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
But we (evolutionists) don't play with definitions here. Macroevolution is evolution above the species level. Since the species is an objective taxon, this definition of macroevolution is comparatively objective. It is even operationally defined. If there's a new species involved, then it's macroevolution, if not then its microevolution.
What is the difference between an evolutionist saying that a new species of mosquito proves man came from a single-celled animal (in deference to you I didn't say "rock") and "evolution is change"? That is, what is the difference between these two syllogisms:
AND
Evolution is change.
Things change.
Therefore evolution happens.
Both syllogisms employ the fallacy of equivocation. Both have brought evolution into existence by fiat. Both are invalid.
This lack has been taken advantage of classically by the opponents of organic evolution as a major defect of the theory. In other words, the inability of the fossil record to produce the "missing links" has been taken as solid evidence for disbelieving the theory.I was, once upon a time, an English major (never tell it from my typing) and I can absolutely tell from the sentence construction of this quote that it is leading up to a "But..." that refutes the assertion just made. In other words, your sources are lying by falsely arguing from quotes out of context. If you are a person of faith, you know that lying from your heart is just as much a sin as lying directly with false words. I hope, for your sake, that you will consider this.
If I am wrong about this, and you can provide context to prove that your quote supports an anti-evolutionary position, or a position that denies the existence of transitional species, then I will most humbly apologise.
The reason I am so certain that this quote is falsely presented out of context is that I have searched through numerous references to the book, read other quotations from the book, and found absolutely nothing that would support a reading that the author doubts any part of evolution or doubts the existence of transitional species.
Or perhaps he will go to the original sources, provide enough context to validate his position -- in which case I will crawl over (figurative) broken glass to apologise.
I am quite aware that the charge of lying is serious, and if these authors really reject evolution or reject the existence of intermediate forms, then I will spend the rest of my freeping days apologising.
Well, yeah, Dataman did distort in the sense that he pretended Patterson was an example of a "professional evolutionist" who admits that "there exists ... no transitional forms". Patterson says that transitional forms cannot be identified (in what he would apparently consider a sufficiently rigorous or acceptable manner) which is not the same as claiming that they don't exist. (Dataman's claim was silly and hyperbolic from the start. Obviously an evolutionist must assert the existence of transitionals.)
But I still do not think that the quote seriously misrepresents Patterson, the exculpatory context provided on the Talk.Origins page not withstanding.
Dataman, you may consider me more fair, but I should say that I don't see that I disagree in substance with your other critics, or with the Talk.Origins page. It's not so much that I'm being easy on you, as I am being a bit harder on Patterson!
That hasn't stopped G3K and his amazing technicolor dream font (I love that tag line). When one is a Holy Warrior one can get away with things for which lesser mortals would be condemned.
I would suspect there are more differences between these two animals.
And there is further information on the living coelacanth. Do you have a link describing the differences you described?
In October, 1999, a paper appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reporting more detailed molecular and morphological analyses of the Sulawesi coelacanth (Holder, M.T., M.V. Erdmann, T.P. Wilcox, R.L. Caldwell and D.M. Hillis. 1999. Two Living Species of Coelacanths? Proc. Nat. Acad. Science 96:12616-12620). Conducted by scientists from the University of Texas, Austin and the University of California at Berkeley, Holder et al. concluded that the Comoran and Sulawesi populations most likely diverged 5.5 million years ago and perhaps as long as 16 million years ago. This is significantly earlier than the 1.2 to 1.4 million years ago suggested by Pouyand et al. The differences are due to sequencing errors made by Pouyand et al. as well as in the way that they calculated the age of divergence. The Texas and Berkeley teams conclude that the molecular evidence suggests that the two populations probably do represent different species. However, when Holder et al. looked at morphological traits reported by Pouyand et al. to differ between the Sulawesi fish and the Comoran population, they did not find them. This is due to the fact that Holder et al. used a larger sample size of Comoran fish which provided a better estimate of the amount of variation that occurs. The definitive answer regarding the relationship of these two populations of Latimeria probably won't be determined until additional Indonesian fish are captured and a more detailed morphological study is completed.
Uh, no.
Mice have babies every three weeks.
A transitional form?
Stultis says Obviously an evolutionist must assert the existence of transitionals.
So what is the point?
Logic tells us no such thing.
Self-creation is a logical impossibility since the something that was created would have to preexist its own creation in order to create itself. It is therefore a logical impossibility.
Feel free to show us how anything could create itself.
Both of those are the same species. Prehistoric and modern coelacanths are not even in the same genus, much less species.
reference
Nope, just the pictures.
BTW, it's kind of strange, and maybe it's just me, but I don't think I've ever read a message of yours where I had a clear idea of what you were arguing or contending. This one is no exception.
You may have jumped into the thread to late to realize, but the original argument, to which the case of the coelacanth was deemed relevant, was whether there were species that had survived unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. Are you contending that the modern coelacanth should be classified as the same species as one of the fossil forms?
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.