Genetic Changes In Mice 'Question Evolution Speed'

Ananova ^ | 5-21-2003

[blam]

Genetic changes in mice 'question evolution speed'

A species of mouse has evolved dramatically in just 150 years, showing genetic change can occur much faster than was thought possible.

The discovery was made by accident by two American biologists studying the genetic make-up of a common wild mouse in Chicago.

Dr Dennis Nyberg and Dr Oliver Pergams, both from the University of Illinois at Chicago, analysed DNA samples from 56 museum specimens of the white-footed mouse dating back to 1855, and 52 wild mice captured from local forests and parks.

They found startling genetic differences between the 19th century and modern mice.

Only one of the present-day mice had DNA that matched that of mice collected before 1950.

While fast evolutionary change has been seen in fruit flies, such rapid evolution in a mammal has not been reported before.

The scientists, whose findings appear in the journal Nature, believe humans may have been partly responsible for the "new" mice.

"Settlers may have brought in mice with the favourable gene that were able to out-compete mice with the native variant," said Dr Pergams.

Story filed: 18:18 Wednesday 21st May 2003

[DaGman]

"Typical evolutionist 'refutation' - just an insult with no facts. That the only legitimate way to determine if two individuals are of the same species is to see if they can mate and produce viable offspring. This is science. Only an evolutionist follower of the charlatan Darwin would call such a test ridiculous. Sorta shows that evolutionists are not scientists."

To call this Creationist argument "ridiculous" is not an insult. It's stating a fact. The problem is there just is no way to argue with such ridiculous assertions by Creationists because there is no basis to argue from. There are no facts to argue as Creationists argue from non-facts. It's impossible to argue against absurdity because, absurdity, by definition is ridiculously incongruent and unreasonable.

[gore3000]

you'd think if this stuff was possible somebody would have SEEN it. At least once.

Yes indeed, if evolution were true, one would think they could find at least one clear, definite example of a species transforming itself into another species. However, in spite of the billions and billions of dollars spent on biological research for decades throughout the world, no one has found such a thing EVER.

[gore3000]

In other words, the three *characteristics* which make an army ant what it is (1. foraging in groups -- most non-army ants use scouts, 2. nomadic lifestyle -- most non-army ants nest in one place, 3. flightless queens which can pump out *millions* of eggs) came into being 100 million years ago and have persisted ever since. Needless to say, that's quite a different thing than the much more general "army ants haven't changed a bit" claim the reporter made.

They have had these traits for 100 million years for heaven's sake, how can you say that this is makes the reporter's statement that '"because since the reign of the dinosaurs, about 100 million years ago, army ants in essence have not changed a bit"." Do you have a problem with reading comprehension or what????

[general_re]

Thanks for the summary of the article - Nature is one of the few journals I can't get at through my usual online collections, sadly, and so whenever an article from there is discussed but not posted here, I have to confront the thought of (shudder) actually getting up and going to the library. It's so 20'th century... ;)

[gore3000]

I'm sure you have on occasion quoted Darwin correctly,

Well, I thank you for the statement above. However, you were not just attacking the one statement by ALS, but you were attacking all quotes which ask questions of evolution that have been made by evolutionists. I am not speaking of made up quotes, such is deplorable at all times. However, I am speaking of the many statements made by evolutionists themselves which show at least parts of evolutionary theory to be false (and there are many such). Surely, it must be a bitter pill for them to swallow, but one cannot say that they made those statements without realizing what they were saying. In discussions here, one might say foolish things at times, but in a book which is written at ease and with an editor reading it over, it is hard to disclaim those statements.

[general_re]

Hi, Ted. Come back to join us again? Temporarily, as it were?

[gore3000]

Only an evolutionist follower of the charlatan Darwin would call such a test ridiculous.-me-

Here's why it's ridiculous -- by your straw-man misrepresentation of this "scientific test", it would be impossible to "scientifically" demonstrate that humans and Tyrannosaurus Rex are different species from each other, because it's not possible to do a test-mating between the two.

One does not ask for such a test between an elephant and shark. However, one must ask for such a test between a zebra and a horse or similarly related animals. Such a test is the only objective test of species hood and evolutionists make such claims without such tests with quite closely related species. One very significant example is their claiming that the Darwin finches were different species. They made this claim for many decades, and some are still making it two decades after it has been disproven by the test above. Note that they did not have to force them to mate, they did not have to take semen and try to mate them in a test tube or any such thing. All they had to do was OBSERVE and evolutionists are so unscientific (or such doubters in their own theory) that they did not even try to scientifically verify the truth of their claim before making it. So yes, this is the only objective legitimate test of species hood.

