3. Finally, in response to the question "Who or what designed the designer," there is a very simple, but reasonable, answer: I don't know.
If you're right that you avoid the requirement for a supernatural designer by not claiming that certain biological features couldn't evolve naturally, then without that claim and in the absence of any evidence what drives your belief in front-loading? If you claim unlikelihood of natural evolution (as opposed to impossibility) then that's just the Dembski position, which is part of the ID mainstream you supposedly eschew.
Is this discontinuity related to genetic similarity, or am I drifting off topic by exploring this further?
The main requirement of front-loading is the preservation of inactive genetic regions that are intended for future use, but inactive genetic regions are where the greatest rates of genetic change are seen.
I know you are not an ID proponent, but since you are "not an atheist", I figured you at least acknowledge the possibility of an intelligent designer.
My scientific opinion is that the amount of evidence necessary to conclude the impossibility of anything, including an intelligent designer, is unattainable, and that anyone who lets their religious beliefs in some way inform their scientific judgment is being unscientific.
I would think that any ID hypothesis would necessitate a discontinuity. Genomicus stated that:
quote:the presence of a discontinuity in the biological universe is one hallmark of intelligent design,
And in Message 156 he mentions front-loading, which I was assuming requires a discontinuity no different than normal mutation, since front-loading is superfluous if it requires the same kind of periodic intercessions by the designer as non-front-loading possibilities.