Replies

"Not quite what you want, since this isn't even neo-Darwinian evolution you are attacking here. Why else would his page say: NEW THEORY REFUTES EVOLUTION" - ThinkPlease

"Dr. Senapathy's theory of independent births has two components: (1) Darwin was only half right, and (2) the primordial pond produced many millions of original organisms, not just one or two."

Nice dodge, but Senapathy is proferring a revision to Darwinsim, just as Punctuated Equilibria is a revision to Darwinism.

This is completely valid, contrary to your insinuation, and meets your demands and conditions above precisely.

The primordial pond (or ponds) produced not just one or two, but millions, perhaps billions of "seed cells" which are analogous to a zygote (a fertilized egg). These seed cells were formed in the pond by the random assembly of: (1) new genes, (2) parts of previously-made viable genomes, and (3) other biochemicals, all of which existed in the pond."

This is completely valid, contrary to your insinuation, and meets your demands and conditions above precisely.

Does it? I don't see specifically a random addition of singlular base pairs anywhere in there, where I have to throw out the entire sequence if something goes wrong (as it is according to the Watson model). I see here, that if something isn't right, it can be reused into something that is right, which Watson says is a complete no-no. Watson says that I have to start completely over from the first letter of the first sentence if something goes wrong (or three somethings, in his second article).

This is not precisely applicable, or even remotely so. Try again.