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.

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)

There's a difference between "the vast majority of genetic change" and the majority of "evolutionary" change.

There's frequent genetic change within individuals and across generations due to the sorts of mechanisms which Shapiro describes, but that's not necessarily the source of large evolutionary changes (so-called "macro-evolution").

Furthermore, some have tried to read some sort of "design" implication into the observation that "programmed" genetic changes can take place, but this is to be expected from what's been nicknamed the "evolution of evolution". (And similarly, Shapiro overstates the amount that this mechanism has been allegedly "not appreciated" by biologists. I've seen it referenced many times.)

The "evolution of evolution" refers to the way that evolutionary pressures will cause not only evolution at the species level (e.g., an overt increase in running efficiency, etc.), but also will bring about changes at the molecular level which will, in a sense, improve the efficiency of evolution as a process. In short, over time the DNA encoding, the molecular mechanisms which act on it, etc., will themselves evolve to become more efficient at adapting the organism to the environment, and this will both expand the "evolutionary toolkit", and result in the kinds of "self-adjusting genetic code" described by Shapiro et al which allow the DNA to shift appropriately to environmental conditions.

I'm probably not stating that as clearly as I could, but hey, I'm tired today.

Those are pieces of different sentences from different letters to different people, chopped up and made to look like one sentence which has a meaning exactly the opposite of what Darwin intended. But you knew that, of course, because that was shown to you some 700 posts ago.

This is worth repeating at this point. The original is at post 1,453, from yesterday:

Informed by the dishonorable, anti-intellectual tactics of the creationoids, as exhibited continuously in this thread, I have searched the Good Book and cobbled together a "quote" in the same manner as the garbled mess we were told was a quote from Darwin. What follows is every bit as "authentic" as the bogus Darwin quote. Every word is, after all, more or less, from Scripture:

"Verily I say unto you ... it came to pass that ... both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father ... go and do thou likewise."

Now don't go wobbly on me and start crying to the mods; because it's obvious that I mean no blasphemy here. The purpose is to show what one can do with out- of-context and patched together quotes, provided, of course, that one has the morals of a creationoid.

From your comment here, I gather you have not read my linked reference by Shapiro. That is not to say he is what you would term an ID'er, but ----

As I see it, a 21^st Century view of evolution has to include the following features:

• Major evolutionary change to the genome occurs by the amplification and rearrangement of pre-existing modules. Old genomic systems are disassembled and new genomic systems are assembled by natural genetic engineering functions that operate via non-random molecular processes.

• Major alterations in the content and distribution of repetitive DNA elements results in a reformatting of the genome to function in novel ways --without major alterations of protein coding sequences. These reformattings would be particularly important in adaptive radiations within taxonomic groups that use the same basic materials to make a wide variety of morphologically distinct species (e.g. birds and mammals).

• Large-scale genome-wide reorganizations occur rapidly (potentially within a single generation) following activation of natural genetic engineering systems in response to a major evolutionary challenge. The cellular regulation of natural genetic engineering automatically imposes a punctuated tempo on the process of evolutionary change.

• Targeting of natural genetic engineering processes by cellular control networks to particular regions of the genome enhances the probability of generating useful new multi-locus systems. (Exactly how far the computational capacity of cells can influence complex genome rearrangements needs to be investigated. This area also holds promise for powerful new biotechnologies.)

• Natural selection following genome reorganization eliminates the misfits whose new genetic structures are non-functional. In this sense, natural selection plays an essentially negative role, as postulated by many early thinkers about evolution (e.g. 53). Once organisms with functional new genomes appear, however, natural selection may play a positive role in fine-tuning novel genetic systems by the kind of micro-evolutionary processes currently studied in the laboratory.

Sorry about the tired.

Gore3000: [Only an evolutionist follower of the charlatan Darwin would call such a test ridiculous.]
Ichneumon: [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.

Yes, exactly -- because there are OTHER OBJECTIVE WAYS TO DETERMINE THAT THEY ARE DIFFERENT SPECIES.

However, one must ask for such a test between a zebra and a horse or similarly related animals.

Why? There are other good ways to determine that zebras and horses are indeed separate species, even aside from any interbreeding issues.

Such a test is the only objective test of species hood

No, it is not, which is entirely the point. You declared, quite incorrectly, that the only "scientific" way to determine same-or-different species was to attempt an interbreeding. However, as you then correctly (gasp!) pointed out, this isn't possible for extinct organisms. But rather than arrive at the obvious conclusion that other methods must then be used, you bone-headedly declared that the only, single, lone, unique test was the interbreeding test, and that you would accept no other method as "scientific".

I pointed out that by your silly position, one would not even be able to declare T-Rex and humans different species. Your response that "one does not ask for" a test between "obviously" different species only underscores the fact that there *are* morphological differences (*not* interbreeding tests) which can be used to clearly distinguish organisms which are *not* the same species as each other.

Thanks for admitting the obvious, implicitly even if you stubbornly refuse to do so explicitly.

So stop dancing, you're not only wasting our time, but your own.

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.

Because contrary to your false claim, that's not the "only" test that matters.

So yes, this is the only objective legitimate test of species hood.

Again you make the bald claim, again you fail to support it with anything other than your own foot-stomping "is so!" personal assurances.

You seem to believe it, but it just ain't so.

As to extinct species, tough. No one asks for a test to see if a butterfly and a tyronnasaurus are different species

...because, son, there are morphological TESTS which answer that quest, entirely apart from any single-minded fixation you have on interbreeding (hmmm...)

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.

...because...?

You sort of "forgot" to provide support for your empty declaration that "they are not verifiable". Your typing it does not make it so.

Heck, we cannot even tell if dinosaurs had mammary glands or not!

Nice non sequitur. But even leaving aside the point that we have many good reasons for believing that they did not (except perhaps in the therapsids which eventually became mammals anyway), that hardly helps your silly claim that there is "no" scientific way to separate one species from another aside from interbreeding them.

And finally, interbreedability is not what makes a species anyway. While it's true that organisms which *cannot* interbreed are necessarily different species, the reverse is *not* true -- that is, being close enough able to interbreed does *not* imply that two organisms are necessarily the same species. Take the lion and the tiger, for example; two clearly different species, which nonetheless can produce offspring if artificially induced to breed.

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.