The NY Times says that Evolution is politically correct (except for that bit about inferior races), and they’re sticking to it.
And the interpretations, obviously, are based on assumptions -
was the information necessary for this adaptation to altitude already present in the genetics of humans,
or did, somehow, some random damage to their genetic structure result in usable information that allowed them to adapt to their environment?
Please describe the difference.
The article (unless I missed it) does not address the question of whether newborn babies come into the world already possessing the high-altitude adaptations held by their mothers and fathers.
Or lack thereof.