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
Yes it has. BTW, I was wrong. The modern coelacanth is not even in the same Family as the fossil forms, but only in the same Order. Here is the classsification of the living species (of which there may actually be two, it being presently unclear, as I understand, whether African and Indonesian populations are separate species):
Kingdom: Anamilia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Osteichthyes (bony fishes)
Order: Coelacanthini
Family: Sarcopterygii
Genus: Latimeria
Species: chalumnae
The following web page will allow you to look side by side at the modern coelacanth and one of the most similar fossil forms. Notice that they are NOT indentical. Look, for instance, as the bones surrounding the eye. The fossil form is also much smaller; 60cm, which is a typical size for fossil coelacanths. The living ones reach 2m. Finally the living coelacanth is viviparous (gives live birth rather than laying eggs) and there is no indication of this in the fossil forms.
Well, gore, the biological species concept (that species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups) was not formalized until 1942, by Ernst Mayr. Furthermore, Mayr's own historical survey (The Growth of Biological Thought, Harvard Univ Press, 1982, pgs 272-273) lists several "pioneers" who grasped the "essential points" of the biological species concept, but the earliest paper he can cite is from 1896.
Therefore, if we accept your pronouncemnt, gore, we have to assert that every scientist who dealt with the indentification of species prior to the late 19th Century (and certainly prior to Darwin) including the very father of the taxonomic sciences, Linnaeus, and all those other creationists, were not practicing science.
The biological species concept is non-subjective and is therefore valid.
How often do you think scientists actually do tests and observations to adequately confirm the biological species concept fully applies in a particular case? The answer is, almost never (at least in the sense of full confirmation). No species concept is perfect, gore. Again, this does not mean they are not coherent, or useful, or that species don't exist, or can't be imperfectly but usefully indentified.
Just curious, but what do you think the mule is? Is it a horse? A donkey? Another species? What?
A hybrid. A variant. Cross breeding does not prove or even suggest evolution.
You need a definition of species in order to pursue your assertion. How do you define species?
Why would a mule have a different number of chromosomes than its parent? The mule has the fingerprints of trans-species evolution all over it.
Did I use the word?
Why would a mule have a different number of chromosomes than its parent? The mule has the fingerprints of trans-species evolution all over it.
Not even all humans have the same number of chromosomes as their parents. If hybrids were actually evidence of evolution, the evos would use it as proof. They don't because it isn't.
I inferred it when you posted, "Of course the mice evolved into something other than mice, right?" Were you not referring to new species evolution? Are you trying to be coy?
Not even all humans have the same number of chromosomes as their parents. If hybrids were actually evidence of evolution, the evos would use it as proof. They don't because it isn't.
Evolution is an attempt to explain observed differences in life, current and past. Linear change is the mechanism they assert produced the differences. I doubt evolution scientists would back you claim that hybridization is not part of evolution.
Improperly so. If you feel the need to define "species," go ahead. There are plenty of ready-made definitions available.
I know where you're headed with this one. Its a fallacious syllogism that goes like this:
Evolution is a change from one species to another.
We have observed change from one species to another.
Therefore evolution has been observed.
The fallacy of the argument lies in the equivocation of the word "species." For example, one might speak of a different species of cat or dog. Nonetheless, they are still cats and dogs. IOW a hybrid horse is still a horse. It is not an intermediate between dog and horse or elephant and horse.
Evolution doesn't happen because the boundaries of taxonomy are adjusted.
Postmodern evos can claim anything since, to them, both truth and monkeys are relative.
So alleged, but not explained.
I said, "I inferred it when you posted, 'Of course the mice evolved into something other than mice, right?' Were you not referring to new species evolution? Are you trying to be coy?"
You assert my inference was improper without addressing the issue of what you meant if it wasn't species evolution.
"Of course the mice evolved into something other than mice, right?" What did you men by that? Mice involving into something other than mice still implies mice evolving into another species to me.
Where is my inference wrong? Enlighten me about what you meant. Why so coy?
I don't think so. There's not really that much to the story itself -- it may be evolution, or it may be the effects of interbreeding with a different race of mice (the old phrase n***** in the woodpile springs to mind), and at any rate, they're still mice....
What's more fun here is to watch how people's take on the article varies with their agendas.
Some creationists would disagree with you. "Strict" "young-earth" creationist generally also insist on the historicity and global extent of Noah's flood. In order to lend some measure of credibility (however inadequately in the view of skeptics) to the story of Noah's Ark, they must reduce the number of creatures to be loaded and cared for. They therefore suggest that only "kinds" were preserved by Noah, and that some of these "kinds" subsequently diversified (God forbid we should say "evolved") into extant species.
The Family of Equids, including horses, asses and zebras, is often used as an example of a possible "created kind," and the fact that hybridization is often possible between different species of equids is sometimes cited as evidence of this.
IOW even creationists recognize hybridization as suggestive of common descent.
Congradulations! This is the first time I've heard a creationist admit this tactic so openly!
And you can claim anything about "postmodern evos" as there are none present. I'd say the philosophical prejudices of FReeper evos (and even of evolutionists generally) runs decidedly towards a most un-postmodern scientific realism.
I understand your point. Common descent <> macro evolution, however.
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.