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

[js1138]

If I were to take any two or three bits of text from unrelated parts of the Bible, starting in midsentence if I so choose, starting with a capital letter even though the quote starts in mid sentence, piecing the whole thing together, declaring it to be a single quote from a single verse, would you accept this as the word of God?

[js1138]

If I were to take any two or three bits of text from unrelated parts of the Bible, starting in midsentence if I so choose, starting with a capital letter even though the quote starts in mid sentence, piecing the whole thing together, declaring it to be a single quote from a single verse, would you accept this as the word of God?

[Dataman]

"An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials."

That's no big deal for the person who risks nothing to reject evolution. For scientists, however, it could mean the loss of a job or a promoton or a professorship. Criticism of the holy theory by a professional is not done lightly.

[ALS]

"But mutations are found to be of a random nature, as far as their utility is concerned. Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrences."—*H.J. Muller, "Radiation Damage to the Genetic Material," in American Scientist, January 1950, p. 35.

say, this passes your "100 years" litmus test!

or is that down to "52 years" now?

[ALS]

can I quote that?

[Aric2000]

I either want credit for that tagline, or remove it.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Your bogus quotes from Francisco Ayala are debunked here.

[Dataman]

my son is at an age where he is laughing for the first time at funny stuff,

How's his wife taking it?

[f.Christian]

Darwins balloon was full of holes, that have since been hyper ventilated , that is why it is called a big bang --- bust !

[ALS]

sorry bubber, but I originally had you as the credit, only FR didn't make enough room for the characters.

what you see is the character limit

you can however, continue to wrable on about it. Which is just as good an advertisement

[ALS]

is that an "evo site"?

tit 4 tat eh sally?

[ALS]

and he stuffs?

now we know what she's hollaring...

"hey dummy, you aren't wearing my bras again are you?"

[f.Christian]

Your laughing clown buddies left you hanging ... blow the house down --- knock em dead !

[Dataman]

Some how the idea that you can misquote the Bible therefore every quote from an evolutionist is a misquote doesn't quite cut it in the logic department.

Then again, it may not really be you. It might be your dog again.

[ALS]

oddly enough, they always seem to scatter when he rambles on.

to date, it's been a wise move

(SEE: tagline)

[Dimensio]

Your bogus quotes from Francisco Ayala are debunked here.

The quote isn't bogus. It just in no way discredits evolution. Since the statements are factually true but do not discredit evolution, creationists who claim that they are arguments against evolution are lying.

Of course, ALS will just pretend that the explanation of why the statements do not discredit evolution does not exist, and he'll claim that we're just pretending that the problems aren't there. This is because ALS is a bigger liar than Bill Clinton could ever hope to be.

[Lurking Libertarian]

I said nothing about quoting the Bible. Every one of ALS's quotes that I have been able to check has either been bogus or taken out of context.

[Dimensio]

Some how the idea that you can misquote the Bible therefore every quote from an evolutionist is a misquote doesn't quite cut it in the logic department.

It would have been really stupid of Lurking Libertarian to have made such a statement. Since Lurking Libertarian did not make any such statement, however, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.

[Aric2000]

Of course they are, I don't even bother checking them anymore, because I already know the answer.

And damn, I really want credit for that tagline he's using...ARGH...

[ALS]

debunk this...

Asa Gray (1810-1888)
America's leading botanist in the mid-19th century. Darwin's strongest early supporter in the U.S., in 1857 he became only the third scientist to be told of his theory (after Hooker and Lyell). He debated L. Agassiz between 1859 and 1861 on variation and geographic distribution (see also W. Rogers). His discovery of close affinities between East Asian and North American floras was a key piece of evidence in favor of evolution.

and yet....
Not fully comfortable with selection, he argued that evolution was compatible with religious belief and slid towards theistic evolutionism.