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
LOL! I have to agree with the sentiment given Dataman's performance and dependable regurgitation of antievo canards thus far; but I also have to credit Dataman in this specific instance. I think one can make the argument that the quote was representative of Colin Patterson's views, at least at the time it was made.
Colin Patterson was a radical exponent of a view called "transformed cladism". Without going into detail, this view held that there is "a one true method" for the evolutionary analysis of characters (which is why I call it "radical"). It was a consequence of the formalism of this cladistic method that it could only identify "sister groups" (basically cousin-like relationships) and not direct ancestor-descendent relationships. Actually, the very logic of the cladistic method -- especially if taken as seriously, literally and exclusively as Patterson did -- implies that it should only be applied to living organisms or, if to fossil organisms at all, only to those occupying a single given slice of time.
In any case, because of this artifact of his preferred method (which he clearly considered exclusively valid) Patterson seemed to believe that it was impossible in principle to identify ancestor-descendent relationships. IOW, his views represent a rigid and dogmatic attitude, but they are consistent with his views about classification. (Or consistent expect for the fact that, if applied as strictly has he seemed to, they should have precluded him from comparing living and fossil organisms at all!)
Note, however, that even Patterson was not saying that transitionals do not exist, he was only saying that we can't identify them. Of course virtually no one else agrees with him, nor did at the time. Even the most dedicated cladists are not as radical about the method, or as glib in mistaking it's formalisms for reality, as Colin seems to have been.
So what? There are plenty of differences around the eye (as I noted) and in the rostrum, the lower jaw, etc. And there is the difference in size, and in habitat (all fossil coelacanths are shallow water species, and many are fresh water; the living genus is a deep ocean species) and adaption thereto.
From your link:
It wasn't misleading, it was a quote and yes, it was from Sunderland's book. The original challenge was this:
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?
I met the challenge and produced the example. But "NO!" shout the evolutionists, "That's not what he really meant."
Well then, how about if I provide 2 examples? How about 3? Four? Will it make any difference? I doubt it because no matter how many quotes I produce, evos will either say it was out of context or not what the author meant. Let's see if I'm right. Here's another quote (taken from a book so Aric, that means there won't be a link):
According to the quote, he said, "I will lay it on the line-- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." That seems to be pretty loosey-goosey. He seems to be saying there may be some compelling evidence, but it's not 100% certain.
Agreed on history, but I think Dataman did O.K. in this instance, as far as the quote being reasonably representative. See my 144 however for some missing context (which, however, Dataman would not be expected to know about).
Of course I knew about Patterson, and about this quote, which is why I told Dataman that claims of problems with identifying transitionals was not the same as denying their existence. As I noted in 144, Patterson's views are pretty unusual and extreme. His quote is as close as Dataman can get (without lying or distorting).
Thank you for that admission. I noticed that the other participants on the evo side are still in denial. Patterson's quote doesn't disprove evolution or even damage the theory so I'm not sure what the big defensive reaction is.
Pardon? I'm unaware of any fundamental or significant disagreement between evolutionists and creationists about the identification of species. Or of any disagreement whatsoever, for that matter.
This is not surprising since, as I noted, the species is the one objective taxon.
The challenge was to find one professional evolutionist who said there are "no transitional forms" (your words). Boucot says the fossil record is "replete with" transitional forms at the species, genus and family levels, just not at the "suprafamilial" level. How does that support your position?
My comment was in referenced to your statement:
"[Macro]Evolution doesn't happen because the boundaries of [the creationist] taxonomy [of 'created kinds'] are adjusted."
My point was only that reality cannot be brought into existence simply by playing with definitions. For example, I could say that Minnesota is the best state to live in and proceed to define "best" as spending the most tax $ per capita. Or I could say that Minnesota is the most compassionate state because it spends the most money on education and health care per capita. Minnesota is neither the best state nor the most compassionate and playing with definitions won't make it so.
[ALARM Bells Ringing!!!]
Yes, Dataman, but what book did YOU take it from? Are you saying that you have "Arthur J. Boucot, Ph.D., Evolution and Extinction Rate Controls" siting open in front of your keyboard, or are you taking this from some other book that quotes Boucot?
You are obligated to provide YOUR source. E.g. "Arthur J. Boucot (etc) as quoted in Henry H. Morris (etc) page (so and so)."
Yes, because it isn't what he meant. Not at all.
Stultis, OTOH, has been polite and, although he doesn't agree with the creationist position, hasn't devolved into the rabid foaming flailing which we have come to expect. Some of you pretend you're calm rational scientists and then proceed to whirl like a dervish at the drop of a hat.
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.