MikeBGene@aol.com wrote:
>I'm still trying to find the evidence that mutations and natural selection
>were indeed the mechanisms behind macroevolution. There seems to be a large
>consensus that this was the case, but where's the evidence? I understand how
>various metaphysical views can incorporate natural selection and transform it
>into the driving mechanism, but apart from those metaphysics, where is the
>persuasive appeal of such a belief?
When you eliminate the impossible explanations, what remains, however
unlikely, is the truth. (I wish I could remember the exact wording of that).
If you think divine intervention is out, and gradualism is out (as a
significant
creative mechanism), and if you believe in naturalistic explanation, then
macroevolution through RM&NS is all that's left.
Macroevolution need not occur in the simple way gradual evolution occurs.
Parabiosis or Siamese-twinning, genomic integration of symbionts, radical
loss of parts--all these are perfectly attainable through RM&NS. As to direct
evidence, one must either wait for a time machine, or wait for the unique
evolutionary mechanisms of half a billion years ago to start functioning
anew. I don't think those mechanisms are going to work in the present
well-evolved ecosystem; only in a more benign primitive environment
could such bizarre experiments gain a foothold.
--Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ cliff@noe.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 28 2000 - 02:58:32 EST