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

> >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. ;)

No, as I said in an earlier post, you'd need to find a *new gene*
not present in the parents, and then show that it controls the
trait in question.

> What is the competing theory that accounts for genetic variation?

Intelligent design is one theory, but there could be others. My
argument is that it is irresponsible to reason, "It must be
random mutations because intelligent design is unacceptable and
we can't think of anything else."  In my view, following the
evidence means going where it takes you.  If evidence for
mutations is lacking, as it seems to be, then you scrap that
theory and get a better one.

> 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.

I am not skeptical of natural selection; the evidence for it is
abundant.  It is adaptation by mutation that I am skeptical of.

> >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".

I was thinking of arguments from ape diets, such as the argument
that because "we" were apes far longer than humans, our diet
should more closely resemble an ape's diet.  I am more skeptical
than ever of arguments such as that.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]