Genetic Changes In Mice 'Question Evolution Speed'

Ananova ^ | 5-21-2003

[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

[Junior]

And your point is? Science cannot dabble in the supernatural because the latter is, by definition, untestable. If it ain't testable, how does science deal with it?

[ALS]

"Virtually all the fundamentals of the orthodox evolutionary faith have shown themselves to be either of extremely doubtful validity or simply contrary to fact.... So basic are these erroneous [evolutionary] assumptions that the whole theory is now largely maintained in spite of rather than because of the evidence...... As a consequence, for the great majority of students and from that large ill-defined group, 'the public,' it has ceased to be a subject of debate. Because it is both incapable of proof and yet may not be questioned, it is virtually untouched by data which challenge it in any way. It has become in the strictest sense irrational...... Information or concepts which challenge the theory are almost never given fair hearing...."
"Evolutionary philosophy has indeed become a state of mind, one might almost say a kind of mental prison rather than a scientific attitude...... To equate one particular interpretation of the data with the data inself is evidence of mental confusion..... The theory of evolution... is detrimental to ordinary intelligence and warps judgment."
(Arthur Constance, PhD (Anthropology), "Evolution: An Irrational Faith" in Evolution or Creation? Vol. 4- The Doorway Papers (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), 173-74)

[f.Christian]

Main Entry: brain·wash·ing
Pronunciation: 'brAn-"wo-shi[ng], -"wä-
Function: noun
Etymology: translation of Chinese (Beijing) xina< hacek >o
Date: 1950
1 : a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas
2 : persuasion by propaganda or salesmanship
- brain·wash transitive verb
- brainwash noun
- brain·wash·er noun

[js1138]

not to good...how's yours?

How's your English?

[f.Christian]

Main Entry: in·doc·tri·nate
Pronunciation: in-'däk-tr&-"nAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -nat·ed; -nat·ing
Etymology: probably from Middle English endoctrinen, from Middle French endoctriner, from Old French, from en- + doctrine doctrine
Date: 1626
1 : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : TEACH
2 : to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle
- in·doc·tri·na·tion /(")in-"däk-tr&-'nA-sh&n/ noun
- in·doc·tri·na·tor /in-'däk-tr&-"nA-t&r/ noun

[Lurking Libertarian]

if you deny Jesus the Creator, you deny God, by any definition.

A number of Jews might disagree with you there.

[ALS]

"Critique of Current Theories of Evolution. We believe that it is possible to draw up a list of basic rules that underlie existing molecular evolutionary models: 1. All theories are monophyletic, meaning that they all start with the Urgene and the Urzelle which have given rise to all proteins and all species, respectively. 2. Complexity evolves mainly through duplications and mutations in structural and control genes. 3. Genes can mutate or remain stable, migrate laterally from species to species, spread through a population by mechanisms whose operation is not fully understood, evolve coordinately, splice, stay silent, and exist as pseudogenes. 4. Ad hoc arguments can be invented (such as insect vectors or viruses) that can transport a gene into places where no monophyletic logic could otherwise explain its presence. This liberal spread of rules, each of which can be observed in use by scientists, does not just sound facetious but also, in our opinion, robs monophyletic molecular evolution of its vulnerability to disproof, and thereby of its entitlement to the status of a scientific theory."
(Schwabe, Christian [Department of Biochemistry, Medical Universoty of South Carolina, USA] & Warr, Gregory, "A Polyphyletic View of Evolution: The Genetic Potential Hypothesis," Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp.465-485, Spring 1984, p.467. Footnotes omitted.)

[js1138]

There are so many driving factors in evolution, to say that natural selection is the only one, is just plain silly...

I'm getting a little confused here. All the mechanisms you cited involve selection. Sometimes selection is absolute, and the less qualified organism does not reproduce at all. Sometimes selection is statistical, and the more qualified organism passes on more offspring.

Isn't is more to the point to assert that there are multiple sources and causes of variation?

[js1138]

You must be one of them there neocons.

[Right Wing Professor]

(Quoting a group of unsubstantiated assertions by a creationist, of which the first two are...

"Virtually all the fundamentals of the orthodox evolutionary faith have shown themselves to be either of extremely doubtful validity or simply contrary to fact....So basic are these erroneous [evolutionary] assumptions that the whole theory is now largely maintained in spite of rather than because of the evidence.....

But, in fact, the number of papers and journals devoted to evolution has increase enormously since its immindent demise was predicted in this article in 1976. The development of molecular genetics has added a massive new body of evidence which we are only now beginning to integrate. So how much confidence can we place in an article, the only verifiable assertion of which - the evolution is on the wane - is demonstrably false?

[Aric2000]

and lookey there, is ALS actually getting it?

look at that tagline, he's going to discredit G3K for me.

What a nice guy....

[Aric2000]

Yes, thank you

[ALS]

"Oh, and if the evidence points to another theory, if evolution is somehow proven to NOT explain what happened, if evidence surface that refutes it and replaces it with another theory. THen I will happily go to the new theory, after a majority of scientists are convinced that it is indeed a better theory then evolution. That is NOT religion, it is NOT faith, it is science."

That's not science, it's blind groping faith.

However, you just admitted that competing theories are ok, which is totally contrary to every post you've made here.

One can find "scientists" of every flavor in competing theories. We'll assume the obvious and observe that you mean, any scientist that thinks the way you think.

pure dogma

The more you Eloons talk, the more you reveal your weakness. Chief among them being rote acceptance of anything other than "what that guy said".

[Aric2000]

You always make assumptions, one of your many problems.

It is not groping, it is allowing the evidence, scientifically verifiable evidence, to lead you to the proper conclusion.

Not that hard to figure out, and "faith" has NOTHING to do with it.

[f.Christian]

Turtle circles // loops ... in turtle wheels -- jerks !

One big sausge (( evolution )) link !

[HalfFull]

if the contradictions and silliness don't just jump out and grab you, then perhaps you need to take a reading comprehension course.

I read just fine, thank you. That you want to call God's Word "silly", is your foolish right

The bible is a wonderful thing, but dangerous in the hands of those who truly take it literally.

I agree! the Bible is refered to as the Sword of the Spririt and is truely dangerous... (Eph 6:17)

[HalfFull]

You poor thing, education is a good thing, perhaps you should get some.

Got some...BSEE....and you?

[Aric2000]

YOUR socalled god's word, not mine.

And I'm glad that we agree, the bible is indeed a destructive force if used improperly.

Such as taking ALL of it literally.

[ALS]

1. Time for you to define "creationist".
2. Truth or fact is not a war of who has the most words on paper.
3. No matter who is quoted, you and your inane ilk will always mislabel the quoted if they do not conform to your extremist narrow-minded pablum.

You people have wonderfully displayed the antithesis of science. Your minds are so closed you can't see past your zygotees.

[HalfFull]

Non-existent, but then I don't claim to have a source for the 'plain words of God'.

to bad for you....