In recent years, creationists derived a quasi-scientific argument which says that major steps in evolution (transitions) cannot be demonstrated by science, which shows that God created each species separately.

They admit that microevolution does occur as variations within species, but they say macroevolution does not occur as formation of large groups.

Philip E. Johnson made that argument in a book titled "Darwin on Trial," 1991. He's a Berkeley law professor, not a scientist.

He supposedly summarized the scientific evidence showing that fossils are almost entirely absent for major transitions, and ancestors for large groups cannot generally be identified. He overlooked numerous incidences to the contrary. He also questioned whether mechanisms could be demonstrated to account for major transitions, as mutations and natural selection did not appear to be adequate.

My research shows a major transition which is presently occurring and easy to study, as a yeast adapted to soil growth and evolved into the morel mushroom. A reversion anomaly demonstrates that a step-by-step process occurred. The morphology changed more readily than the physiology, which is still yeast-like. The present state of the morel is an intermediate form progressing toward a cup fungus, which must be the convergence point for fleshy ascomycetes. In earlier times, morel-like forms completed the transformation into cup fungi.

The ancestor of the morel should be easy to locate. Presumably, it is a species of the yeast Schizosaccharomyces, perhaps japonicus. DNA testing should be able to verify that.

These results indicate that transitional evolution can occur in a manner compatible with Darwinian mechanisms. However, the scientific results say nothing about God's involvement.

It is not appropriate to extend science into the realm of religion, as atheists often do. The claim that Darwinian mechanisms preclude God's involvement is not valid. Mechanisms do not preclude other influences, even for lesser forces than God produces. For example, Darwinism does not preclude human selection and domestication.

My religious opinion is that God created life forms with the ability to be somewhat self-perpetuating, just as the laws of physics were designed to function independent of Divine influence. However, without God's influence, biology would be bland if not deteriorating, because the luck, randomness and coincidences would not be as favorable as complex life requires.

There is no evidence in my results of mechanistic inadequacies to Darwinian evolution. But above the mechanistic level, I think Divine planning is needed to integrate, harmonize, solve problems for and give purpose to biological evolution. For example, cotton and rubber are irreplaceable biological products. Humans would have been left without those necessities, if the randomness of the big bang were the only god.

Johnson indicated that scientists have not described a mechanism for rapid transitions. I think the evidence is indicating that the slow evolution which occurs between rapid transitions serves the purpose of handling point mutations by discarding bad ones and keeping good ones, which creates a lot of varient alleles, and then those genes are rearranaged during rapid transitions through recombination. Recombination includes a lot of chromosome splicing through cross-overs and insertions, which create multiple alleles on chromosomes. Morphological change, which is the easiest to produce, apparently involves rearrangements in genes affecting their sequences, linkages and timing for transcription.

Sex is the primary form of recombination. Sexual recombination is the mechanism for creating rapid transitions. The high investment in sex which nature makes has the purpose of creating rapid transitions.

A question which is not answered by my results is whether "mutations" (including recombinations) must be directed by Divine influence to increase biological complexity, or whether total randomness would suffice. I doubt that total randomness could result in evolution. Too many mutations would be required, and all structures and functions would have to evolve at separate times to prevent bad mutations for one function to be carried with good mutations for another.

The mechanisms of evolution are not inadequate, as creationists claim. Intelligent design is needed not to bypass inadequate mechanisms but to take care of purpose and "luck." There is too much luck in critical species existing or surviving catastrophes. A very obvious example is rubber trees. The transportation industry would not exist without rubber, and it is extremely improbable that a tree would produce rubber.

Here's an analogy. Say green Martians were looking through a telescope to determine if cars on earth could function on their own. They see all of the parts and say cars have all they need to operate without humans. But it would take too much luck for cars to stop at the stop signs and stay on the road without humans driving them. Evolution needs to be driven in the same way.

However, this is not a question of science. Science is only concerned with the mechanisms, just as an auto mechanic doesn't care who drives a car. The mechanisms of evolution look totally random to science, even if someone is using and directing evolution for a purpose.

A major problem in evolution is linkage. Numerous genes are linked on the same chromosomes, and numerous functions are linked in the same organism. Due to such linkages, only one function can be evolving at a time; and it only evolves one mutation at a time. Natural selection must act upon each mutation separately, or linkages will create conflicting requirements.

Consider the quantitative dynamics. If there are ten thousand bad mutations for each good (progressive) one, then more than one mutation on a chromosome will usually result in a bad mutation being carried with a good mutation. This problem is probably why species require such a low mutation rate. It must be low enough to allow only one mutation (typically) per chromosome per generation in order to unlink the bad mutations from the good ones. Organisms apparently handle the linkage problem by setting the mutation rate at a low level.