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

[Junior]

Oh ye of little brains. I accept the conclusions of tens of thousands of researchers doing actual work in the field. I do not reject the Bible, only your interpretation (there's that word again - look it up) of it. If my interpretation differs from yours, it is not conclusive evidence of my being an atheist, though I know you'd like to believe otherwise as your miniscule intellect cannot fathom anyone taking a contrarian view and possibly being right.

[gore3000]

However, no one is able to break scientific laws at all, -me-

Really? So the Perihilion of Mercury experiment was impossible, because it would have violated Newton's Laws of Gravity?

You know better. What was proven wrong was Newton's theory of Gravity about the inverse squares. The Law of Gravity is that gravitation works universally throughout the Universe. So no, that test did not violate the Law of Gravity. Nothing has violated the Law of Gravity and nothing has been shown to disprove the Law of Biogenesis either which is what are speaking about. However if you can show an example of the violation of the Law of Biogenesis, I will be very much interested in hearing it. However, I am sure do not have one otherwise you would not be trying to confuse things.

[gore3000]

It is a well known fact that inbred dogs (and other species) are far more fragile and shorter lived than the wild varieties.-me-

I see. So I assume you contend that chihuahuas would spontaneously cease to existence if allowed to breed contentedly and safely for the next dozen millenia or so?

It is quite likely. When the gene pool of a set of organisms becomes quite small, its dissappearance is quite likely. That is why scientists are so worried about species with very few individuals in it. They doubt very much that they can be saved. This is a well known fact donh.

[gore3000]

And what exactly are you questioning?-me-

Gee, that's a tough one. Ah, I've got it. The statement this was a response to.

I see, you are resorting to insults because you cannot refute my statements and know them to be true. Thanks for the concession. It may be an unglentlemanly concession, but it is still a concession.

[Dataman]

the entire purpose for much of my string of insults was specifically to bait a creationist into calling me on them

Oh come on! You lost control. You're just compounding the embarrassment by fabricating an excuse.

you've pretty much been defending ALS.

What does "pretty much" mean? ALS doesn't fit your stereotype, does he? He's been having fun with you guys and, one by one, you've been showing your empty hands. He's funny. He has a sense of humor which most of you lack. Certainly, jokes don't win arguments but neither do placemarkers, circular arguments, name calling and bizarre ad hoc universals.

You guys take yourselves so seriously it is often humorous and, like Aric2000 pointed out, you're not REAL scientists.

I am ready to engage in serious discussion any time you all are. If you don't want us to laugh at your arguments, quit putting forth silly arguments. If you don't want us to laugh at your behavior, quit making us laugh. If you want a serious conversation, quit with the insults, petty remarks, and shallow canned responses.

Double standards are characteristic of the FR evolutionists. You all should really fight that primitive urge.

[js1138]

The body needs oxygen to function, however, people who have gone without oxygen and have stopped breathing can often be revived.

So you are asserting that oxygen deprivation does not cause measurable structural changes in the organism?

[Dataman]

When you stat a quote in midsentence without indicating you are doing so, when you lie about the source of the quotation, claiming that bits and pieces from separate sources are a single source, and most of all, when you remove the context that would reveal the author's intention --you are dissembling. A fancy word for lying, but a useful word.

Let's face it. There isn't a quote in existence that evos wouldn't claim is out of context if it suited their purpose.

Think about it. If I gave you a hundred such quotes (and there are hundreds), you could claim that they are all out of context. The very fact that evos are expressing doubt about their theory in a hundred quotes-- even if out of context-- should indicate something.

You evos seem to have a rule: If you say the quoted is misquoted, then it is true, end of argument. If you were consistent then we could claim any quote you offer from any site is de facto out of context. No, you won't allow that: If your side quotes it, it is true. If the opposition quotes it, it is distorted.

This is but one reason it becomes more enjoyable to post pictures than to try and engage you in serious discussion.

I suspect God knows what is in your heart.

Now you invoke God if it seems convenient? Time for a picture.

[Right Wing Professor]

Unbelievable! I say right there that it is learned behavior and you are telling me that I am saying otherwise!

Therefore you claim that evolutionists fear learning, beause it's an example of 'adaptation without mutation'. I am faced with the alternative of 'twisting your words around', on the premise that you couldn't possibly have written something so stupid, or assuming that you actually believe that evolutionists consider the existence of learned behavior a threat.

i suppose it's my fault. After reading from you that a circle is not an ellipse and that atheists can't be healers, assuming that there is any pinnacle of stupidity you won't boldly ascend was truly foolish of me. I apologize, Gore3000.

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.

I'm not sure it is true that monarchs have an amazing ability to track courses. What we know is some fraction of them - and a very small fraction it is - return to the same wintering sites. As I've posted elsewhere, this may be explainable by nothing more than a couple of very simple taxes.

[f.Christian]

To: f.Christian

"'You speak of finding a flaw in my hypothesis,' Darwin rallied him, `& this shows you do not understand its nature. It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw & holes as sound parts.' But `I can carry in it my fruit to market for a short distance over a gentle road; not I fear that you will give the poor rag such a devil of a shake that it will fall all to atoms; & a poor rag is better than nothing to carry one's fruit to market in.'"


als ...


hey man, you aren't supposed to read his actual quotes...

just the context everywhere else! Don't you know anything about "science"?


1,189 posted on 05/28/2003 4:32 PM PDT by ALS (Darwins Hypothesis was full of holes, that have since been filled, that is why it is called a theory)

[donh]

It is quite likely.

Can I quote you on that? German Shepards are not a viable strain?

When the gene pool of a set of organisms becomes quite small, its dissappearance is quite likely. That is why scientists are so worried about species with very few individuals in it. They doubt very much that they can be saved. This is a well known fact donh.

