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
Then why, when you read high school biology textbooks, are the abiogenesis "arguments" always found in the "Evolution" units?
There are startling genetic differences between eskimos and pygmies. So the above proves nothing.
The scientists, whose findings appear in the journal Nature, believe humans may have been partly responsible for the "new" mice.
Well, 'belief' is not a scientific term, so the above sorta shows that these folk are not acting like scientists.
"Settlers may have brought in mice with the favourable gene that were able to out-compete mice with the native variant,"
They admit that there are mice with different genetics than the ones they studied. In fact, all species have a large variety in their gene pool. So unless they can show that no other mice then had the present differences, this is just evolutionist balderdash.
Only one of the present-day mice had DNA that matched that of mice collected before 1950.
In fact they are just admitting that there is a variety in the mouse gene pool NOW, so that a sample from a single location does not prove anything at all.
Because it demonstrates stasis, not development of new genes through mutation and natural selection.
The pool of mice genes remains unchanged. Two isolated (and genetically narrowed) mice populations mixed and consequently re-aquired their full pre-existing variety. That's not evolution.
I'm not speaking of "science" textbooks, I'm speaking of biology books (not "abiology") books. That's "books," plural, because it's a pattern followed by virtually all the recognized "major" texts out there. Most of these texts are high on passing off the slimmest of speculations as legitimate science. I would prefer they tell the truth and say "No one knows how life began...." and go from there.
Pretty simple really. If God created life there is no reason to believe that He did not create the marvelous species - including man - which we see.
There is, of course, a morphological species concept to deal with fossil creatures. It actually predates the biological species concept (based on reproduction) by hundreds of years, and was good enough for Linnaeus and innumerable other creationists to use even on living species. Is it perfect? No. Neither is the biological species concept, btw. None of this means that species don't exist, and can't be reasonably delineated.
Again, there is no evidence, so far as I am aware, of a morphological species (if you require the proviso) that has survived for hundreds of millions of years. On reflection (I don't have time to check just now) I don't think the modern coelecanth is even of the same genus as any of the ancient forms. I think it's classified in the same family.
Abiogenesis was part of the theory of evolution until it was written off it by Huxley due to Pasteur's experiment showing that spontaneous generation was false. Darwin also played around with the idea but did not dare publish it. Abiogenesis is implicit in evolution since it denies totally a divine Creator and if there is a divine Creator there is no need for evolution, certainly there is no way that it can claim that all species (including man) have evolved instead of being created.
Nice of you to offer your opinion, gore3000. If you'll excuse me, however, I'm going to leave it to the Creator Himself to decide whether there is a need (or preference) for evolution and/or abiogenesis.
Which is not valid and is easily manipulated. It is totally subjective and not science that is why evolutionists love it. The biological species concept is non-subjective and is therefore valid. More importantly, as regards to the evolution question, it is the only valid criteria since evolution claims that species transform themselves into different species. It is the only criteria which takes into consideration what is essential for a species.
Again, there is no evidence, so far as I am aware, of a morphological species
Repeating the lie. I already showed you proof that the coelacanth, the morphology of the coelacanth, has not changed in some 380 million years in my previous post to you to which this is a response. (BTW -for the lurkers - morphology only means form and structure which is what was described in the quote given you - evolutionists like to use big words to confuse the issue for the lurkers and try to sound more knowledgeable than they really are.)
Very funny. An advocate of the theory which seeks to deny the Creator recognition for the fruits of His labor saying you leave it up to Him. As to abiogenesis, there is no way that life came from non life which is the reason why evolutionists have run away from claiming it is part of evolution even though they would dearly like it to be possible since it would give support to their materialistic/atheistic theory.
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.