Todd:
>How was it established that this trait was caused by a mutation?
>The fact that it had never been seen before means nothing, since
>it is as easily explained as a rare recessive gene.

Yet, as I see it, unless one wants to bring a supernatural entity into the
equation, _mutations_ must happen. If there were no mutations then the
simplest prehistoric protist had all the hidden "rare recessive genes" that
allow for all of the plants and animals which have ever existed. We share
98.something % of our genes with chimps, and roughly half our genes with
simple bacterium--every gene can not be explained by your "rare recessive
gene" theory. Lots of genetic baggage to be sure, but there are new genes
present. The thousand or so genes we _don't_ share with chimps are what
make us uniquely human. Perhaps there was some selction of "rare recessive
genes" happening too, but...well, so what?

What practical difference would it make? Let's say all traits attributed to
mutation were a "rare recessive gene". Then the selective pressure of the
environment acts upon "rare recessive genes" instead of mutations. How
would that change anything as far as one's diet goes?

Cheers,
Kirt

Secola  /\  Nieft
[log in to unmask]