Uh huh. A well known fact when the numbers we are talking about is, say, under 10 for mammals. Is that your assessment of the German Shepard population, Mr. Science?

[donh]

"'You speak of finding a flaw in my hypothesis,' Darwin rallied him, `& this shows you do not understand its nature. It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw & holes as sound parts.' But `I can carry in it my fruit to market for a short distance over a gentle road; not I fear that you will give the poor rag such a devil of a shake that it will fall all to atoms; & a poor rag is better than nothing to carry one's fruit to market in.'"

Newton was pretty cocksure of his hypothesis, but that didn't prevent it from being superceded by Einsteinian hypothesis--a lesson most modern scientists have taken to heart. So whose displaying the more appropriately modest scientific attitude here? Einstein, or Darwin?

[donh]

I see, you are resorting to insults because you cannot refute my statements

No, I am resorting to insults because you've generously earned them.

[donh]

.Really? So the Perihilion of Mercury experiment was impossible, because it would have violated Newton's Laws of Gravity?

You know better. What was proven wrong was Newton's theory of Gravity about the inverse squares.

Oh, do go on, Mr. Science. Is this like the "circles are not ellipses" theory? Or perhaps you mean how the law of gravity does not apply to stodgy gay people?

The Law of Gravity is that gravitation works universally throughout the Universe. So no, that test did not violate the Law of Gravity.

Excuse me? Newton's laws of gravity were applied to predict the perihilion of Mercury, and they were proved innacurate when Mercury failed to appear where predicted, yes or no?

Nothing has violated the Law of Gravity and nothing has been shown to disprove the Law of Biogenesis either which is what are speaking about.

Piffle, the "law of biogensis" is a lollypop for school children. Kindly show me the history of scientific strife that brought the "law of biogensis" into existence that corresponds to the history of, say, continental drift, or gravity.

It is not a major, founding operational law of any discipline, it is merely a restatement of Darwin's basic thesis, and it applies, just as Darwin's theory does, to what we can observe, it is not relevant to questions of life's origins, except to broadband scientasters with axes to grind such as yourself. However if you can show an example of the violation of the Law of Biogenesis, I will be very much interested in hearing it. However, I am sure do not have one otherwise you would not be trying to confuse things.

[donh]

I see, you are resorting to insults because you cannot refute my statements and know them to be true. Thanks for the concession. It may be an unglentlemanly concession, but it is still a concession.

Thanks for giving up without a fight, grabbing your hat and loudly declaring yourself the winner as you scramble for the exit.

[donh]

ALS doesn't fit your stereotype, does he? He's been having fun with you guys and, one by one, you've been showing your empty hands

Give me a break. Lying and then putting on a loud hand puppet show to drown out the indictments is hardly the essence of wit. Being childishly impervious and being clever are hardly the same things, although I'm not surprised that a gaggle of self-congratulatory creationists think so.

[PatrickHenry]

PLACEMARKER Oook! Oook!

[donh]

Evolution insists that the sole explanation for the arising of new species is materialistic.

It does not. It abstains from addressing the question because it is out of the scope of science to raise questions about issues for which no material evidence in either direction is extant.

[VadeRetro]

I mean no blasphemy here.

Your stomach is being grilled in Hell. Baghdad Bob tells me so.

[js1138]

Let's face it. There isn't a quote in existence that evos wouldn't claim is out of context if it suited their purpose.

Let's stick to what I do. I have never claimed a quote was out of context unless it was. It's quite easy to find a few words or a couple of sentences in any public person's output that can be construed to contradict the person's usual message. Most of the time, as in this case, the context proves that the person was just setting up a hypothetical attack on his own position, and was preparing a defense.

Think about it. If I gave you a hundred such quotes (and there are hundreds), you could claim that they are all out of context. The very fact that evos are expressing doubt about their theory in a hundred quotes-- even if out of context-- should indicate something.

See the above. Honest people always have doubts about the certainty and completeness of their ideas. Honest people try to confront the best and strongest possible attack on their positions. Sometimes this involves stating their opponent's position in the strongest possible terms. I would love to see you are any creationist or any IDer start an argument by stating the strongest possible defense of evolution.

You evos seem to have a rule: If you say the quoted is misquoted, then it is true, end of argument. If you were consistent then we could claim any quote you offer from any site is de facto out of context. No, you won't allow that: If your side quotes it, it is true. If the opposition quotes it, it is distorted.

the test is whether the quote has the same meaning in full context. Period. Anyone can challenge any quote.

This is but one reason it becomes more enjoyable to post pictures than to try and engage you in serious discussion.

I don't object to an occasional picture, if they further the argument, or are genuinely witty. A whole series of pictures with no content is just a tantrum.

I suspect God knows what is in your heart. Now you invoke God if it seems convenient? Time for a picture.

I have as much right as anyone to invoke religious values. Not being a Muslim, I have no commandment that says "Thou shalt dissemble when it is convenient, in order to confound the heathen." I question the sincerity of nominal Christians when they quote words to imply the opposite of what the original speaker intended. It's a simple matter of personal honesty.

If you can find a specific example of evolutionists misusing quotes in this way, I will be happy to confront them. I know we all get into the heat of battle and say things that are not productive, but when I was researching this issue, I found about 20 web sites devoted entirely to turning scientists words against them. This is nonproductive and just plain sad. The whole value of science as a human enterprise is that it does not depend on the cult of personality. Even if individual scientists have said or done regrettable things, it has no impact on the truth or falsity of scientific theories.

[js1138]

Here is what I said to ALS in my post 1348:

Show me a post where an evolutionist has submitted a quotation from a famous scientist or famous religious text, in a way that makes the quote appear to mean the opposite of the author's intentions. Particularly where just a few lines of surrounding text would clarify things.