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

[Dataman]

Can you provide even one example of a "professional evolutionist" (which we can take to mean an evolutionist who has published original research regarding evolution in the professional scientific literature) who hs said this in, say, the last hundred years?

Dr. Colin Patterson:

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You seggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformatins, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, privide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?

I will lay it on the line-- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.

[Aric2000]

Oh, now be nice, he has to stick with his delusions or his entire worldview will come apart, and he will not be what he once was.

You must be careful of the creationist ego, it is easily bruised for some reason.

[Aric2000]

Are you incapable of making links?

I trust you to keep to the true intent of what he said, like I trust my dog not to eat the steaks I left on the floor.

Please link, your statements need to be verifiable to have a credence of credibility.

[Stultis]

You are then making macroevolution dependent on the accuracy of taxonomic classifications.

Yes. On the one taxa that (even if imperfectly or sometimes misidentified in the particular instance) corresponds to an objective existent: the species. All other taxa, however useful, and however much and even successfully the attempt is made to give them a consistent sense, are artificial human constructs.

[AndrewC]

We are to take "virtually identical" to mean "similar," since as you can see for yourself the forms are similar but most definitely not identical

That is due to the fact that they are drawings and have this proviso.

Details of the fossil's supplementary tail fin are insufficiently known to allow restoration.

Here is a fossil not drawn

[Dataman]

Are you incapable of making links?

I'm open to answering civil questions.

link

[Dimensio]

He's shown before that he won't provide references because doing so might allow us to actually research the context of his quotes and find out that he's completely distorting the original statements. Witness his "quotes" that "proved" that evolution theory addressed life origins (even though not one of his quotes was a statement on the theory of evolution).

[Aric2000]

That's cute Dataman, at least I have the cahuna to say what I think, you just place a link in there and expect it to say it for you.

You are a coward...

Now where is the proper link, or have you misrepresented what he said as well, so if you provide a link we will knock you around some more?

I'd be pleased to actually see you PROVE one of your assertions, I have yet to see it.

So, PROVE that one, give us a link that proves that what he said is not part of broader statement that you have taken out of context, as you are so fond of doing.

[Dataman]

Well then, if the validity of the evolutionary theory depends on taxonomy of evolutionists, then you wouldn't mind too much if the validity of creation depended on the taxonomy of creationists, would you? Oh? You don't agree? Then we're back to postmodern (double) standards.

[Aric2000]

Exactly my point....:)

[js1138]

Consider this from post #121:

You seggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformatins...

If this is a quotation, the author is an idiot. It was probably typed in by the poster, who can't type any better than I can. If it was really published on the web, and copied to FR, the author is a drooling moron.

[Dataman]

I'm open to answering civil questions and civil demands.

try this

[js1138]

Here's the link As you might have guessed, Dataman is lying, or has typed in a "quotation" from a liar.

[Dimensio]

Bah. I just stumbled upon that page through a Google search, but you beat me to it.

But...but..surely Dataman wouldn't be trying to misrepresent Patterson's words, would he?

Ahwell. Now that we've exposed Dataman's quote as being completely out of context, he'll accuse us of sticking our heads in the sand and denying obvious facts without bothering to explain why our assessment of his quotes as being out of context might be incorrect.

[Dataman]

It was probably typed in by the poster, who can't type any better than I can.

At least you figured it out. Not all evos could.

[js1138]

I will ask you in a civil tone. Check the link in post #133 and explain why you posted a misleading, out of context quotation that does not support your position at all?

[Junior]

For a doctor, he sure is illiterate. Makes me wonder at the validity of the quote...

[js1138]

Actually it was the very first link in the google search for Dr. Patterson, which means that anyone interested in the truth could not avoid finding it.

[Dimensio]

I searched on the quote itself. Again, that was the first page (the second page was an answersingenesis.org site using it as "proof" that there are no transitionals).

[Aric2000]

Yep, just as I thought, completely taken out of context, AS USUAL, and you call me unfair or unwilling to have an open mind?

Sorry, if I thought that your statement had a bit of validity in them, then I would probably be open to them.

You have a history of taking a statement, twisting it, misrepresenting it, or taking it TOTALLY out of the context in which it was given, in order for it to fit into your worldview.

Sorry, but until you prove trustworthy enough to not do that, my mind is pretty closed to your arguments.