One of these days a certain book will come out that will help lay the context.

You're being coy.

You wrote:

Yet I am becoming increasingly convinced that gene duplication echoes the teleological essence of evolution.

What is convincing you?

That was not a "stronger position." As for your question, my approach is not, and has not been, premised on showing that this could not have happened or that would have been much less likely to happen. I understand and can see from the perspective of evolution as an undirected process; I'm slowly fleshing out an additional perspective that has always been in the background. If you are sincere in not wanting to be convinced and just being curious, then keep watching.

You were willing to take a stronger position in your post on gene duplication in Arabidopsis thaliana:

What's teleological point of all this? For most people focused on evolution, gene duplication is considered as a brute give - something that happens and something that happens to affect evolution. Yet I am becoming increasingly convinced that gene duplication echoes the teleological essence of evolution. In this example, gene duplication functions in the overall context of the cell's architecture and physiology such that evolution proceeds quite smartly. The genes closest to interfacing with the environment behave almost like "feelers," helping organisms to find their way across evolutionary time. Yet because of the same cell architecture/physiology, the same process of gene duplication functions more as a buffer in the developmental context, allowing the cell to tweak a constrained process in conjunction to what the "feelers" find.

Can you describe what it is about gene duplication and divergence that could not have happened, or would have been much less likely to happen, if evolution were an undirected process? I'm not asking you to convince me; I'm just curious to know what it is about this case that "smells" teleological to you.

The studies don't specifically support a teleological or non-teleological perspective. But that's not the point, as I'm not citing studies to imply that the teleological perspective is "best supported by the evidence" and expecting someone like you to be convinced. The studies are cited to support certain facts science has discovered and then I begin the process of incorporating them into a developing teleological gestalt.

It all goes back to the words of Nobel Laureate Francois Jacob:

To produce a valuable observation, one has first to have an idea of what to observe, a preconception of what is possible. Scientific advances often come from uncovering a hitherto unseen aspect of things as a result, not so much of using new instruments, but rather of looking at objects from a different angle. This look is necessarily guided by a certain idea of what this so-called reality might be. It always involves a certain conception about the unknown, that is, about what lies beyond that which one has logical or experimental reasons to believe.

It's about a certain preconception of what is possible, looking at objects from a different angle, and a certain conception about the unknown. I'm trying to flesh out an attempt to see the forest through the trees. Things are still fuzzy for me, but they have been slowly and gradually coming into better focus over the years.

You cite a couple of studies in your post.

How, specifically, do they support a teleogical interpretation, and what do you think the data would look like if teleology were not operative?