(But they also highlight the problem for ID: "One approach to uncovering biological design principles is to ask what constraints they must obey." ID is not a self-delimiting "theory.")

ID may not be self-delimiting but designs themselves can be. A mouse at one end of a maze may have only one pathway to a wedge of cheese. The construction of the maze itself imposes the single pathway constriction and the designer's intent can be inferred by the nature of the design. Although biochemical pathways can be described with precision their origins are clouded in mystery. We can understand tweaking and modifications related to them but are unable to delineate causal pathways to basic designs like genomes which allow for subsequent modifications.

Modular structures may facilitate evolutionary change.

Evolving networks intrinsically exhibit modularity. Older, well-established nodes act as hubs that are modified by newer, more flexible attachments.

Herbert Simon had argued that modularity facilitates evolution (design) in 1962 ("The Architecture of Complexity," Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 106. No. 6: 467-482.), with his Tempus et Hora "parable." In that context he cites Homer Jacobson's "speculations" on the speed of evolution. I haven't read Jacobson's paper, so I assume that Simon gets it right: "The essential idea in Jacobson's model is that the expected time required for the system to reach a particular state is inversely proportional to the probability of the state"”hence increases exponentially with the amount of information (negentropy) of the state. Following this line of argument, but not introducing the notion of levels and stable subassemblies [modular design principles], Jacobson arrived at estimates of the time required for evolution so large as to make the event rather improbable. Our analysis carried through in the same way, but with attention to the stable intermediate forms, produces very much smaller estimates."

Oddly enough, Jacobson (apparently unaware of Simon's argument) wrote a retraction, obviously ! But in his retraction Jacobson does not correct himself, but compounds the error with gibberish!

http://www.americanscientist.o...

What I find interesting is not the usual "evolutionist vs. cretinist" nonsense, but that reasoning about evolution from a purely design-theoretic perspective may solve significant outstanding problems in evolutionary theory"”such as the related "Haldane's dilemma."

"Retraction this untimely is not normally undertaken, but in this case I request it because of continued irresponsible contemporary use by creationists who have quoted my not merely out-of-context, but incorrect, statements, to support their dubious viewpoint. I am deeply embarrassed to have been the originator of such misstatements, allowing bad science to have come into the purview of those who use it for anti-science ends."

What bullshit!

The argument from the ignorance of design.

This sounds familiar too (and I was wondering why no one mentioned it): "Modules may also be related by shared design or functional principles, even if they are not related by descent." (?!)

Yes, that is also a very juicy point.

Very nice. I'd say that comment deserves the Comment of the Week award.

You even bring it to the appropriate end-point:

Modular structures may facilitate evolutionary change.

That also sounds familiar:

Modularity enhances evolution and thus the perpetuation of design. Since life is built around discrete modules that interface with each other, it is possible for selection to fine tune one module independent of the others. The alternative is to have every component linked with every other component in such an intricate manner that changes in one component may resonate in deleterious fashion with multiple other components. Because of modularity, the blind watchmaker can expand and/or tailor individual modules to meet the specific needs of the organism with minimal effect on the remainder of the organism's physiology. "“ The Design Matrix

That sounded familiar (as it might be) rephrased: We believe that general "˜evolution principles' "” profoundly shaped by the constraints of design "” govern the structure and function of modules. Now it sounds more like something a "Front-Loader" might say.

(But they also highlight the problem for ID: "One approach to uncovering biological design principles is to ask what constraints they must obey." ID is not a self-delimiting "theory.")

This sounds familiar too (and I was wondering why no one mentioned it): "Modules may also be related by shared design or functional principles, even if they are not related by descent." (?!)

Z: Modular structures may facilitate evolutionary change.

Rabbit rabbit"¦ HEY WAIT A MINUTE!

Just what I was thinking, chunk. Very good post, btw.

Z: How do these properties emerge from the interactions between the molecules that make up cells and how are they shaped by evolutionary competition with other cells?

Duck?

M: Although living systems obey the laws of physics and chemistry, the notion of function or purpose differentiates biology from other natural sciences.

Rabbit?

Z: Within populations, differential reproductive success alters the structure of gene pools, giving rise to evolution.

Duck!

M: To describe biological functions, we need a vocabulary that contains concepts such as amplification, adaptation, robustness, insulation, error correction and coincidence detection.

Rabbit!

Z:Evolution selects those members of a genetically diverse population whose descendants proliferate rapidly and survive over many generations.

Duck!!

M: A number of the design principles of biological systems are familiar to engineers. Positive feedback loops can drive rapid transitions between two different stable states of a system, and negative feedback loops can maintain an output parameter within a narrow range, despite widely fluctuating input. Coincidence detection systems require two or more events to occur simultaneously in order to activate an output. Amplifiers are built to minimize noise relative to signal, for instance by choosing appropriate time constants for the circuits. Parallel circuits (fail-safe systems) allow an electronic device to survive failures in one of the circuits.
Designs such as these are common in biology.

Rabbit!?!

Z: Modular structures may facilitate evolutionary change.

Duck! Duck! DUCK!

M: Modular structures may facilitate evolutionary change.

Rabbit, rabbit RABBIT!

Z: Modular structures may facilitate evolutionary change.

Rabbit rabbit… HEY WAIT A MINUTE!

Doug: Please remind me, who exactly are you arguing with on these boards again?

I didn't present an argument.

Doug: You found some quotes that have the word "evolution" in it.

The authors made several statements regarding evolution, including that alterations in the structure of gene pools arise due to differential reproductive success.