What other mechanisms? That sounds interesting. If it isn't random, doesn't Darwinian evolution go out the window? I know many evolutionists retort that "Darwinism" has long been replaced, but they continue to use the term in all kind of contexts and only seem to suggest that when holes in Darwinistic theories are pointed out. Still, I'm always intrigued by theories of non-random mutation.
Perhaps I was using the term "genome" in too broad a sense. But my point is, the complexity of the human organism is highly unlikely to have evolved (I won't say couldn't have, because though the statistical argument is compelling, I don't know that that kind of proof can be considered conclusive)as the result of random mutation followed by natural selection. I think the current state of life is the result of evolution, I just don't think it is or was random. I think life has been programmed to evolve.
when holes in Darwinistic theories are pointed out
Which "holes" would those be?
Other than, of course, the "holes" that Darwin himself listed and addressed one by one (the latter half of which being frequently ignored by quote-miners)?
It is confusing because the terms used are very fuzzy. In its broadest and strictest definition, "evolution" is nothing more than a simple class of system dynamic -- it is formally described in General Systems Theory in mathematics. All evolution requires is a source of pattern variation and a pattern filter. In classical Darwinian evolution, the source of pattern variation is "random mutation" and the pattern filter is "natural selection", but those are far from the only possible mechanisms that can supply the necessary dynamics in nature.
An example of fluid genomic variation generation is simple genomic automata, the incremental changes to the genome that occur each generation as different genomes interact with each other. This is pretty much a one-way hash function in that the process makes it virtually impossible for future generations to have the genetic characteristics of several generations prior, and this adds up pretty quickly. Humans stir the genetic pot pretty thoroughly, and we still manage to generate distinctive ethnic gene pools in only dozens of generations. There are actually many mechanisms that cause this type of irreversible drift in the population, and they are both rapid and fluid in many cases. The fluidity is a result of the fact that gene expression is not a boolean thing where it is either on or off (which many people misconceive of it being), and one can carry a great many genes that are only partially expressed or not expressed at all. This is one of the reasons most genome combinations won't kill a person or generate a non-viable result; odd new genetic features are often expressed weakly until they have survived enough generations to be reinforced. During this period, the weakly expressed gene has the opportunity to cooperate or compete with other genetic features that may be floating around in any given set of genes. As a result, genomic drift over generations tends to look very much like a type 4 cellular automata in a fashion that we are only beginning to be able to predict.
But yes, random mutation in the classic "radiation destroying DNA" sense is a slow and marginal process for speciation. All you really need is to keep two genetic pools isolated long enough that they slowly drift apart via the genomic drift. The more generations they are allowed to drift independently, the higher the probability that a given mix of genes between the two will not produce a viable result. Wait long enough, and the probability approaches zero.