As to extinct species, tough. No one asks for a test to see if a butterfly and a tyronnasaurus are different species but it is legitimate to ask if the assumed relationships of paleontologists have any basis in objective, verifiable facts and clearly they are not verifiable. Heck, we cannot even tell if dinosaurs had mammary glands or not!

[gore3000]

The problem is there just is no way to argue with such ridiculous assertions

If a statement is ridiculous it should be quite easy to refute it. Instead you just insult - and this is the 2nd time that you respond in the same manner instead of trying to refute my statement. Bye loser.

BTW - I am a Christian, not your made up word to beat up on those who believe in God 'creationist'.

[gore3000]

Then give ONE (1) example of where an evolutionist has proposed a non-materialistic explanation for a species arising. Just one example from Darwin, Gould or Dawkins is all you need. You should be able to find one if what you say is true.-me-

Once again you shift the burden of proof because you know that your lies are indefensable.

I am not shifting the burden of proof. If you attack my statements you are expected to provide evidence of their being wrong. You cannot, so you insult. As I have said before, insults only prove that you are wrong and I was right. Thanks for the concession.

[longshadow]

"say goodbye to Ted, the 'Clown Prince of Astrophysics'" placemarker

[Stultis]

Great! Thanks for the excellent report and essay.

[general_re]

Goodbye, Ted ;)

[Stultis]

evolutionists are so unscientific (or such doubters in their own theory) that they did not even try to scientifically verify the truth

You do prattle on, in spite of the fact that there is no dispute between evolutionists and creationists (per se) about the status or demarcation of species. If the scientific community were (still, or again) creationist, there would be the same procedures -- and the same problems, limitations and controversies -- in identifying species.

So what is your point?

[Dimensio]

I am not shifting the burden of proof.

Liar. You are making a claim regarding evolution and then failing to back it up, demanding that we disprove it for you. If evolution really claims what you say that it claims, then you should be able to provide evidence for it. You cannot, however, because you are lying.

[DaGman]

"If a statement is ridiculous it should be quite easy to refute it. Instead you just insult - and this is the 2nd time that you respond in the same manner instead of trying to refute my statement. Bye loser.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that it's impossible to argue against the absurdity of your assertions because, absurdity, by definition is ridiculously incongruent and unreasonable. This is no insult. It is simply a statement of fact. If you think it's an insult you may want to rethink you "argument" and why you think it's not absurd.

Creationists are the best at playing the victim.

[longshadow]

>Comment #1724 Removed by Moderator<

It would appear "farmerbrown" Ted has left the building......

I told you that software was dynamite....

[general_re]

Apparently so. O, Ted - we wish we hardly knew ye...

[Stultis]

how can you say that this is makes the reporter's statement that '"because since the reign of the dinosaurs, about 100 million years ago, army ants in essence have not changed a bit"."

Oh, great hoary demons of blue obstinancy...

LOOK

See the mites on the jaws of that army ant? (You can go to the source and click on the picture for a larger and more detailed image.) That mite has, thus far, ONLY been found on that particular species (Eciton dulcius) of army ant. If army ants have "not changed a bit," why wouldn't the mite get along just as well on any old army ant? The mite knows the difference. (How does it feel, gore, being less discerning than a mite?)

This phenomena is compounded by the fact that there are about "1000 species of birds, insects, mites, and millipedes" that associate with army ants, and many do so only with particular genera or species.

And speaking of jaws (and heads) and speaking of the species Eciton dulcius, this page has head shots of some other species of Eciton. Here are a few:

Please note that these are all the same caste of closely related species within a single genus! We're not even talking about anything remotely approaching the differences between old world and new world army ants. Yet you can see there is much more than "a bit" of difference in the morphology of their heads and their jaws.

There are also differences between various army ants in their behavior. Yes, for instance, they all forage communally, but some (most) types raid in discrete columns ("column raiders") so that the advancing front consists of narrow bands of works, while others advance on a broad and continuous front ("swarm raiders"). Some bivouac on the surface exclusively, some below the surface with significant excavation, and yet others alternate the behaviors over migratory and non-migratory phases. Some move their bivouacs irregularly and infrequently, uncorrelated with brood development, others move daily (or more), in other cases these movements are correlated with brood development, and in others vary across migratory and non-migratory phases.

etc, ETC, ETC

But, naturally, being a creationist, and being gore3000, reality doesn't mean a thing. You'll go on saying army ants haven't changed "a bit" because the words of somebody who dashed together a press release can be so quoted.