Such a model might roughly satisfy the intuition that 'dog
was always dog, cat was always cat', which creationists seem
to feel. The problem of transitional forms would be softened,
if not dissolved. This model, although mechanistic, would be
more in line with Genesis--a refinement of it perhaps, rather
than a affront to it.
Such a model would involve a more humble approach to the
evidence, a greater recognition of the extremely fragmentary
nature of the early fossil record. The existence of many
important ancestral forms would have to be merely postulated.
Paleontologists occasionally reflect on the lack of evidence,
but this is not in their interest. You don't get grants for
bragging about your ignorance. You give grants to curators for
maintaining 'The History of Life', not for preserving a few
miserable traces. The familiar model of evolution, in which we
try to force known forms into evolutionary sequence, may be
not only wrong, but shallow, for not recognizing the extent
of the mystery and diversity of life's history.
-- Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ cliff@noevalley.com