grovesa@cco.caltech.edu (Andy Groves) wrote in message news:<991ea4ae.0403251403.983bcb@posting.google.com>...

grovesa@cco.caltech.edu (Andy Groves) wrote in message news:<991ea4ae.0403230807.3b75c4e9@posting.google.com>...

grovesa@cco.caltech.edu (Andy Groves) wrote in message news:<991ea4ae.0403221042.57d74a40@posting.google.com>...

AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc5ss06.2d4.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 03:49:05 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <

Darlington, C.D. 1939. _The Evolution of Genetic

^^^^
<snip>

Simply pathetic, David.

In 1939, was the theory of NS well-supported by the experimental
evidence then available?

In 1939, was there a detailed Darwinian account for how exactly
meiosis and sex arose in a gradual/ step-by-tiny-step fashion?

Today, in 2004, is there a detailed Darwinian account for how exactly
meiosis and sex arose in a gradual/ step-by-tiny-step fashion?

Just so that we can be clear on this, what level of detail would
satisfy you?

Try me, by putting forward a level of detail that you are satisfied
with.

No. I asked first.

And I asked third.

I want to hear what your bottom line is, rather
than let you play God-of-the-Gaps.

Show me the best ya' got, and we can discuss it.

What's the point? You'll just say it's not detailed enough.

You will not be 100% sure of this until you try.