That doesn’t make sense. Testing hypotheses about past events giving rise to observed data is always about finding patterns more consistent with the hypothesis, and less consistent with others. If you want to call that “arguing from evolution” then it isn’t clear to me that “arguing from evolution” is any sort of a problem.
Yes, what is the problem here? That description makes good logical sense. Repetitive microsattelite DNA is the sort of thing known to be prone to duplication, which is further corroborated by the fact that similar loci in closely related species show variable length of these repeats.
I’m sure you understand the concept of a metaphor.
In the press release Cheng admits that AFGP evolution “occurred as a result of a series of seemingly improbable, serendipitous events.” For “not just any random DNA sequence can produce a viable protein.”
I’m left wondering so what? You’re not explaining how that is a problem, or even that it is a problem?
Furthermore, in addition to the gene itself, “several other serendipitous events occurred.” The DNA was “edited in just the right way,” and “somehow, the gene also obtained the proper control sequence that would allow the new gene to be transcribed into RNA.”
Serendipity/Just-So is prevalent in evolutionary thinking. It is a monumental problem.
So you say, but it’s not clear to me what the problem even is. You seem to have said what amounts to “this particular chain of events looks now, after the fact, as an unlikely combination”. But wouldn’t that be true for ANY conjunction of serial stochastic events?