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
Yes. Quite revealing, no?
"co-operative single-cellulars", I meant to say. Sorry.
You make a false statement (attributing one of your bogus quotes to a winner of the non-existant "Nobel Peace Prize in Science"): I call you on it; you post a hyperlink which you claim supports your (false) statement; someone posts that the hyperlink does not support your statement; and you post the above admission that you were sending us on a "wild goose chase."
Sounds like a disruptor to me.
Several living animals with guts have only the most primitive neural nets - for example, hydra, jellyfish. All they need is to be able to intake and expel water. Sponges have no neural net at all, and their central cavity isn't really a gut. How hard is it to imagine that sponges developed a neural net to facilitate their filter feeding, that they began to also accumulate material in their gut and derive nutrition from it, and the gut evolved over time under that selective pressure?
I send my sincere condolences about all those "peer reviewed" papers you've wasted so much valuable time on. There nontheless remains hope for you for so long as you draw the Breath which God Breathed into you.
Why thank you. And may the Good Lord in turn grant you the grace to realize when you're about to be a patronizing and sanctimonious twit, and to resist that temptation.
And may the Good Lord in turn grant you the grace to realize when you're about to prance and preen yourself that all may bow to your glory, to resist that temptation.
Lets look at some more of the details of this argument: The existence of recessives&such is quite bit more dramatic a bit of evidence than most people at first realize. It is not just that a line of linear descent can have variations with each 4th offspring. Because large populations mix, the net heritage of a bisexual population doesn't have to be reflected in every member. There can be recessives&such that are totally unavailable in any particular mating, that could still eventually be recaptured by one's distant offspring, through judicious subsequent matings.
To appreciate more fully what is going on here, you have to divorce yourself from the linear tree of descent creationists are so fond of arguing about. A modern bisexual species is a gene corporation, no one member of which is a fully empowered representative of, with a broader survival mandate than any one member represents.
The existence of dog breeds is a sort of butterfly-pinned-to-the glass picture of this fluidity in bisexuals, made obvious by the application for a few thousand years by humans of various diverse pressures nature only generally applies one at a time.
(Sorry, but when in Rome...)
The only way you can get ALS on a date is if you go to a neurotoxin restaurant.
(Rimshot)
Now I'm all prayed out, and there's still a billion Muslims to be converted.
Then you must know that my Bible insists that I not leave you alone, rather it demands that I spread the good news of Jesus Christ and God's eternal Truth. You really contradict yourself alot.
I have no problem with Science as a science. Many scientific breakthroughs have been very beneficial to Man as a whole as well as to me personally, and those I embrace.
It is when charlatans and their unwitting accomplices start preaching snot as Science that I take exception.
When they go another step further and try to imply that their snot-science somehow makes God's Truth a lie, then they deserve to know what they will harvest for their sowing of ignorance.
Gee, send them some peer review, that'll convert 'em. :-O
Just wait. You ain't seen pissy.
The Bible says you are to preach the Good News. If the folks don't want to hear it you are to "shake the dust from your sandles" and move on. It never said anything about hanging around and being a nuisance.
Congrats on producing an unequivical demonstration that you are proud to be a lying sack of goose excrement who only a fool would take at his word. You must be so proud.
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.