The case for large-size mutations

Charles Darwin's (1809-1882) On the Origin of Species was published around 140 years ago. Is it possible that something has been overlooked despite the thousands of research reports (including legal briefs and pseudoscientific nonsense) that have appeared on the subject? In the present essay it is claimed that there has been a bias against "large-size" mutations. My purpose here is to show that large-size mutations are inevitable. The answer to the question 'Are the large mutation sizes valid?' is 'yes' for two reasons: First, the fact that humans have evolved from humble beginnings 3.8 billion years ago does not prove, but surely testifies to the fact, that large mutations are sometimes viable. Second, a more convincing argument is that there are no laws of physics or chemistry that forbid large mutations; they are rare but allowable and, sometimes, they are viable. If so, they follow the mathematics of a Poisson "point process." As many writers have pointed out, evolution is a general organizing principle that applies to everything in the universe. It is tempting to conjecture that large evolutionary changes can be viewed as large "mutations.".