Well, that is why I linked to NIH rather than one scientist's blog.
Myers is very outspoken in his rejection of the idea, but even as an amateur I can see rhetoric sleights of hand in his argumentation. An example:
These “layers” don’t exist! When my car malfunctions, I don’t get a horse
Bad comparison, a car did not evolve from a horse, there is no mechanism for it to have a previous "horse layer".
Myers seems to hate the idea so much and return to it so often and with so many damnations and so few citations that it actually decreases his credibility in my eyes.
Well I wouldn't say the multicellular system is reverting to a single older cell phase per say. Rather it needs NAD+ so it optimizes for that. The cells also lose adhesion and then migrate so clearly there's some "programming exception" not being caught. I view the cell as a bunch of copy paste code that's had some degree of refactoring applied so there are different programs and control systems in operation at any given time. Sometimes these get activated or not repressed erroneously, sometimes the source code gets scrambled.
Yeah, there isn't really any science to back it up.
> and the original genes might carry on within our DNA until today
Luckily we don't need to resort to "might". Since the advent of genome sequencing we can just go ahead and take a look!
E.g. yeast (your standard single-celled organism) posesses ~6000 genes of which ~23% (= 1380 genes) are similar in function to those of humans. Of those genes most of them have been severely mutated, on average sharing 32% sequence similarity, which is a world of difference in terms of protein functionality.
The few highly preserved genes that remain are core parts of all eucaryotic life (ribosomes, proteins for amino acid metabolism, etc.) and are some of the most studied genes (regarding cancer and in general).
Suggesting that there are some genes hiding in there and have been overlooked due to narrow-mindedness of the whole life science community is a bit naive.
