Posted on 05/21/2003 4:53:28 PM PDT by 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
Sounds like you have quite a job to do.
I have my plate full addressing things such as "in a sense" for numerous post after numerous post while waiting for evidence supporting fantastic claims. I also spend time actually analyzing stuff plus I actually have other things to do than converse on Freerepublic. In any case, you have my permission to disregard any evidence older than 5 years and I will do the same.
But since the subject is still two links from Talk-origins, I will further address their staleness apart from the "worm" claim contained therein which I demonstrated as unfounded long ago. In particular, the apple/hawthorn insect claim in the first link is not an example of speciation contrary to the claim in the title. The link does provide the reference from the scientists, who evidently presented the "evidence", which caution interpretations that would label the evidence speciation. In addition, the second link, which is portrayed as Some More Observed Speciation Events , includes this same example. Were an opponent of the Darwinists to post "evidence" in the same manner as the example just given, there would be no end to the whooping and hollering and charges of lying by the Darwinists, instead of the mere statement that the links are stale which alerts those who would look at that "evidence" to be cautious about the reliability of that evidence.
Ditto.
Yes, there are disagreements regarding the causes and speed of variation, but when quotes are presented in such a way to suggest that a well known biologist or physicist doubts to paradigm of variation and selection, or doubts the billions+ age of the earth and universe -- then the quotes constitute fraud -- just as Maurene Dowd's abbreviated Bush quote constituted fraud.
You continually mention Gould as if he rejected Darwin. This is simply a fraudlulent use of evidence. Ninety percent of what we know in biology has been discovered since 1960. Of course there are going to be incorrect speculations in the writings of Darwin. But I have read nearly everything Gould wrote in his thirty years of magazine columns, and I know he was a great admirer of Darwin and took great pains to show how many of Darwin's observations were remarkably correct, even to fine details.
The assertion that Gould rejected Darwin is just silly. It ignores the difference between guiding paradigms and the detailed accumulation of knowledge.
So when I see a web site devoted to skewering scientists with their own words, I think of how much I admire trial lawyers and their game of gotcha. This particular game does not lead to truth. It's object is, like the games liberal politicians play, designed to obscure truth, to prove that no one really believes anything, that evidence is just so much verbal tissue mass.
Actually, your opinion posted above contradicts facts at the time.
The Saduccees and Pharisees (religious leaders of the day), as well as Rome itself (political power), were terrified of Jesus, and accused Him of heresy because of their justifiable fear of how His teachings stood their existing structures of authority and control over the populace on their pointy little heads.
You claim from one side of your mouth to know Christianity better than I do, and then you go and spew nonsense like this out of the other side of your mouth.
Admit that your knowledge, such as it may be, often takes a back seat to your agenda-based opinions, which often have no basis whatsoever in fact.
Admit it or not, you just proved it with more of your own ill-advised spew.
I never counted them, have you? Seriously though, the number of single celled organisms is enormous. In fact in spite of their small size they constitute some 90% of the bio-mass on earth. They have also been around since the beginning of life - AND HAVE FOUND ABSOLUTELY NO NEED TO EVOLVE THEMSELVES INTO MORE COMPLEX CREATURES!.
The question is about gene pools. You asserted that all the variation we see in such creatures such as dogs is fully present in the gene pool, distributed by the sexual lottery. You also implied that when the number of breeding individuals is diminished, the species is endangered. I assume you mean that the amount of available variation in the gene pool is insufficient to allow adaptation to changing conditions. Otherwise, a single pair of any species would be quite sufficient to replenish stocks.
My question is about the gene pool of single celled organisms. Why are they not subject to this need for variation in order to adapt to conditions?
I specifically mentioned catastrophic causes of death. In the absense of catastrophe, cells die of asphyxiation, and even in the case of a multi-celled organism being crushed, the cells do not all die at once. When the roach's circulation stops, the cells die of asphyxiation. this is a well understood chemical process, and yes, the structure of the organism changes in a well understood way. The chemical structure of the cells is not the same before and after death.
Great question! The fact that they number in the gazillions(sorry for the imprecision - this is a just so comment) might have something to do with it.
Great question! The fact that they number in the gazillions(sorry for the imprecision - this is a just so comment) might have something to do with it.
But it is possible to start a bacterial culture from a single individual -- a technique available for centuries, and doable by a high school student -- let it multiply and test the resulting colony for resistance to antibiotics. If you are patient with this experiment you will get a resistant colony. Where does the variation come from?
Only if you read and reply to them. It was necessary to prove his dishonesty, but after that he can be ignored.
That's easily answered. Dr. James Shapiro has stated his opinion. It comes from the built-in program. The second post-1953 Universal, the recognition that the vast majority of genetic change results from the action of cellular biochemical systems that act on DNA, is far less widely known, and its significance is not appreciated outside a small group of specialists -- Shapiro(2001)
I am patient. I can wait for this to be explored. It is beyond my level of knowledge, so I won't bother arguing, except to say that if correct, it would simply add to the list of sources of variation. Sounds a bit like Wolfram.
I didn't realize you had not previously seen his paper. I have posted the link and excerpts from it many times. Here is the link if you would like to see what he is claiming. A 21st Century View of evolution
This thread is full of examples.
They have learned something. Unfortunately it doesn't reflect well on your holy theory. If you evos think the tactics are childish, quit using them. I find it intensely queer how most on your side moan about your own practices. ALS claims it's projection and it may well be. Perhaps you are influenced by the political party that has made an art out projecting their own crimes on the opposition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.