I wrote:
>>As to impressive examples of evolutionary change, I think the most
>>impressive in the sense of indisputability are those that show gradual
>>change in a sequence of fossils, as in the evolution of the modern horse
>>from little eohippus. Obviously such sequences show only trivial
>>modifications in morphology. But it takes very little faith to extend the
>>notion of evolution further, to presume descent where there are
>>clearly homologous structures.
>But what is the evidence that RM&NS was the mechanism behind these
>changes?
Like I said, RM&NS is kind of axiomatic in my thinking. To question it seems
almost like David Hume's questioning of cause and effect, his claim that all we
can see is conjunction of events, that the idea of causality between them is
metaphysics. Well, RM&NS isn't quite that abstract, but it is a principle of
great generality; I don't see any competitor to it in terms of explanatory
power.
--Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ cliff@noe.com