Design Framework for Evolution

Hi Genomicus, After reading that paper, I am unable to see how they justify the claim that a chemical engineer "could not have found a better design".
Could you maybe point me towards where they support that claim?I suspect that it is in fact their wording that is confusing.
I think they perhaps would have been better writing "could not have found a better design using the material available."
Because the quote you provided seems to contradict their previous statement:

quote:

---

In the Krebs cycle problem the intermediary stages were also useful, but for different purposes, and, therefore, its complete design was a very clear case of opportunism.

---

I agree - but that simply means their statement is not relevant to AZPaul3's question: Q: "Is this the most efficient and effective way to break glucose into ATPs?"
A: "It is the most efficient and effective way to break glucose into ATPs given the material to hand.Do you see? It doesn't actually answer the question being asked.
(It is instead answering the question: "Is this the most efficient and effective way to break glucose into ATPs given the materials to hand?".)As AZPaul3 says, there are inefficiencies in the Krebs Cycle.
But your quote doesn't address those inefficiencies.

Unfortunately, I cannot answer than question - my biological knowledge drops me off several streets before that destination.But I assume it is what AZPaul3 is referring to here: This implies it has functionality that is no longer useful to a modern homo sapiens.Hopefully others will provide some detail in to exactly how the Krebs Cycle is inefficient...
AZPaul3...it's your turn!