@layman,
I think that the proteomics guys like Lynch have tried to expand an oservation at the cellular level and want to make it a "rule"
Evolution has, for years, recognized non -adaptive (non nat selection means of speciation and evolution).
genetic drift, founder effects, endemism (maybe a half and half thing) "bottleneck " and populational culling, allopatric speciation, Hardy Weinberg expansion of non-evolving populations, gene flow, geographic isolation . All these are recognized evolution mechanisms that are non nat se;ection. BUT, theyve been studied and evidenced pretty well.
the arm waving in the proteomics ring needs to be producing some good field work and available evidence that can be fit into a "biological xplanation of everything"
I still have to be convinced on the population dynamics that initiate large scale evolutionary developments. Even the cichlids Ive mentioned before, when isolated , had still developed large pools of varietals that seemingly have adapted to microniches in their isolate environments.
I think that Lynch and some of the other proteomics guys should spend time with Carroll and Shubin and some other paleontology types to discuss what we can learn from the fossil record that documents " when environments attack" .
So were at an impasse? I dont buy assertive science sans good evidence , Ill reserve any opinions (especially of I can use em in my craft). SO FAR though, key index fossils that are indicators of resource pools, strongly evidence adaptive means or evolution.
The problem with biological "bandwaggoning" is that theres always going to be a set of variable conditions that will counter the assertions.
.
