> CL>Why would a macromutation be *in principle* not natural(istic)?
> 4. While stastically macromutations are possible, they are so rare as
> to be virtually impossible:
'In principle' means 'logically', or 'by definition'. This is
different from mere plausibility or implausibility. I think
it's overstating to say macromutations are in principle
impossible.
> CL>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?
> If we want imaginary worlds, then we turn to science *fiction*
> writers. Science is supposed to be about *testable* theories.
Theories begin with imagination. To me the great puzzle is the
rapid formation of the organisms that appear in the Cambrian. If
one is an evolutionist, one must speculate about this process.
If one is a creationist, there's no problem.
-- Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ cliff@noevalley.com