{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026940346375881975, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0006414368184733803, 'mean_word_length': 5.527196652719665, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Molecular Genetics and the Foundations of Evolution

In the century since Darwin developed his theory, largely on the basis ofcomparative morphology and paleontology, genetics and comparative biochemistry have provided a great deal of further support. And in a dramatic further advance molecular genetics has now yielded a new, more direct kind of evidence for evolutionary continuity, extending from bacteria to man. Indeed, unless we assumed that continuity the study of molecular genetics in bacteria would not help us to understand human cells. Yet various groups remain skeptical, for various reasons. Religious fundamentalists in die Judeo-Christian tradition object that the evolutionary view ofman's origin destroys an indispensable basis for morality. Extreme egalitarians have difficulty with the implication that the genetic diversity within each species, on which natural selection depends, must include mental (as well as physical and biochemical) traits in man. Some literary people, following the line of Arthur Koestler, falsely ascribe to science the goal of discovering absolute truths, and they then criticize evolution for failing to meet that goal [I]. And while a distinguished philosopher of science, Karl Popper, accepted evolution as a fact, he questioned whether Darwin's theory (even in its modern, neo-Darwinian version) meets the criterion that he has proposed for distinguishing a scientific from a metaphysical theory: the ability to generate falsifiable (i.e., testable, refutable) predictions [2]. Popper has now conceded that