>>
>Would you say that the datuphant was created by mutation? If so, no
>problem.
Of course it is a mutation-- a man induced mutation. The datuphant has
neither the genome of any of its parents and that is what a mutation is.
The animal is due to the surprisingly unlikely but viable massive
mutational
event.>>
OK. No problem then. I had too narrow a view of the word "mutation."
John Burgeson (Burgy)
www.burgy.50megs.com
(science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
humor, cars, God's intervention into natural causation, etc.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 27 2001 - 10:34:07 EDT