Not that I disagree. You're very likely correct in your assessment.
I only wanted to point out that you're almost forced to come up with some theory you have to explain genomic findings. Over time, yes, most of those theories have historically been shown to be bunk. (My gut tells me this one will share a similar fate.)
But that's the scientific method. Propose a hypothesis (theory). Design experiments to test said theory. Present the results. Which should lead you to another hypothesis.
In the "propose a hypothesis" phase, at least in fields like this one, the proposals will tend to be informed more by world view than by science. That's how humans think. I don't think there's any changing that. The control, or "check and balance", is supposed to be the objective review and validated replication of the results. Which is, I grant you, lacking at times.
I only wanted to point out that you're almost forced to come up with some theory you have to explain genomic findings. Over time, yes, most of those theories have historically been shown to be bunk. (My gut tells me this one will share a similar fate.)
But that's the scientific method. Propose a hypothesis (theory). Design experiments to test said theory. Present the results. Which should lead you to another hypothesis.
In the "propose a hypothesis" phase, at least in fields like this one, the proposals will tend to be informed more by world view than by science. That's how humans think. I don't think there's any changing that. The control, or "check and balance", is supposed to be the objective review and validated replication of the results. Which is, I grant you, lacking at times.