I will admit to not having any idea what you’re talking about here.
@John_Harshman
“That sentence” takes a load of context to understand. It refers back to this post
Then my response again:
So I am not talking about “my” front-loaded design, I am talking about the possible case where someone like @gbrooks9 might want to have God involved to set things up at the beginning, but then let the big bang down through evolution take its course.
1 Like
Ah, you refer to the pool-shot scenario. Thanks. There’s another version of front-loading in which God creates the first cell with all the genes that will ever be needed by any species, just with most of them dormant, waiting for the species that need them to be activated. I believe that’s actually the first version, once entertained by Behe and perhaps others. But I don’t think anyone is pushing that one now.
1 Like
Actually, I have seen it in the literature. Sorry to take so long, I had to go look it up. In this review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bies.201300037 Wolf and Koonin take a broad view of genome evolution.
They point out that the ancestors of both the archaea and eukaryota appear to have had very large gene-rich and intron rich genomes that have been streamlined in various lineages. That is only the barest outline of what they talk about. I have never been a big fan of the pack-it-all-in-in-advance idea, but I have seen it here. You say not so much any more?
I think you are mistaking something quite different for the front-loading scenario. That definitely wasn’t it.
OK. No problem here.
@Agauger, why don’t you elaborate on your three mechanisms of natural evolution, divinely directed evolution, and de novo creation? When does/did each occur, in what taxa, and how would you recognize each?
Be warned that it’s my bedtime now, so there will be no reply for a while.
This is consistent with Behe’s description of the master billiards pool shot!
The one way to keep track of which scenario is intended is to notice whether “the Universe” is what is “front loaded” vs. a cell’s genetic content.
A sloppily written sentence could easily leave doubt in the reader’s perception.
@John_Harshman. Shall I also build the Sistine Chapel for you and paint the ceiling? If I asked you to lay out how you thought the Echinodermata, Arthropoda and Mollusca developed distinctive body plans, and in what taxa, how much detail could you give? (Going by the old-fashioned classification here.)
Let me clarify a few terms.
The designer: If this designer is the one responsible for the whole shebang,from the BIG BANG to us, then God is the only candidate. This doesn’t specify which God, however. That is a consideration well beyond science.
How it happened:
If it involved either de novo creation or guidance, that means God was involved. Any being capable of creating de novo (quantum fluctuations require that there be something to fluctuate, I would think) _has mechanisms available to him we neither know nor can meaningfully discuss. So I won’t discuss “how” mechanism questions–it’s pointless.
About natural evolution: that would include the full range of possible causes already identified by science. I reject none of them because the are proposed as evolutionary mechanisms. I just don’t think they can take you as far as you think they can.
You asked me: " When does/did each occur, in what taxa, and how would you recognize each?"
To paraphrase the book of Job, I was not there when he laid down the seas or formed the first cells. i was not there with first invasion of land, or any other of the major transitions in life’s history happened. What I can say is where I see major discontinuities or transitions that need investigation.
-
The first cell. This involves the biggest hurdles of all.
-
Photosynthesis
-
Appearance of eukaryotes
-
Multicellularity
-
Establishment of different body plans–Phyla
Then various radiations and extinctions (insert favorite version of evolutionary tree) to be dealt with in an orderly fashion.
Every time there is a class-defining morphological innovation, how it happened needs to be investigated, not assumed.
Your question: why don’t you elaborate on your three mechanisms of natural evolution, divinely directed evolution, and de novo creation? When does/did each occur, in what taxa_, and how would you recognize each? @John_Harshman I would be interested in how you would know any of those things, other than by inferring them from the available data. Because that’s how I know them
I would do the same as you. For me the problem is not usually what changes took place, and I would have to estimate in what taxa they took place and when they took place the same way you do. Same exact tools.
The only difference might be in our assumptions about how it happened, whatever evolutionary transition we are talking about.That is where my work comes in. To test the efficacy of the mechanisms proposed to produce the effect in question.
I am not questioning that evolution happened more or less as described. Just that it may not have always been sufficient to accomplish the transition by unguided naturalistic means.
So. Major transions and my view of kinds of change needed.
-
The first cell. De novo. You bet.
-
Photosynthesis. I haven’t studied the pathways in any depth. For the earliest kind, probably purple, it is still stupifyingly complex. Perhaps there is a way to simplify the number of reactions needed to get a rudimentary pathway going. I need to read the literature. But it happened fast!
-
Appearance of eukaryotes. Guided, at least. Too many things to change that are interdependent.
-
Multicellularity. Guided but I am open to evidence.
-
Establishment of different body plans—Phyla. Guided or de novo
Each occurs according to the fossil record. In what taxa? We haven’t gotten past LUCA This is more than enough to go on with.
