It is important, in evaluating these arguments, that one consider all the evidence: not just the evidence that is consistent. It seems to me that when this is done, the arguments for common descent — certainly in its universal sense — are, at best, inconclusive.
Turning a protein shaped to do one particular job into a protein that does just a slightly different job (which most biologists, including myself, had thought would be as easy as pie) turned out to be much more difficult than expected.
Since I published The Myth of Junk DNA in May, there has been no response from the pro-Darwin authors I criticized in it. On September 23, 2011, however, John Farrell reviewed it for the Huffington Post.
Pity the party that tries to Darwinize metamorphosis: to give an evolutionary explanation for the transformation from caterpillar to butterfly that resembles death and resurrection. One bold evolutionist has given it a try, but is his explanation an appeal to magic?
Let us count the ways in which “fortune” favored the evolution of the modern protein.