0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Actually Dawkins critique was more concerned about showing that "punctuated equilibrium" did not conflict with continuous evolution and that the scientific press (and to some extent the authors Eldredge and Gould) made more of this concept than it deserved.It is not "science negating science" at all ...
Conventional wisdom is that RNA-based life eventually switched to DNA because DNA is better at storing information. In other words, RNA organisms made the first DNA.If that is true, how did life make the switch? Modern organisms can convert RNA nucleotides into DNA nucleotides, but only using special enzymes that are costly to produce in terms of energy and materials."You have to know that DNA does something good for you before you invent something like that," Switzer says.New Scientist 24 August 2012 by Michael Marshall
Organic life does not have any mechanism to divine what will be a successful change to its DNA.