A null hypothesis, such as expecting the absence of function in non-coding DNA, reveals a presupposition that biases one’s interpretation of the evidence.
Charles Darwin was profoundly interested in plant galls, and Darwin himself proposed the challenge these and other forms may pose to his ideas.
The lesson from woolly mammoth studies, and many other ones, is that it is much faster and easier to break or blunt a gene than to improve or make a new one.
Biochemist Michael Behe reviews the well-known Long Term Evolution Experiment at Michigan State.
Can there be a better example of trying to argue that whatever the evidence, evolution is the answer?