The Six Points

Here are six points that lay at the foundation of my approach. All six points are quite reasonable. In fact, I would maintain that not only are they all reasonable, but they are also more reasonable than the position that would deny them:

Before and After

Over in the comments section at BioLogos, Bilbo summarizes my position:

He begins with the hypothesis that the first cells were designed to make evolving (by neo-Darwinian processes) in a certain direction more likely.

And someone then asks: What does he think happened before life was cellular, then?

Given the paucity of solid information,  I’m not quite sure what to think. However, there are really only two options: the planet was seeded with life or the planet spawned life.  Both explanations are supported by circumstantial evidence.

Found the designer!

A front-loading ciliary clue

Last summer, I set the stage for investigating cilia from a telic perspective.  One thing I proposed was that cilia had an original function that was sensory in nature:

Of course, I have long known about the ancient state of cilia, so let’s push it some more.  Let us propose the original core function of cilia has always been sensory.  In other words, while most people think of cilia as motility structures, this may be more of a secondary function.  If the original function for cilia has always been sensory, then “the business end” of our five senses have always been there from the start of eukaryote existence.

Well, I looked in on BioLogos and someone named ‘Sy’ posted an abstract from a paper that appears to support my contention:

More Explanation for the Missing Prokaryotic Mouse

A few months back, I used the hypothesis of front-loading evolution to outline a subtle, but very important, shift in our perspective of evolution.  Instead of viewing evolution as all about selection picking from a pool of variants, consider the possibility that some variants are more special than others.  In this case, let’s pick a variation that is very special – the complete redesign of the cell plan, as it is this change that was necessary for setting the stage for the emergence of metazoan life.  I explained this as follows:

This is about whether the cell design – the composition and architecture of the prokaryotic cell – is capable of generating something as structurally complex as a mouse (for a mouse, like all animals, is an assembly of cells).  Seen from this angle, the endosymbiotic hypothesis supports my position.  That is, in order for prokaryotes to ultimately spawn eukaryotes, they first had to go through a radical re-design of cell structure.

So here is what we have.  Prokaryotic cells can be viewed as the highest expression of mutation and selection, for there is no better cellular candidate for a “self-replicator.”  Yet after billions of years, the prokaryotic cell plan has failed to achieve anything near the level of structural complexity as exhibited by the eukaryotic cell plan.  To reach such structural complexity, the cell design had to be radically retooled, partly through endosymbiotic union, a one-time event given the widely accepted monophyly of eukaryotes.  Once the eukaryotic cell design was established, prior to the radiation of all extant eukaryotes, the basic cell design was now capable of supporting the emergence of complex, metazoan life.  The evolution of metazoa did not require further extensive retooling of the eukaryotic cell plan, given that metazoan cells are so similar to protozoan cells; it was more like the natural outflow of the potential inherent in the eukaryotic cell plan.

It turns out there is now more scientific evidence to support the contention that the emergence of the eukaryotic cell plan was a necessary prerequisite for the emergence of something as complex as a mouse:

Thinking About Life

When I told you there is no consensus on a definition for life, you don’t need to take my word for it. Just check out wikipedia!

It is still a challenge for scientists and philosophers to define life in unequivocal terms.[11][12][13] Defining life is difficult —in part— because life is a process, not a pure substance.[14] Any definition must be sufficiently broad to encompass all life with which we are familiar, and it should be sufficiently general that, with it, scientists would not miss life that may be fundamentally different from earthly life.[15]

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive, where life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena:[14][16]

I always keep this fact in mind anytime someone tries to extract too much significance out of the fact that it is likewise difficult to define things like ‘design’ and ‘intelligence.’  An attempt to build an argument around a selective demand for precise definitions is a sign that the attempt is rooted in a biased agenda and not an open-ended investigation.

But let’s get back to the descriptive criteria used to identify life.

What is Life?

Biologists find themselves in the uncomfortable position of studying something that is difficult to define. Traditionally, they define life by listing several features characteristic to life, including metabolism, growth and development, responsiveness, and reproduction. Because of its central importance in evolution, many emphasize reproduction. Yet Daniel Koshland tells this story:

What is the definition of life? I remember a conference of the scientific elite that sought to answer that question. Is an enzyme alive? Is a virus alive? Is a cell alive? After many hours of launching promising balloons that defined life in a sentence, followed by equally conclusive punctures of these balloons, a solution seemed at hand: “The ability to reproduce–that is the essential characteristic of life,” said one statesman of science. Everyone nodded in agreement that the essential of a life was the ability to reproduce, until one small voice was heard. “Then one rabbit is dead. Two rabbits–a male and female–are alive but either one alone is dead.” At that point, we all became convinced that although everyone knows what life is there is no simple definition of life. [1]

Koshland himself defines life by citing seven features that are both universal and essential to life: “P(rogram), I(mprovisation), C(ompartmentalization), E(nergy), R(egeneration), A(daptability), S(eclusion), PICERAS, for short–are the fundamental principles on which a living system is based.” [1] That life resists attempts to define it in an efficient and simplistic manner may speak to manner in which reductionism fails to account for it.

In 2001, Bernard Korzeniewski used a cybernetic approach to come up with a definition of life that turns out to be quite helpful when thinking of evolution as a process that was designed.

Politics

Now here’s an attack ad:

Using the ‘science’ word

Most people love to use the words “science” and “scientific” when advocating their own views. And wouldn’t ya know it? Almost every time they use those words, oddly enough, their views just happen to align with “science.” Clearly, people recognize science as an authority in our culture and seek to posture as if that authority sides with them.

But when you ask people to define what they mean when they use that word, you’ll find that the word comes with all sorts of meanings.

7 x 13 = 28