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
Actually, it's wonderful to be recognized in one's own lifetime. I still remember the day I was picked out of three police lineups in a row.
This is what I meant by "run to Mama."
Oh, yes, heaven forbid obvious disruptors like ALS should be held to the rules established by the owners of this website. Maybe you think it's right and proper for them to purposely destroy threads via disruption, but from the comments I've seen here, most posters disagree with you on that sort of childish anarchy. There are minimal levels of adult discusion, and ALS consistently violates them, with malice aforethought.
And more and more often recently, so do you. You used to at least make some sort of attempt to discuss the topic at hand, but more and more you just ape ALS's tactic of throwing in dozens of broadly insulting snotty one-liners and silly irrelevant cartoons.
We obviously have a very different opinion about what constitutes mature discussion. I'm not afraid to let the moderators decide who's right on that matter. Judging from your response, wherein you try to head off such action by trying to paint it as an act of immaturity instead of what it is (a sincere desire to get the worst examples of childishness *out* of these threads), you seem to fear coming out on the short end of the exercise. And rightly so, in my opinion.
Call it what you like, but although I have yet to actually "run to Mama", since I hope that the reminder of that court of last resort will be enough to shame you folks into acting a bit more maturely (although I'm quickly learning that you seem to *have* no shame), if the reminder is not enough, I will take the time to compose a lengthy, well-documented letter to the operators of this site, asking them if the behavior in question is the sort of thing they intend to allow to continue on a site that explicitly lists "abusive attacks, engaging in senseless flame wars" in their guidelines about what can prompt them to "revoke posting privileges and, when necessary, to permanently ban individuals".
I'm as much a proponent of broad latitude in free speech as anyone, but that doesn't include the online equivalent of monkeys flinging their own dung non-stop, or shouting down opposing views (which is what happens when threads get buried in ALS-style spamming).
I'm just asking you folks to act several notches more grown up. Are you able to, or are we going to have to get you spanked after all? You're rapidly using up all your chances.
Hypocrites like you exhibit a mean thuggery,
If it's "mean thuggery" to expect people to discuss serious topics like civil adults, then I guess I'll have to plead guilty.
spewing bile and insults 10:1,
You are invited to document this ridiculous claim, or to retract it. Or else we'll just have to add it to your several other obvious flamewar attempts.
unable to persuade, barely able to reason,
...so says the guy whose idea of "persuasion" is to post countless cartoons of monkeys and nuts, and ask if we see any familiar faces...
Meanwhile, I've posted quite a few lengthy posts presenting and analyzing various research findings, and critiqueing things offered by others. I'll proudly put my ability to persuade and reason up against yours any time.
resort to the abuse button if not allowed to control and dominate.
You're fantasizing again. First, I have not yet resorted to the abuse button. I'm reminding you that it's there, in the hopes that you and others will remember that there *are* posting guidelines on this site that the rest of us abide by, which you are likewise expected to.
And I have no desire to "control and dominate", only to discuss things on a thread not purposely trashed by disruptors acting like children.
Are we clear now?
[You quite obviously attempt to undermine discussion by disrupting it with your obsessive-compulsive behavior.]
By your standard, 90% of the evos on this thread should be banned.
No, actually, you quite clearly haven't a clue as to what "my standards" are. But then that's exactly the problem. My standards are an honest attempt to discuss the topic (which will sometimes include a discusion of how well or poorly the other guy is discussing the topic). My standards do not include intentional disruption, reflexive but content-free responses to every post by any "opponent", countless posts intended entirely to flame and insult in broad terms, cartoons which have little or nothing to do with the thread, and so on. Those are the standards of children on the playground.
Unbelieveable world-class hypocrisy!
Depressingly believable missing-of-the-point.
You don't find the creationists threating the abuse button when they don't get their way.
Because despite their screeches, the creationists know full well that the evolutionists on these threads seldom fall below the level of what the operators of this site describe as "a bruise or two between Freepers is tolerable". But if you honestly (*cough*) think that evolutionists here are over the line, by all means *do* go for the abuse button. That's what it's there for. Just remember that it works both ways, and if you're not sure if you're below the line yourself, think twice before posting.
And as I've already made entirely clear to anyone with decent reading comprehension, this is not about "getting my way". This is about following the SITE OWNER's "way".
Time and time again they've made it clear that disruptors and endless flamers are not welcome here. So don't be one.
If you're still unable to be clear on that concept, then we *will* have to get the moderators involved. Your choice.
Grow up.
I am grown up, which is why I have little interest in tolerating non-stop childish schoolyard behavior.
Oh, I see. If you can self-justify, it's ok.
No, you really don't "see".
My point, obvious to most if not to you, is that while insults are common on these kinds of threads for various reasons (some good, some not), insults which are based directly on something that another poster has actually done or said, issued along with the supporting reasons for issuing the insult (e.g., the person being responded to really *is* demonstrably contradicting himself in a foolish way), are far more justifiable than the sorts of insults ALS and his cronies are engaging in, which are broad, scattershot flames (e.g., "all those who like it raise your hands all those opposed, just keep dragging them...", or post #1745, etc.)
This calls for a top ten reasons why Evos throw insults.
Ooh, ten *more* broad, scattershot flames by a creationist flaming against evolutionists as a general group, fired off without a single supporting example or specific reference to the alleged behavior.
