Content-Type: |
TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Sat, 15 May 1999 20:50:13 -0400 |
In-Reply-To: |
<v03007801b363c1d4e41b@[207.12.28.168]> |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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]
|
|
|