Todd Moody wrote:
>   The question is whether mutations are the source of the variations that natural selection selects.  That's the point that lacks empirical
> evidence.


Many domestic animals exihibit traits that are not found in their wild
counterparts and are not explainable by neoteny (a form of mutation
itself)alone.

A good recent example is a new breed of very short-legged cat that was
bred from one individual cat that first exhibited this mutation that had
never been seen before.  Several breeds of plants have also been bred
from individual mutants in recent history and prior to recent genetic
splicing techniques mutations were the principle source of new plant
variants.  That natural selection wouldn't be able to duplicate the
efforts of Man grossly underestimates God's abilities

The lack of "missing links" in the fosil record is explained by the
statical improbality of such a small population being preserved.  Species
that existed for millions of years in large numbers may be represented by
only a few individuals.  Variants existing in far fewer numbers for far
less time have scant chance of being preserved at all.

One thing that is becoming clear from chaos theory and fractal geometry
is that only randomness produces designs as complex as those found in
nature.

Ray Audette
Author "NeanderThin"