I'd bet one million pounds they won't come up with any evolutionary answer to the design in organisms. They never have. Darwinian evolution is a victorian story, think how many failed predictions there are now. Think how many times they've had to say, evolution mark 2, evolution mark 3.
i don't look for it to ever happen.
science will be able to reconstruct the cell, but it will be nonfunctional.
to have one or two highly improbable events would be acceptable, but to have a series of them?
plus, the difficulties are the result of the problem, it isn't technical or a lack of research.
the problem is apparently presenting impossible scenarios.
another good thing is, up until recently evolutionists had the luxury of being able to explain away things with mutation/ natural selection, apparently without evidence.
current research is going to show how these changes happen on a genetic level.
one of the first things they've found is that natural selection, although important, does not explain macro evolution.
as a matter of fact, changes occur the fastest when natural selection is almost absent.
another thing evolutionist can't use is algorithms of efficient design to model the cells genetic machinery.
another is species aren't the durable units of evolution, it appears families or phyla are.
We are on 3 now, with a mixture of punctuated equilibrium and neo. First it was natural selection, so they used glue to make evolution work and called it neo-Darwism. Then when it was too obvious that stasis is all we see and they have to come up with at least some attempt to make it fit evolution, they used sellotape and called it punctuated equilibrium.
i believe PE is explainable if epigenetics is some kind of feedback process.
this is my take on the situation,
the genome without epigenetics has a slow decay rate.
epigenetics provides feedback to keep DNA along the straight and narrow.
at the same time, it has been able to amass a large storehouse of sequences that work.
there comes a time to where epigenetics can no longer provide this feedback.
this results in, not one or two transitions, but possible 5 to 50.
the genes were already preseant, but epigenetics was able to produce sequences which produced novel proteins.
gene mutation/natural selection isn't how evolution works.
So from my perspective, there is no macro evolution, it only exists in the sense that an orange snooker ball exists. If you can give me a reason to believe the orange ball exists, then I will also believe evolution does.
i believe epigenetic research, especially with CRISPR, is going to show us exactly how this is done.
IOW, the demonstration of common ancestry would be achieved.
be aware that the above starting with "i believe" is only a guess,