Ah you arrived. How wonderful. Did you bother to read the article. You might notice that it opens possibilities on mutation (someone around here was talking about that earlier). You might not have heard them, as you were completely focused on telling them that it wasn't possible, and that they should shut up.
So you should thank me. You can now write a paper to Princeton and tell them to cease and desist.
I know, I know, I'm not fooling anyone (whatever that means) and X-men cubed. You got me.
"You might not have heard them, as you were completely focused on telling them that it wasn't possible, and that they should shut up."
That's a lie. But par for the course.
Now, can you tell us which scientists have said that everything is already known about evolution? Or are you going to pretend you didn't say that?
I did, and it was rather interesting. I have two observations.
(1) The researcher says:
“To a scientist, this kind of self-inflicted genetic damage appears unhealthy, the sort of thing that would cause undesirable mutations and could kill off the organism,” Fresco said. “Cells have evolved a complex DNA repair system to constantly repair such damage. But evolution has not, as we’d expect, put a stop to it. So we theorize it must be happening for some good reason that we have yet to uncover.”
They're theory may be correct, and the inquiry is definitely merited, but it also may very well be that it is in fact unhealthy and undesirable, and that 'evolution hasn't put a stop to it' simply because it wasn't able to.
This brief quote actually points out two problems that I often see in biological research:
(a) the personification of evolution, as if it were, say, an intelligent designer.
Evolution doesn't 'plot things out'; it doesn't 'plan ahead'; and it doesn't 'put a stop' to things. Evolution doesn't do anything; evolution is what happens. There's an important conceptual distinction there.
(b) closely related, the “atomistic” approach to evolution (especially prevalent amongst sociobiologists), theorizing as if specific biological traits can evolve in and of themselves, without regard to structural constraints on design or to the possibility that given structural changes may not appear a possible outcome of the phylogenetic history.
In short, there are any number of plausible explanations why evolution may not have halted this phenomenon, even if it's damaging and of no benefit whatsoever. The researchers presumption that it must be beneficial or else "we'd expect" that evolution would've corrected it is an expression of cognitive bias. They might very well be correct when all's said and done, but there's no guarantee that they're correct, and evolutionary science certainly does not predict that they'll be correct (i.e., that if it's there, we'd 'expect' it to be beneficial).
(2) And my second broad observation is that: On the other hand, it may very well have a positive role in evolution. If so, then how can an added 'vector' of evolvement possibly be a problem for evolution? Quite to the contrary, if that were true - if in fact this does play a role in mutation and evolution - then it seems to me this would definitely be far more of a challenge to, say, ID advocates who reject the notion of beneficial spontaneous mutations.
So, anyway, those are my initial thoughts on all this.