Posted on 10/27/2015 7:41:08 PM PDT by Fred Nerks
Scientists discover the birds have developed two mutations in just 50 years Genes of White Plymouth Rock chickens mutated twice in 50 years Scientists previously thought rate of change in mitochondrial genomes was never faster than about two per cent per million years Mutations suggest rate of evolution in the chickens is 15 times faster Study goes against theory evolution can only be seen over long periods
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Unless it becomes something other than a chicken...it is adapting...
Saw a picture of skeletons and noticed that myself. I always wondered how they came up with all dinos having reptile skin. I like bunny fur.
LOL - I was thinking I wanted to know when one became a cow. Then it would be the perfect "break from beef" meal....
Now for a short public service announcement to all on FR:
I prefer Cruz and my money goes to his campaign, hence the Cruz link. If you like someone else, donate to him/her (find your own link to do it) and if you use FR and don't donate, then please don't complain about the welfare leeches or those who have Obama Phones because, functionally, you are no different than any other FReeloader.....
GO CRUZ!! Keep it up Trump!!
I’m looking into getting chickens.
There ain't nobody here but us tastes like chickens. Thanks Fred Nerks.
yes, but where is all this new genetic information coming from?
saying evolution, DOESN’T answer the question...............
I love my chickens that lay golden eggs.
My neighbors wonder why I don’t work anymore.
“Study goes against theory evolution can only be seen over long periods”
Add to that the person who wrote this pulled the above statement out of his butt. This article is just plain full of misinformation.
BTW selecting for interesting mutations is standard among many plant and animal breeders. There’s nothing unusual about it.
Regarding articles like this, it is well to remember Mark Twain’s observation: If you don’t read the newspapers, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspapers, you are misinformed.”
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf108/sf108p05.htm
“Lake victoria’s cichlid fishes: can random mutations explain them?
Lake Victoria is Africa’s largest lake (420 kilometers long, but only 69 meters at its deepest). It is also the home of more than 300 species of cichlid fishes. Ordinarily, that number of different species would pose no problem for the biologists — look at the 400 or so species of hummingbirds in Central and South America! Lake Victoria, however, is a very young lake, and all of these cichlid fishes are endemic. Therefore, they must have evolved rather rapidly.
Recent seismic surveys of Lake Victoria and piston cores from its deepest parts by T.C. Johnson et al have surprised everyone: Lake Victoria was completely dry 12,400 years ago. Nor were there deeper “satellite” lakes that could have served as refuges for Lake Victoria’s biota during extreme droughts. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the present-day 300+ species of cichlid fishes all evolved in less than 12,400 years.
This being so, can random mutations — the accepted source of evolutionary novelty — have generated so many new species in such a short time? That would be one new species every 40 years or so on the average.”
(Johnson, Thomas C., et al; “Late Pleistocene Desiccation of Lake Victoria and Rapid Evolution of Cichlid Fishes,” Science, 273:1091, 1996)
They need chickens with 6 wings each. That’s a whole order. :>)
HUH?
http://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/mtdna-comes-only-mom
“... There was a bit of hubbub a few years back about the possibility of mtDNA coming from dad too. But lots of work since then has shown this was an incredibly rare event. The exception that proved the rule.”
I bet it hurts, too.
There are *many* ways to do science besides controlled experiments. The details of evolution have been observed through a variety of methodologies, from examining the fossil record to comparative anatomy, to (these days) comparative genetics.
It takes no more faith to "believe" science than it takes to "believe" that a flat object bounded with straight sides and having four interior angles of 90o is a square.
Also, you might want to be careful about trying to denigrate science by comparing it to religion. People who do that are actually denigrating religious faith. By trying to make the point that science is not based on reality through comparing it to religion, they are saying that religious faith is not based on reality. Is that a message you want to spread?
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.
