On Sat, 15 May 1999, Nieft / Secola wrote:

> Yet, as I see it, unless one wants to bring a supernatural entity into the
> equation, _mutations_ must happen.

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

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.

> 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?

It might not.  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.

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.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]