Interesting that he buys into the conservation-function paradigm in ascribing putative function to conserved sequences, yet also thinks to ascribe function to non conserved sequences.
If he is holding out for the idea that every jot and tittle of DNA sequence has function then how can he explain why some sequences are not at all conserved, can be deleted entirely without any phenotype, and change between lineages at the neutral mutation rate?
I think he likes to only believe the data which supports his ‘every DNA sequence has function’ hypothesis and completely ignore all the sequences that have clearly been shown to not have a function and to not show conservation between lineages.
I guess one has to do something to try to hold the line against a reality which frightens and disturbs them.
I sent him your last reply as well. At this point, I’m just as curious as you about his position re: pseudogenes that do not show conservation.