Mouse changing coat colors dishonestly or ignorantly passed off as the fish to man version of evolution
gabriel
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/09/05/news-to-note-09052009#three
Peppered moths, move over! There's a new alleged "icon of
'evolution in action'" in town.
Reporting in Science, Harvard biologist Catherine Linnen and
colleagues describe the "rapid adaptation under ecological
pressure" of pale deer mice living in the sand dunes of Nebraska.
Usually deer mice, which are common in North America, have a dark
coat. That helps them blend in with the dark soil and escape the
notice of overhead predators, such as owls and hawks. The mice
just outside of Nebraska's Sand Hills sport dark fur, too. But
living among the Sand Hills are mice with a pale coat, a
"striking contrast," said Linnen, to the dark-furred mice
elsewhere. Of course, this helps the mice blend in with their
lighter-colored Sand Hills background.
The scientists conducted an investigation to determine the gene
(called the Agouti gene) that codes for the light-colored coat.
In their paper's abstract, they report:
We studied cryptically colored deer mice living on the Nebraska
Sand Hills and show that their light coloration stems from a
novel banding pattern on individual hairs produced by an increase
in Agouti expression caused by a cis-acting mutation (or
mutations), which either is or is closely linked to a single
amino acid deletion in Agouti that appears to be under selection.
Thus, as BBC News reports, the pale coat color comes from
"variation [in] a gene that already exists, rather than [in] a
new type of gene altogether." It could even be that the entire
variation is due to the deletion of a single amino acid described
by the authors. Creationists can interpret this finding in one of
two ways:
* It is possible that the increased expression of the Agouti gene
that leads to the pale coat color is not a mutation at all, but
rather one variation that existed in the ancestors of the deer
mouse-its ancestral created kind. If this is the case, natural
selection has merely favored one pre-existing variation over
another. Of course, evolutionists cannot accept such a
possibility; for them, all genetic variation must ultimately be
due to mutations somewhere along the line. (As it is, however, we
would consider this possibility less likely due to the lack of
pale deer mice elsewhere.)
* The other possibility is that the increased expression of the
Agouti gene is, indeed, due to a mutation (specifically, the
single amino acid deletion). But if so, it is a mutation of the
opposite sort than what molecules-to-man evolution would require,
because it results in the deletion of an amino acid. (While, in
this case, the ultimate result is simply a lighter coat color, in
other cases such deletions may have more deleterious effects.)
Furthermore, even if the mutation resulted in the addition of an
amino acid, that would not be evidence of the wide-scale genetic
changes molecules-to-man evolution would require (new genes and
new genetic information-not just random changes).
Additionally there is the issue of the timing of this genetic
mutation (if, indeed, it was a mutation). According to Linnen,
"We were also intrigued by the fact that Sand Hills had formed
within the last 8,000 to 15,000 years, which implies the light
color of the Sand Hills mice became advantageous only recently."
Based on estimates of mutation rates, the scientists concluded
the genetic variation for pale fur originated around 4,000 years
ago.
To evolutionists, the appearance and spread of a mutation in four
millennia is "rapid." And although there are other examples of
rapid change within a single species in only decades (see, e.g.,
item #1 of the June 6 News to Note), the deer mouse variation has
been traced to an actual genetic difference-whereas others (as in
the example provided) may more likely be due to non-genetic
factors. (Of course, even the evolutionary estimate of 4,000
years-if accurate-fits into the creationist framework.)
This study also reaffirms the potency of natural selection (an
important biological concept). The authors say the
lighter-colored fur gives the pale mice a 0.5 percent survival
advantage in the Sand Hills-which may not sound like much, but as
study coauthor Hopi Hoekstra (also a Harvard University
biologist) explained, "It doesn't seem that much, but multiplied
over thousands of individuals over hundreds of years, it makes a
huge difference."
So while the deer mouse is poised to become a new icon of
evolution, the entirety of this study is easily understandable
from the creation paradigm: natural selection is acting on a
genetic difference (likely a mutation) that has not increased the
quantity of genetic information in the deer mouse. That process
of adaptation, even if it continued for eons, could never result
in one organism turning into another (i.e., by the generation of
novel genetic information and anatomical features), as Darwinian
evolution (a.k.a. molecules-to-man evolution) requires.
(For an in-depth analysis of a similar study a few years back, we
recommend an article by our staff geneticist Dr. Georgia Purdom:
Evolution or Adaptation?)
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature
after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the
earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of
the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every
thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw
that it was good."
- Genesis 1:24-25
==================================================
A tiny pale deer mouse living on a sand dune in Nebraska looks
set to become an icon of biology.
Within just a few thousand years, generations of the mice have
evolved a sandy-coloured coat camouflaging themselves from
predators.
Most striking is that these mice acquired the mutation for pale
fur naturally, then rapidly passed it on.
That makes the fast-evolving deer mouse one of the best examples
yet studied of "true" natural selection in action.
Deer mice are one of the most abundant and widespread mammals in
North America.
Usually the mice have a dark coat, which enables them to blend in
with dark soils and avoid being seen by predators such as owls
and hawks.
But at Sand Hills in Nebraska, pale-coated mice abound.
"We decided to investigate the striking contrast between mice
living on the pale Sand Hills and mice living on darker soils
just a few miles outside," says Dr Catherine Linnen of Harvard
University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US.
