Is it possible that the progression of design, evidenced by the theory of evolution,is in fact evidence of progression of design by advanced science?

No, I think you've misunderstood evolution.

David, I don't have a comment, but just want to say how much I am enjoying and appreciating this. I'm looking forward to reading the remainder of the series.

I think the question of inheritance of acquired characteristics has been re-opened by current work in epigenetic effects on genome function and expression, particularly during development, when such changes can be fixed in germ cell lines.

Sandgroper: Thanks. Nice to know someone reads these things.

Ben: I don't understand.

Mark: I know a little bit about these things, but I'm not sure if they count as IAC in the literal sense. That would require feedback from some environmental influence back into the germ line. I read a book by Eva Jablonka some years ago (not the more recent '4 dimensions' one), but it seemed like a ragbag of unconnected things to me. You always have to watch for the bait-and-switch tactic: someone finds evidence for something that isn't 100% conventional genetics, and before you know it they are saying 'Back to Lamarck'!

No I have not misunderstood evolution theory. Simply occurs to me that now our scientists are close to artificially creating life, that perhaps in the future they will gradually create more and more complex organisms.In other words and artifical evolution of design as opposed to a natural evolution of design

Ben, then your understanding of the word 'design' is different from mine.

I do not think the idea of our scientists eventually being able to design life through the manipulation of DNA, is unreasonable. I have a strong faith in the abilities of science in the not so distant future, to do things which at the moment may seem incredible.Scientists 50 years ago would be amazed at the science of today.