I want to point out again that even if your semi-meiotic hypothesis was assumed to be true, that then Darwinism would still apply. Your talk about "semi-meiotic trial balloons" is equivalent to how Darwinists talk about variants. Some "trial balloons" would be selected in, some would be "selected out", and this would be how they evolve.
Besides the people you mention I think also "mutationists" like De Vries and a few others whose names I forgot are more or less "on your side".
As far as I can tell the case is that very few intermediates are found. In stead typically one form is found which persists for a long time without changing much, without many forms leading up to that one form which persists a long time.
But I think you are taking a wrong philosophical track here, because if you found just one gradually changing species, then your hypotheis would IMO be in serious error. Similarly if we would find one semi-meiotically mutationist specie then gradualist Darwinism would IMO be in serious error. You never know how influential an organims is going to be in an ecosystem, so to miss one from the scope of the theory would always be a serious error IMO. The rule should be an abiding respect for the unicity and complexity of Nature, so that only specific cases are worthwile, and not very general notions about evolution being abrupt or gradual.
(edited to correct wrong word)
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 03-21-2003]
™ Version 4.2
