On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Hans Kylberg wrote:

> In this list we are discussing "paleodiet" which can be explained as
> the *natural* diet for humans. Sciences that deal with things that are
> not natural (if there are any) are of no interest here, they can be
> misleading. Just my humble opinion.

I grant you that this discussion is pretty far off-topic for this
list.  For the record, however, I'd like to point out that at
least some ID supporters do not have objections to neodarwinism
as an explanation for the diversification of life after its
initial appearance.  ID does not entail a wholesale rejection of
neodarwinism.  Others, of course, do have further objections.

Nobody disputes natural selection.  The problems arise when we
consider the source of the variations upon which natural
selection acts, and the limits of those variations.  Neodarwinism
says that the source of variation is mainly mutation.  This
assertion does face significant difficulties, however, since
mutations are so overwhelmingly likely to be destructive.  The
two examples that are generally given of positive mutations are
antibiotic resistance in bacteria and insecticide-resistant
strains of insects.  This is because these are the only two clear
examples we have, and both of them involved *subtraction* of
information from the genome -- the deletion of function.  To go
from these examples to the grand thesis that *all* variations are
the result of mutations is to make a truly heroic leap of faith.

So how does this impact on our concerns here in this list?
Consider, for example, Ray's claim that modern humans are
"neotenized Neanderthals," and that neoteny itself is the result
of a "common mutation" caused by "nutritional stress", or
something of the sort.  If we are used to thinking of mutations
as a kind of theoretical magic wand that we can wave to explain
things, then this all seems plausible enough.  But on further
scrutiny, it's very odd indeed.  How does nutritional stress
cause mutations?  What is nutritional stress anyway?  Why should
this particular mutation be so predictable?  And so on.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]