A new and improve ToE called "Genetic Drive" hypothesis.
http://www.murdoch.edu.au/News/Shaking-up-the-theory-of-evolution/http://
Yeah, since it is easier for man put to a camel through a eye of the needle than to make the fossil record to fit the ToE.
First, Smidlee, notice that these scientists are trying to
overthrow ideas about evolution. That's how scientists gain fame: challenging a theory. But also notice that they are not saying they overthrow evolution. Why not? Because they
can't.
As it happens, these particular scientists are fighting against a strawman of evolution:
"Dr Greene, a Senior Lecturer in Molecular Genetics, said current evolutionary theory, which assumed biological lineages evolved by the slow accumulation of adaptive mutations, did not tally with the fossil record."
Phyletic gradualism (which is what this is) in large populations has been recognized since the 1940s to be only a minor mode of evolution. Instead, biological lineages evolve by allopatric and sympatric speciation. This leads to punctuated equilibrium. However, as every paleontologist knows, there are examples from the fossil record where we can see the accumulation of adaptive mutations.
What they are arguing for are large leaps across the genetic landscape by transposable elements. However, you can make large leaps across the
phenotypic landscape without these. For instance, a change in a single base in the gene Ubx converts a multilegged body plan (centipede) to just 6 legs:
Page not found : Nature Publishing Group
Of course evolution seems to be a lot quieter these days and had a lot more power back in the good old days.
Oh no. If you do a PubMed search with the search term "evolution" and do a search 3 months back, then 6 months, then a year, then 5 years, then 10 years, you will see that the rate of publications on evolution is
increasing. What's more, the principles of natural selection are being applied to a much wider set of problems than ever before.
This new hypothesis does make a little sense . As the more junk a junkyard has the more likely a tornado can build a new car.
This is where you have been tripped up by the whimsy of scientists in assigning names. Scientists originally looked at genes -- those stretches of DNA that coded for proteins. Then they looked at the stretches of DNA before the genes that were involved with controlling when the genes were turned on or turned off. Transcription control, it is called.
But there was a lot of DNA that was neither in genes or the areas of transcription control. On whimsy, some scientists called this "junk" DNA. Initially, they thought that the "junk" DNA had no function. As it turns out, of course, much of that DNA has functionality. Much of it makes small RNAs, which have control functions in a cell's metabolism. Other parts are necessary for proper folding and unfolding of DNA. Some is involved in what are called "splice variants" or different forms of proteins by including or excluding different exons.
What you have done is take that name "junk DNA" out of context to make an inaccurate rhetorical argument. The question is whether you knowingly or accidentally committed false witness.
The hypothesis generated by Oliver and Greene looks, to me, like a lot of hype. Notice that they published in
BioEssays, which is a journal specifically to air hypotheses and, particularly, hypotheses without much evidence.
For instance, I find this statement "Species without junk DNA risked extinction. Dr Greene said species that were devoid of TEs were more at risk of extinction because they simply lacked the capacity to adapt, change and diversify. " highly questionable.
Bacteria and archaea have only a little "junk" DNA, but they count for over 90% of living organisms and about 90% of all species.
"The coelacanth, which had been found off the coast of South Africa and Indonesia, had inactive or low levels of TEs and had been in stasis for 400 million years. " is also questionable. Greene apparently has never heard of stabilizing selection. He appears knowledgable about transposons, but not very knowledgable about evolution.
All in all, before you start to crow, I suggest you wait a couple of years and see how well this hypothesis stands up to testing.
BTW, even if the hypothesis is valid, it is not going to be "creation" as you use the word. It is simply going to be a material method for making many large scale changes to a genome as opposed to many small scale changes and very rare large scale changes.
