I think I might be on the right path here, Brad.
1. You seem to be saying that the difference between the evo/ID theories may be comparable to the Contact/Chemical theory of voltage production with two metals. Faraday with the Chemical theory of electric production and Volta's theory of metal contact via fluid. It was chemical vs. physical movement of electrons, in a round about sort of way.
My reference here. Could you define what Faradays a, b, and x signify. I could probably find it but I am feeling lazy.
2. Tetrahymena macronuclear digestion: I found
this paper, and judging by the abstract I can see where you are coming from. There seems to be controlled DNA rearrangement in some species that results in reproducible positive phenotypes. This article might be a decent thread on its own.
I might as well copy the abstract here for any lurkers:
Genetics, Vol. 148, 1109-1115, March 1998, Copyright 1998
High Frequency Intragenic Recombination During Macronuclear Development in Tetrahymena thermophila Restores the Wild-type SerH1 Gene
J. C. Deaka and F. P. Doerdera
Department of Biology, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio 44115
Macronuclear development in ciliates is characterized by extensive rearrangement of genetic material, including sequence elimination, chromosome fragmentation and telomere addition. Intragenic recombination is a relatively rare, but evolutionarily important phenomenon occurring in mitosis and meiosis in a wide variety of organisms. Here, we show that high frequency intragenic recombination, on the order of 30%, occurs in the developing amitotic macronucleus of the ciliate Tetrahymena thermophila. Such recombination, occurring between two nonsense transition mutations separated by 726 nucleotides, reproducibly restores wild-type expression of the SerH1 surface protein gene, thus mimicking complementation in trans heterozygotes. Recombination must be considered a potentially important aspect of macronuclear development, producing gene combinations not present in the germinal micronucleus. end abstract.
3. Form before function: You seem to be stating that because form can precede function in a way that indicates foresight in environmental adaption. Just as a gross example, a leg will develop before the organism runs on it. Am I getting this right?
4. Importance of physics in biology: You really didn't go into this in depth, although you say you will in the future. My stance is that even though organisms are subject to physics in a broad sense, it is the aim of natural selection to weed out poor kinematics and concentrate good kinematics. You might also mention how or if physics overpowers the chemical nature of the cell. Just a thought.
Overall, I would like to here more on this. This is among the most interesting ID musings that I have read recently. Hope to hear back soon.