Joined: Sep. 2006
|rblinne: The recent advances in genetics pretty much prove common descent. |
That flies in the face of Woese’s discoveries.
It seems you do not understand Woese's hypothesis. He certainly accepts that common descent applies for all life beyond what he calls the the Darwinian Threshold. And the science certainly supports this assertion.
|As a cell design becomes more complex and interconnected a critical point is reached where a more integrated cellular organization emerges, and vertically generated novelty can and does assume greater importance.|
"Vertically generated novelty" means natural evolution by common descent. That would mean the common descent of humans with apes, with fish, and even with fig trees. And before the Darwinian Threshold? Woese proposes natural evolution by horizontal gene transfer.
|Kimura showed Darwinism is not the principal mechanism in molecular evolution.|
But Kimura did not show or imply that most adaptation was due to neutral evolution, or that natural selection wasn't important to the history of evolutionary change. Neutral theory is an elegant theory that makes specific testable predictions. Naive neutral theory has been supplanted by new research which indicates that even nearly neutral mutations are subject to natural selection.
Natural Selection Pivotal In Molecular Evolution
|These papers tell us how imperfect our genomes really are," said Wu. "At the same time, they tell us how much improvement we have constantly been making, all by means of natural selection.|
As the article indicates, this is still an area of active research.
Thrice Quadrice Quintrice banned by Uncommon Descent.
Unilateral critic of Affirmations about Uniform Distribution in the Search Space of Proteins