Hi, what parts of evolution does it explain, and what parts does it not explain?
if you are referring to my post, i said it can, i didn't say it does.
transposons can explain some of evolution because it can mimic genetic additions to the genome.
apparently epigenetics moderates this process
you must remember a few things.
1. i'm about a million miles from being even close to an expert.
2. the above is my opinion, but it's based on material i've read.
but it does raise the curious quote from glansdorf:
LUCA does not appear to have been a simple, primitive, hyperthermophilic prokaryote but rather a complex community of protoeukaryotes with a RNA genome, adapted to a broad range of moderate temperatures, genetically redundant, morphologically and metabolically diverse. LUCA's genetic redundancy predicts loss of paralogous gene copies in divergent lineages to be a significant source of phylogenetic anomalies, i.e. instances where a protein tree departs from the SSU-rRNA genealogy; consequently, horizontal gene transfer may not have the rampant character assumed by many.
- The Last Universal Common Ancestor emergence, constitution and genetic legacy of an elusive forerunner.htm
the interesting part is:
. . . horizontal gene transfer may not have the rampant character assumed by many.
this seems to suggest all of this stuff (transposons, epigenetics) evolved together.
there is just no way this can be ascribed to dumb luck, in my opinion of course.