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
Oh, you mean like this guy?
The Origin of Species
Charles Darwin
Preface
-----------------------------------------
Full Title:
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Charles Darwin, M.A.,
Yes it has. BTW, I was wrong. The modern coelacanth is not even in the same Family as the fossil forms,
Way back in post# 42, I gave you a quote from the discover of the first living coelacanth:
"We went straight to the Museum. Miss Latimer was out for the moment, the caretaker ushered us into the inner room and there it was the - Coelacanth..." Smith was not prepared for his own reaction at the sight of the creature and he was so excited he began to shake. "Yes, there was not a shadow of a doubt, scale by scale, bone by bone, fin by fin, it was a true Coelacanth. It could have been one of those creatures of 200 million years ago come alive again." From: The Coelacanth
The site you give as reference, does not have fossils of the coelacanth, all it has is a drawing of a recent coelacanth and a supposedly fossil coelacanth. Sorry, but drawings are not evidence, the actual fossils are. In addition, they are the same in all essential features from front to back, from top to bottom - as the finder of the first one verifies above.
There are numerous evolutionists out there who are willing to lie for their theory (as there are here). If they want to give proof, they need to show the bones, not made up drawings which is what we get from evolutionists.
Further, the claim that this is not exactly the same as the fossil coelacanths is totally bogus. There are several different 'species' of coelacanths known from the fossil record:
Order Crossopterygii This small order contains some of the more unusual prehistoric fish known almost exclusively from the fossil record. The members of this order are known as fringe-finned or lobe-finned fish due to the unusual shape of their fins. The tail is three-lobed, and the body is covered in hard armour-like scales. Their skeletons are mostly cartilaginous material. These fish have lungs, but they are either so heavily calcified that they serve no purpose or are used as a storage area for fat. They lack the internal nostrils that many other prehistoric fish had. This order consists mainly of marine fish. All species in this order were thought to be extinct. However, one specimen, a coelacanth, was captured by a fisherman off the coast of Africa in 1938, and in 1999 a separate species of coelacanth was discovered off Indonesia..
There are several families in this order comprised of extinct fish such as the Rhipidistians. There is only one living family with two living members:
Latimeriidae (coelacanths) 2 spp
From: Lobe Finned Fish
So as you can see your nonsense means absolutely nothing. Like all evolutionists you are trying to create confusion.
Further lets note that coelacanths "Their skeletons are mostly cartilaginous material. " What that means is that the fossil preservation cannot be as good as for hard boned fish and missing pieces cannot be interpreted as different species, families, etc.. All that they show is the imperfection of the fossil record.
However, the importance of the coelacanth, and why it disproves evolution very strongly is that in 380 million years it did not evolve regular bones, it did not evolve all the 'advanced' features which evolutionists claim were essential for species survival and thus forced species to develop them. That this fish, with such supposedly 'ancient' biology can still exist, survive and thrive shows quite well that the necessity which evolution claims drives species to change is absolute bunk.
It does not matter at all who or when the concept was first formulated. Although let's note that Mayr is an evolutionist. However, that he should claim this is ridiculous. Humans have known that species can only mate with their own kind for millenia.
How often do you think scientists actually do tests and observations to adequately confirm the biological species concept fully applies in a particular case?
It matters not one whit to me whether they do it all the time or not at all. Those who make the claim that two apparently closely related species are different species and do not verify it by experimentation are not scientists but charlatans. Science is hard work, something which evolutionists are totally unwilling to do.
For an example of the charlatanism of evolutionists lets remember the often cited example by an evolutionist on these threads of a 'ring species'. These folk spent YEARS followin a species throughout Europe and Asia and concluded that they had become different species because they had different songs. Now this is total charlatanism from evolutionists straining the limits of credulity to collect a paycheck. Of course these charlatans did not dare or bother to see if they could produce live young.
Another great example of the charlatanism of evolutionists in claiming that some different breeds are different species occurred with the famous "Darwin Finches'. For decades evolutionists claimed that these were different species. In the 1980's someone went to the Galapagos and bothered to observe the finches breed. Guess what, the different 'species' mated very well and the cross breeds were even more viable than the non-crossbred varieties.
So yes, given the charlatanism of evo 'scientists', we do indeed require verification by the only legitimate way to tell if organisms are of different species.
You need a definition of species in order to pursue your assertion. How do you define species?
As usual trying to confuse the issue. The only legitimate, objective definition of species is that they cannot produce viable young if they cross-breed. Since the example given by Dataman can cross-breed, they are the same species. End of story.
