These concepts have been criticized as conditioning an existing state upon a state (condition) that does not exist.

Teleology is a theory about causation… About causes which cannot be demonstrated (here and now) to exist!

What appears fruitful may be to for branches and links to non-coded areas.

So I don't misinterpret this, are you saying that the the non-coded areas are the most likely sources for new changes?

1) Fly a) fruit b) horse c) dragon
2) Body Design a) small b) large c) # legs d) # wings
3) Climate Environment a) tropical b) cold
4) Diet/Reproduction Environment a) fresh water b) swamp c) foliage d) animal life

Yes, 1) is purely for fun, just to make a point

1 = eye
2 = type
3 = shape
4 = size

oversimplified, but if you look at life from a controlled or designed evolution, front loading can make sense, and it could open vast new opportunities in research discovery going forward. Instead of determining mutations look for modular design and guided adaptation with boundary limitations.

What appears fruitful may be to for branches and links to non-coded areas.

I remember reading one paper about size of a dogs snout dependent upon repetitive non-coded regions. If that is the case and thinking modular, reusable design, size would be regulated in NC regions for all areas from legs to spine, etc., and wedded to environment and diet. Besides the genetic makeup, could it be that non-coded regions are storage units for the beneficial richness of environmental surroundings that can then be passed down thru normal inheritance? There would be certain limitations as well within species to size. Surroundings could limit size as well.

This is seen by fish in smaller or large fish tanks. Artificial selection is a way to limit or expand these non-coded regions.

Maybe some hardcoded limitations. Possibly? Variation is related to size, color, etc., but not to overall body plan. It would be multiple trees. If front loaded, to me at least, this makes more sense and punctuated equilibrium more applicable as well as pre-programmed space adapts quickly, not gradually to surroundings. Gould would be right. Evolutionist would be right and Design would be right.

BTW, when will they rename these genomic regions to something more practical? It appears the more we learn, they're functional in one way or another.

Also, I'm not aware of the major IDist denying evolution or common descent. From what I've read front loading is an option. Seems to be a fairly big tent.

To pick up on a statement by Bilbo in another post. If you think towards the future, what will be likely for scientific progress? It will be designed proteins that become prevalent. I'd imagine, designed includes guided evolution with a preset limit of environmental dependent adaptation.

While it's more complicated than this, think of the mouse gene acting as a master gene that brings an array of genes online. When placed in the fly, it simply turns on the fly array. So what's different are the gene interactions downstream of the master switch.

Thanks. Well, this is certainly something to chew on for a while.

Did you check out the video at this site?

I did. Amazing, of course. And I'd agree with your estimation of the situation.

I didn't know an experiment like that was done. Impressive.

If the mouse gene for the mouse eye is the same as the eye gene for the fly, then what makes the mouse eye and the fly eye develop into structures that are so radically different in structure?

Programming.

While it's more complicated than this, think of the mouse gene acting as a master gene that brings an array of genes online. When placed in the fly, it simply turns on the fly array. So what's different are the gene interactions downstream of the master switch.

Did you check out the video at this site?

After watching that video, I've got a question. If the mouse gene for the mouse eye is the same as the eye gene for the fly, then what makes the mouse eye and the fly eye develop into structures that are so radically different in appearance and size? It seems to infer that genes determine function but not the shape, at least not exclusively.

When evolution was merely an idea about history, it was a different situation. I could be wrong, but it seems like the earliest supporters didn't really foresee evolution or biological processes themselves becoming so amenable to technological use.

Did you check out the video at this site?

Think about why biologists were surprised to find that a mouse gene could provide the needed information for a fly eye? There was something about evolutionary theory, at the time, which completely failed to prepare them for this. And note that Carroll says we now recognize that evolution is more "simple" than we thought. Very interesting.

If one is used to thinking of evolution as something that opposes design, they could easily miss the profound change in thinking that is happening in our life time - evolution is a design. Natural selection, while still important, is being dethroned.