Daniel - thanks for your thoughts.
If you did a biochem undergrad back in 91-94 you’re roughly contemporaneous with me (cell biology/genetics, 92-96), but you likely had less exposure to genetics than I.
I had a similar response to evolution then as you seem to have had then (and do now). Very similar, in fact.
Later, I would go on to do a PhD in biology and do some more genetics as part of that.
I guess the short response is that it seems to me that I am particularly well suited to understanding why you have the views you do, but also, in my opinion, why your training isn’t up to the task of dealing with (a) better evidence (biochemistry profs are usually lousy on the evidence for evolution and even worse on mechanisms) (b) more recent evidence (1994 is a long time ago), and (c) modern genomics and population genetics (which is really just a combination of (a) and (b)).
I guess what I’m saying is this - don’t be too confident in your training. It seems to be misleading you. I’m also basing that on your repeated misunderstandings of evolution as you have discussed them here - case in point, this: you continue to think evolution requires “one in a googol” - type events in order to work. Not so, my friend.
Anyway, thanks for the conversation. Did you notice that humans can learn to echolocate? Great video posted by @Chris_Falter. If humans can do that with their existing structures (!), how much more could natural selection shape a lineage over a few million years?