Genome complexity: pseudogenes (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, August 27, 2013, 22:01 (4106 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: I'm pointing out that evolutionary theory is not a single package but a collection of theories, some of which are chance dependent and some of which are not. It is therefore absurd to claim that non-junk proves that evolution is a "failed paradigm", since it does not in any way invalidate the theories of common descent and natural selection. -I disagree. A collection of disjointed conjectures. Not Darwin's fault as he was ignorant of so much that we know now. He had no idea of the complexities of the living cell. He looked at breeders and extrapolated to the idea that a long enough in time breed selectioning could make new species. Not proven to any degree. The fossil record does not support his gradualism. Species appear de novo, adapt a little and then disappear. The physical appearance of life forms suggests a related bush of life, but homogous genome studies don't bear that out. Any attempt to present evolution as a natural progressive process falls short of what research is showing. Even the development of the understanding of epigenetics doesn't get us to speciation, only necessary adaptation. Natural selection works at that level. The best adapted survive. And then what? The theory, as a proposal of a natural progressive evolutionary process, doesn't answer. Something is missing, and this is where theoretical proposals fit in. I have mine, you have none. How would you propose to go from single-celled to us?