With Darwin we have even more of a puzzle, because we have more evidence in his notebooks on his thoughts about the transmutation of species.
In 1903, Ernest Rutherford and Frederick Soddy made the astonishing discovery that natural radioactivity involves transmutation .
The example cited by you, as proof of beneficial mutations (of bacterial resistance to antibiotics) is irrelevant to the Darwinian explanation of the transmutation of species.
By 1902 Rutherford and his colleague Frederick Soddy were proposing that a different chemical element is formed whenever a radioactive element decays, a process known as transmutation .
This transmutation into pole-dancing temptresses doesn't do anything for me.
The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.
Our evaluations after such transmutation will again be merely perspectives, but their point of view will then be affirmative and affirming.
I realise now that my near Jekyll and Hyde transmutation came about insidiously, like a winter's dawn, a consequence of years of tramping the murky corridors of environmental reporting.
It's one thing making acid from air and water vapour, quite another for delicate chemical transmutation like this.
But by now it's too late: the damage done to the original vision by its transmutation into orthodoxy is irreversible.