I’ve been saying the OP’s title for years now. And, every day, I read review articles in the like of Phys.Org (they usually get out the articles first!) and, sure enough, there’s an article undermining Darwinian orthodoxy and the neo-Darwinian mechanisms that underpin it.
It involves the insect genome and proteins once considered indispensible, hence ‘conserved’, throughout all eukaryotic lineages:
Cell division, the process that ensures equal transmission of genetic information to daughter cells, has been fundamentally conserved for over a billion years of evolution. Considering its ubiquity and essentiality, it is expected that proteins that carry out cell division would also be highly conserved. Challenging this assumption, scientists from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center have found that one of the foundational proteins in cell division, previously shown to be essential in organisms as diverse as yeast, flies and humans, has been surprisingly lost on multiple occasions during insect evolution.
It thus appeared that transitions from monocentric to holocentric chromosomes in insects rendered CenH3 non-essential, ultimately leading to its loss in species of insects that comprise 16% of named biodiversity. “Our report completely revises the notions of gene essentiality in a process that is of fundamental importance to all eukaryotic organisms,” added Harmit Malik, Ph.D., researcher in the Basic Sciences division at Fred Hutch. “To find that insect species have replaced the very foundation of centromere definition was quite surprising. It presents a unique opportunity to understand what kind of process may have facilitated this loss.”
Yes, what process? Notice they don’t appeal to neo-Darwinian processes: tacit admission that something really out of the ordinary is at work here.
The Darwinian conundrum this study raises is this: how does an organism go from an “X-type”, “monocentric” chromsome” to a “holocentric” one? Imagine the complexity involved in this change. And, of course, how does one have an “intermediate” form to the “mono-” and “homo-“centric forms when, without chromosome organization, replication would be unthinkable.
Just another day, and just another conundrum for the Darwinists. Exactly how much ‘hope’ and ‘imagination’ do they have? It appears limitless.
P.S. If the scientists would look at their evidence, and then look at it from a “design” perspective, they would gain what I consider to be a very useful insight into all of this. But, alas, they’re Darwinists. And I’m not going to help them out.