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
The above is a great example of the totally ridiculous statements that evolutionists make when asked to back up their theory. First of all, the above statement is ridiculous because it is evolutionists who claim that a species can transform itself into a different species. I have never proposed such a thing and in fact I deny that such is possible. So in addition to its being a total non-sequitur and an evasion of my challenge, you are really attacking the theory which you are supposedly defending. Let me pose the challenge again in case you (or any other evolutionist) wishes to take it up (which I doubt very much since you all know that evolution cannot explain the following:
those opposed to evolution can find numerous counterexamples of living things that could not have evolved. I gave one above regarding the migrations of butterflies. Let me mention a few more: the platypus, the bat, euglena, the hypominesis wasp, the fugu fish, the bat and the Cambrian species to name a few. Check it out at Evidence Disproving Evolution . All that evolutionists can show for their theory is a self-selected bunch of bones which they have to massage by painting totally uncalled for drawings to support their theory.
We do. Check out my next post in this thread, for example -- or most of the ones you played games with earlier in this thread. Unfortunately, creationists devolve into red herrings, side issues, childish insults (e.g. ALS), and cutesy cartoons (e.g. Dataman *and* ALS) in an attempt to drive away lurkers who might actually learn something if the topic had stayed on track. It's a childish tactic, but unfortunately it works rather well.
I still have an evolved cubic function circuit that has been left abandoned after being touted as the patent-killer circuit of the millenium.
This is, of course, a remarkably dishonest description of that discussion. But then, I have come to expect such of you, which is why I waste little time on you anymore.
The final straw was when you developed a one-note runaround based on your own self-contradictory statements about whether transistors could or could not be considered as back-to-back diodes, which was your successful attempt to drag the discussion so far away from the original article under discussion that the original points fell by the wayside. Red herrings and trollish diversions and taunts are your personal speciality.
And every time someone tried to pin you down on a specific meaning of your transistor/diode statements, you jumped to another. I finally gave up on you entirely when I presented substantial documenation of the point you called me a "liar" over, *and* presented you with a clear, specific question which would help bring that subtopic back to a point where we could agree or disagree on basic principles in order to establish common ground and/or determine where we differ. You chose to ignore the question (as I predicted you would) and responded with simply a nitpick about one of the dozen-plus sources I cited, a general semantic obfuscation of the discussion which had preceded, and a cheap dismissal ("Blather on, you are not getting anywhere.")
Your glaring avoidance of answering a clear, simple question made your evasiveness obvious to all, and I felt that you had torpedoed your "I want to discuss things honestly, really I do" pretense so thoroughly and obviously that I need waste no more time on dealing with your dancing -- everyone has seen it for what it is.
At that point you made quite clear that you were more interested in dodging and playing word games than you were in *any* kind of head-on tackling of the subjects being discussed.
That question again:
That's as clear an invitation to "rationally discuss things" as could be made. It was directed specifically to you. And yet, despite your pretenses to wish to do so, you RAN AWAY from the invitation, AS I PREDICTED YOU WOULD when I said we would "see how fast you try to shift topics again lest you be nailed down for a change".Let's cut to the chase and see how fast you try to shift topics again, lest you be nailed down for a change. Is the following an accurate representation of a semiconductor diode, yes or no:
After we've settled *that* question we can move on to the next.
You could have proven me wrong by simply dealing with the question head-on. Instead, you ran away and played your semantic red-herring game again.
You're a fraud. You're *not* interested in direct discussion. Game, set, and match.
And no, I'm no longer interested in a belated answer from you. You blew your chance. Even if you now try to salvage your own self-destruction by dealing with it at this late date, you'd just duck the *next* step in the transistor/diode walkthrough I had prepared for you.
So go back to flinging empty insults like you have over the past several hundred posts, now that no one's taking you seriously and even trying to engage you in discussion anymore. You dug the hole where you're relegated to a dishonest dodger, now lie in it.
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.
