Joined: Oct. 2006
|Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 05 2009,19:22)|
|I've pointed out that - while it certainly would take the knowledge of God to make front-loading successful...|
Your causal mechanism is supernatural, as you indicate. This renders your front-loading hypothesis an inherently non-scientific proposition.
|...that doesn't mean that all of that information must be present within a front-loaded genome. All that is necessary is for the genome to have some kind of switches and mechanisms to deal with various environmental challenges. |
This is incoherent. If "switches and mechanisms" are what are pre-stored, then the "mechanisms" to be activiated by "switches" must be sufficient to account for the preadaptation of all species that exist or ever have existed to countless, entirely contingent events over billions of years. Moreover, EvoDevo makes clear that current developmental plans both embody and are constructed atop earlier developmental plans, which constrains the activation of your switches and mechanisms to a particular order as history unfolded. Which (to the extent that you are claiming that current living forms were front loaded) leaves you exactly where we started: with the need for either complete foreknowledge of or control over inherently contingent events.
But what am I saying? Your "switches and mechanisms" are entirely imaginary, e.g., total bullshit.
|I've also already pointed out to you that - no matter the beginning - the evidence for a front-loaded evolution still must leave an evidence trail as it works it's way through history.|
You're "reasoning" backassward again, working backward from your conclusion. (And what evidence? Are you making predictions regarding future empirical findings? Please do.)
|Many on your side argue that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, why is it that you can't accept the same break point for a front-loaded theory?|
No one in biology believes that there is a fundamental ontological discontinuity between OOL and subsequent evolution - all mechanisms within the scope of the scientific method are assumed to be natural, and the scientific framework seen as appropriate for investigating both OOL and subsequent evolution is methodological naturalism. The explanatory discontinuity arises from the fact that we have an good working account of many key mechanisms of evolution operating upon replicating organisms, but lack an account of the emergence of those first replicating organisms. The argument to which you refer correctly indicates that the absence of a good theory of OOL has no bearing upon the adequacy of evolutionary mechanisms once replicating mechanisms have been established. (Not to mention that you have nothing but wet dreams to offer on either side of your "break point.")
That said, your "break point" is more similar to that apparent between "proofs of the existence of God" versus "proof of events and actions in the world attributed to God (such as in the Bible)." While the existence (or nonexistence) of God is not amenable to scientific investigation, many assertions regarding his actions in the world as described in the Bible (e.g. his initiation of a worldwide flood) are subject to discomfirmation by means of the tools of science. But the fact that the putative occurance of a worldwide flood can be investigated by scientific means does not render the proposed occurrence of the Genesis flood a scientific hypothesis. "Front-loading" is similarly an asserted "act of God," as you just stated above. You're probably right that specific predictions (guesses) arising out of that general notion are investigable by scientific means, in the same sense that the Genesis flood can be investigated. That doesn't make "front loading by God" a scientific hypothesis, because such guesses can take any form you may prefer. This is because, once again, God is a "mechanism" that is utterly unconstrained (including by natural laws) and therefore can be manipulated to assert anything you please - including the workings of imaginary "switches and mechanisms." Therefore, even though many such assertions may be subject to discomfirmation, "front-loaded by God" is never subject to test because there are no constraints, including the constraint of consistency with natural law, upon dreaming up other hypotheses.
Prestored "switches and mechanisms" don't work? Then howabout the operation of little invisible hands (called "Behes") manipulating DNA with little tweezers under prestored divine guidance?
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace
"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington