>RM&NS to me is kind of axiomatic; I look for naturalistic explanation of
>natural phenomena, and I accept the logic of natural selection as a valid
>explanatory principle. I wouldn't call it a *metaphysical* principle, but
>maybe you would. In any case, I accept it.
Yes, it does sound like a metaphysical guide. RM&NS to me is something
that happens, but I am only willing to attribute it as _the_ mechanism
if the evidence indicates it.
>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