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

[donh]

I'm not going to do your thinking for ya son.

For obvious reasons.

If you can't stay up, stay out.

Son, I can make up quotes I can't back up with just as much facility as you can, I just don't have the balls to brazen out exposing myself for a feeble liar on a public forum. Fess up, you're a plant put here by the Secret Evolutionary Cabal to discredit all creationists, aren't you?

[ALS]

"Secret Evolutionary Cabal"

why yes, who told?

[Right Wing Professor]

Question Evolution Speed', ALS wrote: So you admit you were calling the womenfolk stupid?

You do like this 'when did you stop beating your wife' theme, don't you?

Question is, why would you do that after you took such glee in accusing me of the same, and I wasn't even talking to women when I said gals n cows.

I don't know that I'm accusing you of anything, ALS. I just noted that after the full text of your mangled quote was posted on FR, you took (in post 1164) the interesting step of referring to your adversaries as 'You gals' and 'you cows'. Even if I were interested in your twisted psyche, I think I'd want a significant amount of money to figure out why you posted that at that particular time. I mean, I can speculate. But, as a freebie bit of advice, I'm just telling you to think about why you did that, because people far more judgmental that I are going to draw conclusions from it.

You're lucky, I've just written you off as stupid. Others may go a little further.

[ALS]

going to bed with the "Secret Evolutionary Cabal" placemarker

[ALS]

"Question Evolution Speed', ALS wrote: So you admit you were calling the womenfolk stupid?

You do like this 'when did you stop beating your wife' theme, don't you?"

and still you didn't answer the simple question.
am i surprised? nope

after having pimpslapped all the eloonies in here, you are just spinach in the teeth.
However, someone has to pay your salary, so have a great night explaining to your wife why you bash women.

tootles noodles

[longshadow]

manic phase troll alert placemarker

[donh]

.Nobel peace prize in science.

there ya go sally. someone did all the work for ya once again

I scanned all these references with a bot, and looked at a couple of dozen by hand. Nowhere did I find any sensible permutation of "Nobel Peace Prize in Science" that was relevant to your argument.

Apparently, Sally still hasn't had the work done for her, and apparently, you are still a brazen liar who can't be embarassed no matter how much fraudulant nonsense he's exposed for. Please feel encouraged to keep it up--you're a one man advertisement for the scientific disrespectability of the creationist argument.

[f.Christian]

cow pie placememaker alert !

[Right Wing Professor]

Fess up, you're a plant put here by the Secret Evolutionary Cabal to discredit all creationists, aren't you?

Give us some credit; we want them to look bad, of course, but they have to be credible.

[ALS]

"I scanned all these references with a bot, and looked at a couple of dozen by hand. Nowhere did I find any sensible permutation of "Nobel Peace Prize in Science" that was relevant to your argument."

Congrats on winning the send an eloon on a wild goose chase award!
I really was expecting another party to run off with this prize, but you'll do nicely.

evo-sucka

[ALS]

It really does look like all this scientific talk is over your head.

Go fetch me a bucket of radiator oil.
(snicker)

[Junior]

"Three hundred posts and absolutely nothing on the actual subject, just insults and cat calls -- especially by one marathon poster" placemarker.

[PatrickHenry]

Informed by the dishonorable, anti-intellectual tactics of the creationoids, as exhibited continuously in this thread, I have searched the Good Book and cobbled together a "quote" in the same manner as the garbled mess we were told was a quote from Darwin. What follows is every bit as "authentic" as the bogus Darwin quote. Every word is, after all, more or less, from Scripture:

"Verily I say unto you ... it came to pass that ... both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father ... go and do thou likewise."

Now don't go wobbly on me and start crying to the mods; because it's obvious that I mean no blasphemy here. The purpose is to show what one can do with out-of-context and patched together quotes, provided, of course, that one has the morals of a creationoid.

[gore3000]

How about Asphyxiation? If you place a person in a sealed room until the oxygen is exhausted, are there no identifiable structural changes in the person's body, and in his cells?

The body needs oxygen to function, however, people who have gone without oxygen and have stopped breathing can often be revived. The question is about whether there is a 'magic life substance'. No materialistic explanation has been given for it. No materialistc explanation is able to explain why the same material 'works' one minute before death and it does not 'work' one minute after death (or even at what point 'death' occurred).