Thanks for proving my point, ten times over.
Oh, and by the way. So what? Every modern scientist worth his salt, other than creationist "scientists" voices such sentiments from time to time, particularly when questioned in public, this is because scientific theories are explicitly tentative, not certainties, as vouchsafed by a pretty consistent history of being antiquated, modified, replaced, subsumed or refuted.
Which is, by the way, the fundamental reason "creationist science" is a laughable notion, and it's proponents the laughingstock of the scientific community. No amount of loud, repetitive, annoying, or blue distractions to the contrary notwithstanding.
So the rules apply to ALS but not to you? Logical. Consistent. Intelligent. Reasonable. Scientific.
You used to at least make some sort of attempt to discuss the topic at hand, but more and more you just ape ALS's tactic
A little judgemental, aren't we? Remove the lumberyard...
I'll be happy to carry on an intelligent conversation with you. You must understand, however, that it takes two to have an intelligent conversation. I don't think you get that.
I'm not afraid to let the moderators decide who's right on that matter.
Run to mama if you wish. I would hope the moderators would read your bile if you do. The ALS stuff is mostly funny. You need a sense of humor to appreciate it.
the reminder of that court of last resort will be enough to shame you folks into acting a bit more maturely
And what will it take to get you to behave yourself? It'd be a nice change to see some maturity from your side. The complete and utter hypocrisy of your bile is nothing short of astounding!
I will take the time to compose a lengthy, well-documented letter to the operators of this site, asking them if the behavior in question is the sort of thing they intend to allow to continue on a site that explicitly lists "abusive attacks, engaging in senseless flame wars" in their guidelines about what can prompt them to "revoke posting privileges and, when necessary, to permanently ban individuals".
Careful. You may get your buddies and even yourself thrown off. All the moderators have to do is read this thread.
I'm as much a proponent of broad latitude in free speech as anyone
No you're not. You are making threats. That's thin-skinned and immature by any standard.
There are other c/e threads on FR that are more friction free. Let me give you some libertarian-style advice. If you don't like what's on TV, turn it off. Just as you and your side aren't required to refrain from insults and condescending remarks, you aren't required to participate either.
I suggest you preach to your own if you want to raise the quality of debate. You guys stoke the fire and then complain that "they did it."
Yes, that's happened to me on occasion. So what?
Not that it alters the balance of correct posts(ours) and incorrect/losing posts(yours).
Will this be the third time I've asked you to stop posting fact and argument-free irrelevancies at me? Are you vieing for f.christian's crown as the most annoyingly irrelevant poster on FR?
I'll repeat this request once more, as plain as I can: If you don't have a relevant fact or a lucid argument to present, kindly bug someone else. Like f.christian, you have run out the bucket of automatic charity everyone who enters an argument starts out with. Failure to honor such repeated requests has gotten more than one recalcitrant would-be playground bully's keister hoisted out of FR.
Give me a ludid argument, or kindly post to someone else. I've no interest in exchanging spit for spit's sake with the general public.
lucid, sorry, please, no [de]ludid arguments.
You can ask me in a civil manner and I'll consider a response.
Oh, I *see*... The old hypocritical double standard.
Your amazing position is that I'm out of line for being "uncivil" enough to say "you disgust me" in response to the post in which you BLATANTLY AND FALSELY accused someone of lying multiple times, and falsely labeled him a "chronic liar", which you somehow think *was* a "civil" thing to say.
Your hypocrisy is now clear to all, thank you.
No one is obligated to respond to a pompous simian.
You only dig yourself deeper.
The point is that you *have* now responded, actually. And the nature of your response is far below that of an honorable person. In my post exposing your false accusations, I wrote:
You owe Lurking Libertarian an apology for your disgusting and false accusation that he was a "liar". Are you honorable enough to make it? Your reputation is on the line. Your response counts. Use it wisely.And:
Your slimy claim that he "further tarnishes his reputation with more lies", when his statement was entirely correct and accurate, digs your own reputation into a very deep hole. Now, what are you going to do about it?And:
Again, your reputation rests heavily on the nature of your response. Or your lack of one, if you choose to run away from it. Think long and hard before you answer. Show us that a creationist can be honorable, and understand the basic differences between truth and falsehood. Your move.And now we *have* your response -- such as it is. Instead of honorably retracting your false accusations, and/or apologizing to LL, you chose to dodge the issue of owning up to your own behavior by whining about how I wasn't "civil" enough in pointing out your offensive behavior and asking what you were going to do about it.
It would be absolutely comical if it weren't such a shocking example of dishonor.
In my previous post, I asked you to "show us that a creationist can be honorable, and understand the basic differences between truth and falsehood". Instead, you showed us quite the opposite. And to dig yourself deeper, you made the further mistake of insulting the messenger when you should have been addressing your own disgrace.
Personally, I wouldn't even be able to face myself in the mirror after behaving like that, but you apparently subscribe to a lower standard of ethics than I do.
Creationists are the worst advertisement ever made for "faith in things unseen."
Conservatives don't run to mama, liberals do.
Conservatives don't carp about the right not to be offended, liberals do.
Conservatives don't let emotions dominate the intellect, liberals do.
You claimed you wanted to carry on a civil conversation yet are unwilling to keep a civil tongue. I've got better things to do. Flame someone else. BYE.
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.