If AC wants to say something that stupid, let him say it himself.
How is an observable feedback mechanism like the action of an unspecified entity that does unspecified things at unspecified times and places?
LOL, ask Michael Lynch.
I wouldn't say something like that(well I truly would avoid saying something like that since I do make mistakes and cannot make the universal statement), because it is open to red herring attacks such as yours. I would rather say, the Darwinian paradigm does not adequately explain what it purports to explain. A just-so story is not an adequate explanation. A perfect example of such a just-so story in full glory was an answer given to Ben which asserted that life could have arisen on the backs of crystals(montmorillite?). Ben asked for the dividing line witin this process that separated life from non-life and was essentially patronized by the scientist who with eyes rolling stated "I've just told you how". The words may not be exact, but the interchange is a perfect example of how the scientist expects complete acceptance of a ludicrous just-so story. The fact that organic compounds align to crystal structures is not a sufficient action to explain life. Which is exactly what the scientist asserted he had done.
P.S. In order to forstall another red herring attack, I will state that the just-so story was a little more complicated that just crystal structures. Faults(mutations) in the crystal structures was noted by the scientist I presume to add credence to the just-so story.