Todd:

>Your argument, then, is that if it isn't mutations it must be
>God. We know it's not God, therefore it's mutations.

I don't know much about God. ;)

>Fine, but that is *not* empirical evidence.  It's an a priori
>argument.  My claim is that there is very little empirical
>evidence that mutations are responsible for variation.

OK, its a priori, though what do you want? An electron microscope film of a
DNA copying mistake? That is, I mean, if electrons really exist. ;)

What is the competing theory that accounts for genetic variation?

>This discussion was started when I remarked in
>passing that I was increasingly skeptical of neodarwinism, and
>someone asked me to explain.  I've done so.

I wasn't trying to start an argument--just quite curious about your line of
reasoning. I always enjoy your posts! I share your skepticism, but it seems
I am more skeptical of the "competing theories" than I am of natural
selection.

>A possible point of relevance to diet here would be to cast a
>shadow of doubt on theories that base diet on conjectures about
>our *pre-human* primate ancestors.

Whether the genetic changes since the neolithic were a result of mutaion or
recesive genes makes little difference IMO. Clearly some folks get along
with more neolithic foods than others. Everyone must still find their own
"best diet".

Cheers,
Kirt

Secola  /\  Nieft
[log in to unmask]