Re: [asa] Front-loading thoughts

Mike,
I don't understand that anything that can happen is preloaded. This would
mean that extinction is as much preloaded as survival and development.
Preloading seems to require that what will be needed is already present
in the preliminary entity. As to the alga with lignin, were the necessary
genes preloaded or transferred? The more we learn about genetics, the
more interaction of species we seem to find. I also do not see that you
have shown that selection is preloading.
Dave (ASA)

On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 23:03:36 -0400 "Nucacids" <nucacids@wowway.com>
writes:
Hi Dave,
 
You wrote:
 
“I don't get it. Neither artificial selection nor natural selection is
built into the cells or organisms. They can only take advantage of such
changes as occur within the genome, which does not have to be chromosomal
though that is what is usually considered. Some changes my be
deleterious, even to the point of immediate death. But there may be
accidents that kill what, had it survived, would have been a marked
advance. How are lethal mutations and accidental deaths front-loaded to
guide development?”
 
If we are going to use evolution to carry out design objectives, we would
want to account for the inevitability of lethal mutations and accidental
deaths. That is, we would want to design the architecture of life in
such a way as to maximize the transmission of our designs into the future
despite the expected occurrences of lethal mutations and accidental
deaths. So that is one question to ponder from the FLE perspective: if
we think of lethal mutations and accidental deaths as noise, to what
extant does this noise drown out any design over time? And how could we
work around (or through) this noise?
 
One solution would seem obvious to me. If we think of reproduction as
the means to forward design into the future (rather than simply think of
reproduction as a brute given), we would want this process to be a) very
accurate and b) robust. We can make the process robust on many levels.
For example, simply making reproduction as common as possible (the “drive
the reproduce”) means you would decrease the significance of any
particular lethal mutations or accidental death. The survivors propagate
the design. Your real problem comes with extinction.
 
You also add:
 
“The thesis held by some who push ID, that information cannot be expanded
internally but only with external input, is incompatible with
front-loading. For them all the information in advanced plants and
animals would have to be contained within the original life form, an
impossible situation. They have to show that new information, that is,
new genes and controls, have to be inserted to promote the development of
more advanced forms.”
 
I have never subscribed to the common ID notion that information requires
an external input. Information will expand as a consequence of
“mistakes” that happen to serve the needs of an organism in a particular
environment. In essence, mutation and natural selection are ways to
download environmental information into a genome. Front-loading
recognizes this reality, yet asks a simple question – can this process of
down-loading be facilitated and even guided?
 
Takes trees. To make a tree, we need wood. To make wood, we need
lignin. Lignin has long been found only in plants with woody tissue.
But recently, it was discovered in simple algae (!). Thus, it is very
tempting to view the lignin as a preadaptation that made it more likely
trees would eventually evolve. Some place. Some time. Just a matter of
time.
 
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Front-loading thoughts

I don't get it. Neither artificial selection nor natural selection is
built into the cells or organisms. They can only take advantage of such
changes as occur within the genome, which does not have to be chromosomal
though that is what is usually considered. Some changes my be
deleterious, even to the point of immediate death. But there may be
accidents that kill what, had it survived, would have been a marked
advance. How are lethal mutations and accidental deaths front-loaded to
guide development?

The thesis held by some who push ID, that information cannot be expanded
internally but only with external input, is incompatible with
front-loading. For them all the information in advanced plants and
animals would have to be contained within the original life form, an
impossible situation. They have to show that new information, that is,
new genes and controls, have to be inserted to promote the development of
more advanced forms.
Dave (ASA)

On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 22:40:53 -0400 "Nucacids"
Front-loading is the hypothesis whereby the original cells were designed
in such a way that their subsequent evolution was under some form of
control. It thus represents one way in which evolution can be designed.
Yet this control is not deterministic. Instead, it nudges and encourages
evolution to explore certain trajectories, by predisposing entry into
those trajectories with particular preadaptations.
In essence, front-loading is a hypothesis which posits that evolution is
guided. All of our data and experience with artificial selection teaches
us evolution can be guided. But in such case, the guidance is extrinsic,
as the designers choose the environments and selection pressures. In the
case of front-loading, we envision a very clever designer that is able to
replace extrinsic guidance with a specific cellular architecture and
composition that will subsequently guide evolution intrinsically.
Artificial selection is a crude model of front-loading in that not only
is the guidance extrinsic, but also exists over very short spans of time.
 Front-loading would employ a softer touch, where the mechanisms of
intrinsic guidance are solid enough to exert effect, but also robust
enough to exploit and tolerate, rather than be drowned out, by
contingency over spans of millions/billions of years.
What is most encouraging is that in the years I have been proposing and
attempting to flesh out this hypothesis the case for the plausibility of
front-loading has gotten stronger. Not weaker. Not the same. Stronger.
It has become more clear that deep homology, symbiogenesis, and
preadaptation have played key roles in significant evolutionary
transitions. It has also become even more clear that convergent
evolution is not some fluke, but instead speaks to a core aspect of
evolution. It has even become more clear that organisms are not being
passively shaped by their environment, but actually play a role in their
own evolution. Not only does this all support the plausibility of
front-loading, but the hypothesis of front-loading coheres these together
into a larger perspective. In contrast, the non-teleological perspective
typically views these phenomena as separate processes.
What’s more, there really is no argument against the plausibility of
front-loading. In all the years I have proposed this hypothesis, I have
yet to encounter such an argument. I have encountered complaints,
misrepresentation, and sometimes ridicule. But none of that provides any
reason to think the hypothesis of front-loading is not true.
So as the case for front-loading gets stronger, and as arguments against
the hypothesis fail to materialize, I have no choice but to proceed. :)
Mike
____________________________________________________________
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTFoYbeLT5PIJT2tZWMx4hq22JRWfkYdfBGkM53vKADb2eNSUB2NME/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Sep 10 13:53:11 2009