>Part of It may even be true, but science has no understanding of
>the mechanism by which major changes in organisms happened. Insisting that
>"random mutation and natural selection" is the answer, might even eventually
>damage the credibility of science as Neo Darwinism becomes less and less
"I think you must not understand why *evidence* is important. I have a
feeling you've bought the line of argumentation that says that evolution is
*merely* a philosophy. It's not, any more than physics is."
Bertvan is not talking about evolution here; he is talking about the
mechanism behind evolution. Now, since evidence is so important,
please pick your favorite example of a major change in organisms
(Bertvan's words) and cite the *evidence* that random mutation and
selection was indeed the mechanism behind this change.