We can suppose this for sake of theory, but the “guidance” needed would have had to be excruciatingly particular. The result is almost equivalent. Almost, not exactly, because it would imply some “begots” in the account that would not otherwise be there. Also what we see does not behave like anything Darwinian, to say the least. The bigger the creature, the easier it is for a given genetic move to toss it into the ash heap of history; but our modern record shows an appearance of species that burgeons at the tree tops, not at the roots.
“We can suppose this for sake of theory, but the “guidance” needed would have had to be excruciatingly particular.”
Why? Either evolution is a viable means to account for the current diversity of life we see on Earth or it isn’t. If it isn’t, then why should we accept it as a viable theory at all? If it is, why would the process need painstaking guidance when it is supposed to be a blind and unthinking process that simply works? It seems to me either the guidance, or the theory of evolution, would have to be superfluous, since they are both claiming to do the same job.
“The bigger the creature, the easier it is for a given genetic move to toss it into the ash heap of history...”
I think that’s a bit simplistic, after all, size has evolutionary advantages as well as disadvantages, and according to natural selection, all advantages/disadvantages are relative to the changing environment. One very big advantage that never seems to change, though, is that the bigger you are, the fewer creatures there are who would even attempt to eat you. I wouldn’t underestimate the magnitude of such an advantage when it comes to the survival of a species.