At the home of top IDolator Bill Dembski, some other IDolator writes a post best summarized as:
No, really. Actual quote:
While the article does not directly address the implications for Darwinism of the existence of “latent” or “preexisting” evolutionary potential, the impossibility of fitting this concept into the standard neo-Darwinian paradigm is obvious.
If only someone had come up with a term like exaptation to describe the situation in which selection acts on features which originally evolved in a very different context in response to new challenges.
More like this
Carl Zimmer is one kinky dude—he has a new article on sexual cannibalism in the NY Times, and his
As always on Friday, there are new article published in the community journals - PLoS Pathogens, PLoS Computational Biology and
The human genome (like all mammalian genomes) is loaded with sequences that don't perform any known function. And many of these sequences are junk. And it's not just mammals -- many animal genomes are loaded with junk, as are those of other eukaryotes.
Well, doesn't everything evolve from something? The example in the link above says that feathers for flight is an exaptation of feathers for insulation. But insulating feathers evolved from scaly skin which allowed for life away from water and on and on. Maybe I'm just not clear on the nuance.
Well of course exaptation proves ID. Everything proves ID. Everything is how the designer dunnit! QED.