Two bits of science news today. “Classic maths puzzle cracked at last/a” talks about patterns in numbers. Mathematicians were apparently surprised as they discovered how prevalent these are, but I am not. It is the same sort of argument that is being made when you look at the finite ranges in which life as we know it could exist./p

The other is “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/23/science/23gene.html?ei=”>Startling Scientists, Plant Fixes Its Flawed Gene/a,“ which suggests there may be more to heredity than Mendel’s laws and DNA. If so, this would raise the explanatory bar for evolution significantly/em higher, as a mutation must get past this extra set of non-DNA based accuracy checks. Why have we not noticed this before? Perhaps because it was not looked for?/p