Excerpt: “…much as I admire Dawkins’s work in evolutionary biology and in enhancing the public understanding of science…”
My comment: The case against evolution.
Quantitative analysis of RNA-protein interactions on a massively parallel array reveals biophysical and evolutionary landscapes
Biophysical constraints that enable the intermolecular tethering of RNA to DNA also link the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA via the conserved molecular mechanisms of RNA-mediated events in species from microbes to man.
Mutations perturb the biophysical basis of one-carbon metabolism, DNA methylation, and amino acid substitutions that stabilize the organized genome. Thus, mutations perturb the consequences of sequence-function relationships. However, mutations are typically considered by theorists to somehow result in biodiversity.
Ultimately, the theorists tend to claim there is scientific proof that evolution (the null hypothesis) of biodiversity has occurred via mutations (e.g., perhaps via natural selection), despite the fact that no experimental evidence supports that theory. For contrast, serious scientists continue to provide experimental evidence that integrates physics, chemistry, and molecular biology to refute evolutionary theory. See for example: Genes without prominence: a reappraisal of the foundations of biology. PDF opens here.
Minimally, it makes sense for some theorists to now examine their atheism and soften their approach to those who tout Creation and religious beliefs until experimental evidence is found that supports the pseudoscientific nonsense associated with beliefs in evolution theory.
Evolutionary theorists who wait until their theories have completely disappeared in the light of molecular biology, which obviously incorporates biophysical constraints, may be too late for face-saving measures.