Skip to comments.
Genetic Changes In Mice 'Question Evolution Speed'
Ananova ^
| 5-21-2003
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
TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: crevolist; genetics
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 2,061-2,065 next last
To: ALS
Now that I have access to a text-only browser I can see that your picture wasn't really a statement of challenge so much as a statement of your anticipation. OF course, your original challenge is meaningless, because no professional scientist claims that the theory of evolution explains the ultimate orign of life. Only lying creationists assert en masse that evolution has anything to do with the ultimate origins of life.
181
posted on
05/23/2003 3:07:18 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
To: Stultis
Are you contending that the modern coelacanth should be classified as the same species as one of the fossil forms?The question is of relevant change. The fact of change of some sort is not being argued. The definition of species is peripheral to question of changing a reptile into a dog. The title of this thread involves speed of change. That is what is in question here not the fact of change.
182
posted on
05/23/2003 3:17:20 PM PDT
by
AndrewC
To: AndrewC
So your source (implicitly) argues that the rate of change in putatively neutral molecular characters (selected regions of the DNA) is roughly constant -- this being how the time of divergence between the two existing populations of coelacanth was determined -- whereas morphological evoltution is not necessarily constant in rate, and can even halt for long periods.
I agree and see no problem with this.
183
posted on
05/23/2003 3:28:13 PM PDT
by
Stultis
To: Lurking Libertarian
Prehistoric and modern coelacanths are not even in the same genus, much less species.Camels and llamas separated some 40 million years ago. They are not of the same genus.
184
posted on
05/23/2003 3:31:20 PM PDT
by
AndrewC
To: AndrewC
Modern and ancient coelacanths are in the same order, not the same genus. Llamas and camels are in the same order, not the same genus. Humans and chimps are in the same order, not the same genus (though some argue that chimps should be put into genus homo, that is still a minority position). Humans and gorillas are in the same order, not the same genus.
Your point was?
To: Lurking Libertarian
Your point was? The picture is a llama/camel baby.
186
posted on
05/23/2003 3:38:46 PM PDT
by
AndrewC
To: AndrewC
Didn't know that. Interesting.
To: AndrewC
The picture is a llama/camel baby.So?
188
posted on
05/23/2003 3:47:44 PM PDT
by
Stultis
To: Stultis
I agree and see no problem with this. Another point in the reference was that morphological differences observed by the first team between the two species were not observed to be there when compared to the variation in one of the species.(my wording may be bad)
189
posted on
05/23/2003 3:49:30 PM PDT
by
AndrewC
To: Stultis
So? What is the definition of a species/genus?
190
posted on
05/23/2003 3:51:09 PM PDT
by
AndrewC
To: AndrewC
What is the definition of a species/genus?Can you put that question in the form of having a point?
191
posted on
05/23/2003 3:55:32 PM PDT
by
Stultis
To: AndrewC
morphological differences observed by the first team between the two species were not observed to be there when compared to the variation in one of the speciesNo, your wording was fine. That made sense. There's always the risk (in any circumstance) of a small sample not being representative.
192
posted on
05/23/2003 3:58:08 PM PDT
by
Stultis
To: Stultis
Can you put that question in the form of having a point?Definitions are a Darwinian's best friend.
193
posted on
05/23/2003 4:02:11 PM PDT
by
AndrewC
(Just kidding)
To: AndrewC
What is the definition of a species/genus? A group of organisms whose members can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
Are llama-camel hybrids fertile?
To: AndrewC
Definitions are a Darwinian's best friend.Uh, nope, sorry. Still not discerning a point.
195
posted on
05/23/2003 4:07:20 PM PDT
by
Stultis
(Are you and f.Christian switching medications again?)
To: Lurking Libertarian
A group of organisms whose members can interbreedCareful. Natural populations... and interbreeding means doing so (or potentially doing so) in nature. For example humans have to intervene to "trick" horses and asses into mating (usually via a "bait and switch" method) and thereby hybridizing.
196
posted on
05/23/2003 4:12:10 PM PDT
by
Stultis
(Are you and f.Christian switching medications again?)
To: Lurking Libertarian
A group of organisms whose members can interbreedCareful. Natural populations... and interbreeding means doing so (or potentially doing so) in nature. For example humans have to intervene to "trick" horses and asses into mating (usually via a "bait and switch" method) and thereby hybridizing.
197
posted on
05/23/2003 4:12:16 PM PDT
by
Stultis
To: Stultis
Good point. Camels and llamas can similarly be bred only by artificial insemination.
To: Stultis; Lurking Libertarian
(or potentially doing so) in nature.Are you betting on the word potentially?
199
posted on
05/23/2003 5:14:28 PM PDT
by
AndrewC
(Just kidding)
To: blam
Anyone with a brain can see mice are evolving like crazy . . . For instance, who had a wheel on their mouse 20 years ago?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 2,061-2,065 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson