In his book, Inside the Human Genome; a Case for Non-Intelligent Design, Professor John C. Avise argues that the design of cells is suboptimal, and therefore counts as evidence against intelligent design. Most ID proponents reject the notion that suboptimality could count against design, since the designer could always be not the brightest person around. But Mike Gene and I accept this line of reasoning, since we both think that optimal design could count as evidence for design.

Read the rest of this entry »

Evolution Under Intrinsic Control is a blog entry at Mike Gene's The Design Matrix. Mike begins by noting that "antibiotic resistant bacteria has long been used as a classic example of Darwinian evolution in action." He then focuses on a study by Floyd Romesberg and colleagues which puts a new twist on the resistence theme. Quoting Mike:

The twist is this: in this case, mutations don’t “just happen” – bacteria make sure they happen. That is, the evolution of antibiotic resistance is not simply the passive process of selection screening through the available variability. On the contrary, bacteria respond to the insult by making sure there is a plentiful source of variability to screen.

In this study, it was determined that bacterial input was essential to the evolution of antibiotic resistance. In other words, the cellular process of “making sure there is a plentiful source of variability to screen” is exactly what is needed to evolve antibiotic resistance.

Read the rest of this entry »

The capacity to remedy damage to DNA is a very important biological function. Mechanisms involved in the repair of DNA are found in all forms of life. How important is it? Is it neccessary to sustain life as we know it? My views are known at this site but am I alone in viewing DNA repair as a critically important function? Not if the views of many researchers are relevant. There are many papers touting the importance of DNA repair. Here are just some of the samples:

Read the rest of this entry »

An article by Professor Steve Jones, View From the lab: mutations suggests reasons for the utility of a front loading paradigm. Current approaches take note of an existing balance between the potential for change and the need to maintain genomic function by preserving stability.

Mutations are essential to an evolutionary process. If there are none, change is not possible. While too many leads to the demise of an organism, or a species, a balance allows for adapative changes. Mutations are kept in check by multiple DNA repair mechanisms tageting different types of damage. Jones describes the repair processes:

Read the rest of this entry »