Since March is the month for rabbits, it seems only right to offer a free copy of The Design Matrix!

So here is what you need to do:

First, go here, click on the large version of the book cover, and print off a copy.

Second, take this page and work it into a picture with a bunny (real or fake). I’ll even allow PhotoShopping so you can put those old Easter pictures to work.

Third, send me your picture by March 23, 2008 and put "Contest Photo" in the subject line. The link to my e-mail address can be found here.

Be creative. Have fun. The best picture will be hosted on The Design Matrix and Telic Thoughts blogs toward the end of the month and a free copy of The Design Matrix will be sent out to the winner.

Many of you are probably already familiar with the story referenced by the linked article Mendel Upended which tells of an unexpected find having potentially enormous implications for inheritance concepts. Researchers Susan Lolle and Robert Pruitt encountered phenotypic traits not according with inheritance concepts derived from Mendel; leading them to contemplate whether the plants they were working with might revert to their grandparents' allelic frequency. As the article indicates there are plenty of doubters one of whom believes that "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence." Apparently adaquate evidence is not enough. This notable quote from another researcher:

"The evidence for some kind of massive programmed rearrangement upon environmental induction in flax is unequivocal," he writes, "but inheritance of acquired changes has been an anathema to evolutionary biologists ever since Darwin's time."

Speculating about mechanisms is part of the fun. So is the possibility of upending apple carts.

Here

About 80 million years ago, birds lost their teeth. Yet 80 million years of mutations have not erased the bird’s ability to form teeth, even though there has been no selective pressure to maintain teeth:

Indeed, Talpid's teeth are conical, much like an archosaur's and closely resembling the teeth of a baby alligator or crocodile, Fallon said. If the chick survived, the teeth would most likely reabsorb into the mouth.

The archosaurs had mouths similar in shape to a reptile's. It turns out that developing a beak caused birds to lose their teeth.

“The reason that birds lost their teeth is that in forming a beak, the two tissues that ‘talk' to each other to make a tooth become separated,” Fallon said. “They can't have the conversation to make a tooth. In the mutant, these tissues are brought back together.”

A possible front-loading mechanism is clear – two tissues, or pathways, or genes, can be “brought together” and this is a task that could be assigned to the blind watchmaker.

Choanoflagellates are single-celled organisms that are mentioned in The Design Matrix(pp. 264-265) to illustrate the plausibility of front-loading evolution. While summarizing a 2003 study, I noted, these single-celled organisms contained a whole toolkit of genes that allowed the researchers to conclude choanoflagellates have “key proteins required for animal development” that probably “evolved before the origin of animals.”

Recently, the choanoflagellate genome has been sequenced. These protists have abouit 9200 genes, far less than the 25,000 seen in flies or humans. Yet the genome shows an abundance of data that further strengthen the plausibility of front-loading.

Read the rest of this entry »

Kernel Evolution has some amusing comments about both evolution and intelligent design. The statement that "Linux is evolution, not intelligent design" struck me as comical but then I thought about the belief by some that the first human alphabet was the product of evolution, not intelligent design. So maybe some don't see the claim as comical at all but rather as another example of teleologists seeing design where none exists. Here's a quote:

"To quote you a number of years ago: 'Linux is evolution, not intelligent design'," noted Greg KH, quoting Linux creator Linus Torvalds. Linus expanded on the statement, "evolution often does odd (and 'suboptimal') things exactly because it does incremental changes that DO NOT BREAK at any point." He continued, "in other words, exactly *because* evolution requires 'bisectability' (any non-viable point in between is a dead end by definition) and does things incrementally, it doesn't do big flips." When alternative examples in evolution were pointed out, Linus suggested that the kernel was much simpler than a mammal and more similar to bacteria:

Setting the biological analogies aside does the claim that Linux evolved resonate with TT's resident critics?

Mike Gene has pointed out that the identity of the designer need not be God. However, for theists, if living organisms were designed, the most likely agent is God. Many modern theists have objections to God directly designing organisms. Some see it as "tinkering" and beneath God's dignity. Others think that it means God would be forcing His will on the universe, and contrary to His nature, which allows as much freedom to His creation as possible. And others think the idea of God directly designing organisms is more vulnerable to the philosophical problem of evil than a God who leaves the universe alone. Read the rest of this entry »