> But IMHO, the *real* problem that was behind Darwin's ambiguity and the
> modern-day argument between the "strict" and "pluralist" Darwinists
> is that step-by-tiny-incremental-step natural selection is the *only*
> naturalistic way, even in principle, to develop life's complex designs,
> yet the evidence from the fossil record is that it didn't happen
> that way.
Why would a macromutation be *in principle* not natural(istic)?
Is it so hard to imagine a pre-Cambrian epoch, a world without
well-formed predators, in which bizarre macromutations among
simple organisms might be viable?
-- Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ cliff@noevalley.com