I'm not sure I followed your point, Ned, although I think I did. I haven't looked at your link yet. I have to go run an errand, and then I will. I think your main point is at least somewhat summed up in:
quote:
If you didn't have the example outcome before you but understood the process in great detail you would still be astonished at the outcome.
I had a thought on this that has always interested me. Darwin's approach to evolution in _Origin of Species_ has always seemed backwards to me from what I was taught in school and from most debate approaches. Darwin started with the outcome, life today, saw the fact that subspecies were, by definition, descendants of the species they belonged to, then noticed how hard it was to classify organisms as belonging to species, subspecies and genera. He used doves as an example, pointing out that if naturalists didn't know they all (probably all) descended from Rock Pigeons, then they would classify doves as falling into three different genera. He then hypothesized that species descended from genera, genera from families, and on back.
Today, most everyone starts with the fossil record, pointing out the simplicity and lack of diversity of early life, then following it forward to modern life. Darwin went the other way.
If I followed you, then that seemed somewhat related to what you were saying. It always fascinated me, and it gave me a real respect for Darwin's reasoning ability as well as his incredible knowledge of modern life forms.