAs as small as 5 nucleotides can catalyze metabolic reactions.
So what? a living organism is much more than that.
It’s a proven fact that random chemical reactions can generate RNAs up to 100 nucleotides long.
Again so what? Even with a self-sustained replication of RNAs nothing new evolved, even though there was variation.
It’s also proven that RNAs can and do evolve, and much more than the ‘upper bound’ that Michael Behe claims is impossible.
It's a given that you don't have any idea what Behe claims. So reference please.Joe_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply