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 last part of the above is absolute garbage. To determine whether two organisms are of the same species one must see if they are able to mate and produce viable reproducing progeny. Such a test is of course impossible when talking of present species and fossils some 100 million years old. The reason is quite simple - the dead do not reproduce. A fact which evolutionists tend to forget.
As to the coelacanth, a fish that is known to have lived as far back as some 380 million years ago, the following is from the discoverer of the first living specimen:
"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
So much for another attempted evolutionist snow job.
Repeating the same nonsense. How do they know they are not the same species? They are unable to see if they can mate or not. The next best possible way (but inadequate) to see if they were the same or different species is to compare the DNA of old species to the new ones. But guess what, there is no 100 million year old DNA to compare them with. So your claims are totally baseless and just more of the nonsensical and totally unscientific pronouncements which evolutionists constantly make on these threads.
Typical evolutionist. When asked a question, insult the questioner and fail to answer.
The question by Dataman "ever going to present a stating of the theory of evolution that addresses life origins" is perfectly legitimate. If one is going to say that a theory is correct, the minimum required is that the theory be stated so that it can be discussed whether the facts are in accord to the theory.
The hangup is that for evolution to be true, to have produced millions of species living at present and putatively many times more throughout the ages, requires that species be able to change at a fairly large rate of speed. Not only that, since essentially (according to evolution) all species are descended from other species according to the evo so called 'tree of life', all species along the line must have been able to transform themselves for the new species to have ever arisen. So indeed stasis is a big problem for evolution. Evolution requires constant change.
Even bigger than the above problem though is the problem of the 'engine' of evolution - natural selection. Supposedly all species are 'molded' by natural selection as the environment constantly changes (as well as the competitor species). Now, if constant environment forces change in species and is what drives evolution, then it is clearly impossible for any species to have remained 'static' if evolution is true because at the minimum, the competitor species have been constantly changing. So yes, stasis is a strong disproof of evolution.
You are the evolutionist, you tell us what it is. You are asking opponents to do your work for you?
You are the evolutionist, you tell us what it is. You are asking opponents to do your work for you?
Which means no new genes evolved. This is an argument against evolution, but the Darwinists have their "Evolution Tunes" playing so loud, they read it as the opposite!
Shhhh! Don't tell the evos. We'll just sit here and laugh while they make fools of themselves
Wrong .... coelecanth, ancient fish
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.