3 Likes
@Agauger - Got it.
I sincerely hope you didn’t intend to resort to “Were you there?”
That is of course how you would know them, as with all of science.
It appears that you are, specifically in your tentative invocation of de novo creation of species. And this is what I’m actually interested in. How would you infer that species were separately created rather than descending from earlier life? You suggest that the first species in each animal phylum may have been created de novo. Why those rather than the first eukaryotes or metazoans? Again, how might one recognize separate creation? (My contention would be that we have good evidence of common descent of all life.) But at least we can agree on common descent below the level of phylum, apparently. Specifically, can we agree that all vertebrates are related by common descent?
2 Likes
My older daughter has it (she loves the design).
Somewhere in this messy office, I have a group photo of the workshop participants, most of whom are wearing their t-shirts. If I can find it, I’ll scan the photo and post it here. 
What I am curious about is how Behe’s views on Guided Evolution fits in with the appearance of something like the bacterial flagellum. Did God put in all of the flagellar genes all at once, or were mutations slowly added over time to non-functional sections of DNA until they all emerged at once as a flagellum?
No. What mean was, evolution happened as the sequence of events, more or less as described, and by some of the same mechanisms. It depends on what kind of evolutionary change we are talking about.The problem is that a great deat of the time they may not be sufficient to accomplish the change.
- Something happened
- Insufficient cause
- An additional cause needed
An example: The evolution of a new version of enzyme that is now able to break down leaves where there was none before–that might not seem a large evolutionary change but it might be non-trivial to actually accomplish. If tested in the lab and the enzyme cannot be converted, the naturalistic explanation is in doubt, Further work is need.
Another example:
DNA is the best evidence of common descent there is. It shows many commonalities across phylogenetic groups, especially closely related groups, and exhibits a nested hierarchical pattern. It also shows a fairly regular accumulation of mutations that is proportional to the time the mutations have accumulated. But it has also overturned many classical phylogenetic classifications based on anatomy and development alone. Homoplasy is a problem. And sequence similar is assumed to be because of common descent without checking.
A case in point would be the HLA genes, but I’ll save that for another time.
An oversight on my part.
The DNA would suggest yes, but I see morphological traits appearing over short windows and wonder about the short timing. I think that needs to be investigated. There are major transitions that have to occur.
@Agauger
If we are talking about evolution, we would start with the mechanisms: natural selection, mutation, speciation, vertical inheritance, and so on. This would allow us to try and reconstruct the changes that occurred in specific genes and gene families. I don’t see anything equivalent on the ID side other than a theistic evolutionary view where evolutionary mechanisms are part of the creation process. The lack of testable ID mechanisms is a real show stopper, at least in my view.
Of course, I would be extremely giddy to be proven wrong on this point. I look forward to any research that at least attempted to find positive evidence for ID. Contrary to the opinions of some other posters, I also think it is a good idea to hold back on reporting on this research until it is ready. If I may, I would like to make one suggestion. I think it would be very helpful to consult a small group of scientists outside of the “ID circle” that you trust to help find any glaring issues with the approaches you are taking. This might pre-emptively head off major criticisms once you publish the work.
7 Likes
I find this frustrating. You refuse to take a position on anything. You change your claims on what little you have actually said, as when you now expand the zone of possible de novo creation to taxa you had previously rejected, i.e. eukaryotes and metazoans. There seems nothing to discuss because nothing is clear.
How would separate creation be investigated? How could it be consistent with the evidence of nested hierarchy?
1 Like
Bump. I agree with this entirely.
2 Likes
I think it is easy to see that Behe is too much of a scientist to promote or endorse the “Front Loaded (Genetic Content)” issue. My impression was that this was promoted by non-Science types, and that it has been sufficiently laughed at that few people bother to mention it. Frankly, it seems the “genetic content” type of Front Loading seems mentioned more in this context - - “You don’t mean Genetic Front Loading, right?” - - than in any affirmative context.
What Behe promotes seems to be the exactly what @ColeWD rejects (no doubt, assuring himself that Behe would agree with Cole’s rejection): Behe doesn’t seem to think that God’s design requires super-natural events. It merely requires a plan (aka, a design), and the will to execute the multiple plans/designs like an infinite series of Russian dolls. Though I probably shouldn’t use the Russian Doll metaphor, since that will simply sound like “Front Loading” of the old variety.
While most ID proponents interpret Behe’s position as “even with a plan, God didn’t make the natural world flexible enough to make a flagellum …”, so it requires one or more super-natural acts by God for it to happen. If Behe were here to comment, he would probably shrug his shoulders and confess that he has been misinterpreted from the very beginnings of his work.