Even if he dedicated 20 books to the origin of hybridism it would not change a thing. This is the guy who has been constantly disproven by real scientists. His racist brachocephallic index, his claim that blacks were inferior species, his claim that the traits of parents ;melded' in the young, his claim that humans are different from apes only in degree and numerous other imbecilities show him to be not a scientist at all but a charlatan and his testiomony to be worth less than nothing.
If two organisms can breed, they are, first of all, of the same species. Second of all, no new genes are being created, no new functions are arising, so this in no way helps the theory of evolution. Shifting around existing DNA does not create anything new which is what evolution needs to prove to verify its claim that men after many millenia eventually descended from simple bacteria.
There are lots of technical disagreements amongst biologists regarding the interpretation of specific data. It is dishonest to present a couple of sentences in which someone is setting up a technical argument to mean he doesn't believe evolution happened.
In the case of the Boucot quote, I believe Boucot was setting up the creationist position in order to dispute it. Without the full text I can't prove it, but I believe this is a first class case of outright misrepresentation. If it isn't I'll issue a really humble apology.
No the DNA has not changed. In fact the article itself states that there is at least one strain of mouse which still has this gene. What this means is that the mice which were examined could very well have been of this strain and thus the whole article proves nothing at all.
You have been told before that this is false.
You can repeat a lie a million times, it does not make it true. Evolution denies that God created life. Evolution denies that God created man. Evolution denies that God created the vast variety of species on earth. Indeed it denies that God created any of the species on earth. In fact evolution asserts that there is a materialistic explanation for every single difference in species living today and that they all arose through totally materialistic means from the lowly bacteria.
Now kindly tell me where in the above evolution allows for God. The answer is nowhere. Therefore my assertion is perfectly correct. Within its scope (whatever that is because it changes with the wind), evolution totally denies God.
In the article and in some of the posts (Stultis on the coelacanth) we see the attempt to use different species to claim that a species has evolved. This I call 'confusionism'. Trying to throw the whole thread into confusion by purposely talking about one thing while using evidence from another. The mouse with the 'mutated' gene still exists, the coelacanths living now are part of one of the many species known from the fossil record. But in each case the evos play swithcheroonie in order to claim that the species have evolved. This is pure charlatanism and not science just as Darwin's "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" was pure charlatanism. He only discusses a few hundred species amongst the millions of living ones. He only discusses a few features amongst the miriad different features of living species. With such a range of facts to select from, one can easily prove anything at all.
Nope. I am just taking His Word for it (the Bible) where he clearly states that he created all living things and man, something which evolutionists deny as an integral part of their theory.
Logic tells us no such thing.
Then if you do not buy the logical argument, then here is why science has shown that abiogenesis is impossible:
The smallest living cells has a DNA string of some one million base pairs long and some 600 genes, even cutting this number by a quarter as the smallest possible living cell would give us a string of some 250,000 base pairs of DNA. It is important to note here that DNA can be arranged in any of the four basic codes equally well, there is no chemical or other necessity to the sequence. The chances of such an arrangement arising are therefore 4^250,000. Now the number of atoms in the universe is said to be about 4^250. I would therefore call 4^250,000 an almost infinitely impossible chance (note that the supposition advanced that perhaps it was RNA that produced the first life has this same problem).
The problem though is even worse than that. Not only do you need two (2) strings of DNA perfectly matched to have life, but you also need a cell so that the DNA code can get the material to sustain that life. It is therefore a chicken and egg problem, you cannot have life without DNA (or RNA if one wants to be generous) but one also has to have the cell itself to provide the nutrients for the sustenance of the first life. Add to this problem that for the first life to have been the progenitor of all life on earth, it necessarily needs to have been pretty much the same as all life now on earth is, otherwise it could not have been the source of the life we know.
In addition to the above you have the problem of the symbolism in the DNA code. The code is totally abstract, yet RNA knows to interpret the 64 possible combinations into the 20 amino acids in the proteins that make up life. Who taught RNA to read this code? It takes children years to learn to use the alphabet. This symbolism is proof of design and makes materialistic abiogenesis, by itself totally impossible. So given all these considerations, proven beyond a doubt by science, abiogenesis is impossible.
Nonsense. Let's see one (1) evolutionist statement from Darwin, Dawkins, or Gould that says that the changes in species might have been due to divine intervention. Just one statement, with proper citations is all I ask for.
As usual, instead of a refutation, you just smear me. Exactly where have any of the statements made by me here been proven ridiculous? Exactly how have they been refuted? You claim to know this so well, let's see you refute a single one of my statements, any of them. Let's see you refute any one of my points.
In short, let's see you engage in honest discussion instead of vile sliming.
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.