Are you willing to stake your entire worldview on this lack of knowledge? the problem here is that any tests, given current technology, are likey to be too disruptive.

OF SEEDS???????

I am sure scientists do not mind being disruptive of seeds. You really need a better explanation than that.

And my worldview does not depend on just one thing, there is much evidence for God's hand in the Universe, this is only one example of it, I have given lots of others. The fact remains that materialists constantly make assertions for which they have absolutely no scientific basis such as that there is no 'magic life substance'. The discussion of it has gone on for a few hundred posts already and the materialists have not been able to back it up.

[ALS]

"Three hundred posts and absolutely nothing on the actual subject, just insults and cat calls -- especially by one marathon poster" placemarker.


Think of me as the pied piper of posting and all you my little rats...

[gore3000]

Those creatures with the right mutation to sruvive, will survive and reproduce, the ones that do not will be culled, and then the reproduced mutations will continue.

To call something a mutation, you need evidence that it is indeed a mutation, not part of the diverse gene pool of the species. The article here pretty much admits it - there are species living now with both the 'mutation' they were talking about and without it. I have given numerous examples of why some individuals in a species survive certain threats (such as illnesses) without mutating. It happens all the time in fact. Some people die from SARS, some do not. Are you making the ridiculous statement that the survivors are 'mutants'? This is the kind of ridiculous statement made by evolutionists - they call all the survivors mutants.

As I often state, for evolution to be true, one must show that new functions, new abilities, new genes are created through evolution. Problem is that natural selection does not create anything, it just kills individuals, it does not create anything new. Therefore, evolution does not work and is not a valid theory since it cannot explain how new biological functionality, features, etc. arise.

[gore3000]

None of those facts in ANY, WAY, SHAPE or FORM, disproves evolution, as a matter of fact most of them help it.

Repeating a lie does not refute my statements. Clearly you cannot refute my post so you just lie. Your statement above is just an admission that what you are responding to is true:

Excuse me. That the dead do not reproduce is not scientifically verifiable? That some humans survive illnesses, viruses, etc. which kill others? That the human species and other species do not have identical genomes throughout the species but have slight differences within the species is not scientifically verifiable? That humans and other species are able to adapt to different situations is not scientifically verifiable?

Clearly you have lost and in your desperation are trying to make a claim which is totally unsupportable. Now a smart person when shown evidence that their ideas are wrong will either:

1. look for evidence that might refute the evidence presented.
2. or failing the above, try to look at the opponent's statements and change his views.

Of course, either of the above requires a commitment to the truth and that is a hard road to follow for some. Let's see if you can take the high road.

Clearly you have chosen the low road.

[gore3000]

In other words, you demand that evolution provide an explanation for the origin of life not because it's necessary for the actual scope of the theory but because you insist that it must explain that so that it can meet certain requirements that you ascribe -- specifically that it deny the existence of a "Creator" -- even though evolution doesn't actually serve the purpose you claim that it has. So the premise for your insistence that evolution explain the origin of life is based upon a completely false premise.

What convoluted blather! Evolution insists that the sole explanation for the arising of new species is materialistic. If God is admitted as having created life, there is absolutely no reason why His statement that He created man cannot be true. Therefore, yes, evolution requires that there be no God, that God not be the creator of life, for it to be true.

[gore3000]

If Scripture and the physical evidence contradict, then interpretation of Scripture must change or the writings become irrelevant.

There you go again! Proving my point again - you will accept the word of the charlatan Darwin over the Bible. Thanks for proving my point that you are not a Christian again.

[gore3000]

Bears in Yellowstone have learned to scavenge for food from humans. The buffaloes there are very tame and will not attack people even when they come close. This is learned behavior, this is what evolutionists fear most - adaptation without mutation.-me-

Bears learn to scavenge from other bears. Are you suggesting there's an alteration in the germ line arising from learned behavior?

Unbelievable! I say right there that it is learned behavior and you are telling me that I am saying otherwise! To what extent of dishonesty will you and evolutionists go to twist my words around? It is evolutionists which in the case of butterflies and their amazing ability to chart courses are making the ridiculous kind of statement which you are attacking, not me. So ask your friends, not me your questions.