"We were also intrigued by the fact that Sand Hills had formed
within the last 8,000 to 15,000 years, which implies the light
colour of the Sand Hills mice became advantageous only recently."
Fair gene
Linnen and colleagues at Harvard and the University of California
at Berkeley have now worked out exactly how the mice evolved so
quickly.
They have published the details in the journal Science.
They discovered that the light coat colour is coded by a single
gene, dubbed Agouti. This is expressed at a higher amount, and
for longer, than the genes that code for dark hair.
Most animals known to quickly evolve new features do so by
expressing a variation of a gene that already exists, rather than
evolving a new type of gene altogether.
But the researchers found that the Agouti gene only appeared
among wild deer mice in Sand Hills around 4,000 years ago, just a
few thousand years after dark mice colonised their new home. That
means it first evolved 8000 generations of mice ago.
They also ascertained that this new gene has since become very
common among the Sand Hills mice.
"The light gene wasn't in existence, so the mice had to "wait"
until a particular mutation occurred and then selection had to
act on that new mutation," says team member Professor Hopi
Hoekstra, also of Harvard University.
"It's a two part process. First the mutation has to occur and
second, selection has to increase its frequency."
The researchers say it is the first time that it has been
possible to document the appearance of a gene, its selection and
subsequent spread through a population of wild animals.
And that has allowed them to estimate the "strength" of the
natural selection pressure.
Having light coloured fur gives the paler Sand Hills mice a 0.5%
survival advantage.
"It doesn't seem that much, but multiplied over thousands of
individuals over hundreds of years, it makes a huge difference,"
says Prof Hoekstra.
"Ours is a very complete story," adds Dr Linnen.
"We've been able to connect changes at DNA level to the ability
of deer mice to survive in nature."
Rival icon
In some respects, the dune-living deer mice are similar to the
famous peppered moths of northern England.
For decades, the peppered moths (Biston betularia) have been
heralded as one of the best-examples known of a wild animal
adapting to its environment due to natural selection.
Originally, most peppered moths were lightly coloured, to blend
with the lightly coloured bark of trees.
Due to widespread pollution caused by the Industrial Revolution,
soot blackened the trees and newly conspicuous lightly coloured
moths were picked off by predators, a selection pressure that
triggered the rise of more dark coloured moths.
"In both species, changes in colour evolve rapidly due to
selection by visually-hunting predators," says Prof Hoekstra.
But the study by Dr Linnen and Prof Hoekstra's team takes our
undertaking of natural selection to a much deeper level.
The selection pressure on the moths was technically artificial,
caused by pollution produced by people. Whereas the selection
causing the pale mice is truly natural.
What is more, the scientists have found the gene responsible, and
worked out exactly how long it took to evolve and take hold in
the population.
"Despite the fact that the peppered has been an icon of
'evolution in action', we do not yet know the genetic changes
involved," says Prof Hoekstra.
"Once researchers find the pigmentation gene responsible for moth
colour change, they can do the same types of analyses we have
done. It will be really interesting to compare these estimates
between mice and men."
ken
creatioNUT BS
VoiceOfReason
>
> Please list the number of converts you've made with all your CCPed
> creatioNUT BS
It seems that creationists have made quite a number of converts... to
atheism. I can't count the number of people I've encountered who
became so fed up with the lies that they turned away from religion
permanently.
Erwin Moller
<snip>
Gabriel,
Why don't you finish a discussion for a change instead of posting your
same-old-story time after time again?
Be a man and finish what you start.
Coward.
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
gabriel
<Since_humans_read_this...@spamyourself.com>
wrote:
: gabriel wrote:
:
: <snip>
:
: Gabriel,
:
: Why don't you finish a discussion for a change instead of posting your
: same-old-story time after time again?
If you have a question, please post it. The only thing I see from
you here is personal attacks and a false claims that every
article posted is the same.
:
: Be a man and finish what you start.
: Coward.
:
: Erwin Moller
Erwin Moller
> On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:13:57 +0200, Erwin Moller
> <Since_humans_read_this...@spamyourself.com>
> wrote:
>
> : gabriel wrote:
> :
> : <snip>
> :
> : Gabriel,
> :
> : Why don't you finish a discussion for a change instead of posting your
> : same-old-story time after time again?
>
> If you have a question, please post it. The only thing I see from
> you here is personal attacks and a false claims that every
> article posted is the same.
>
I posted too many questions/remarks that you left unanswered to keep
doing it.....
You seem to think that posting the same crap in 100 different disguises
makes your point valid.
You would do better to dive into one the details of just one of your
claims and try to learn instead of repeating the same stuff over and
over again.
Erwin Moller
> :
> : Be a man and finish what you start.
> : Coward.
> :
> : Erwin Moller
>
gabriel
<Since_humans_read_this...@spamyourself.com>
wrote:
: gabriel schreef:
: > On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:13:57 +0200, Erwin Moller
: > <Since_humans_read_this...@spamyourself.com>
: > wrote:
: >
: > : gabriel wrote:
: > :
: > : <snip>
: > :
: > : Gabriel,
: > :
: > : Why don't you finish a discussion for a change instead of posting your
: > : same-old-story time after time again?
: >
: > If you have a question, please post it. The only thing I see from
: > you here is personal attacks and a false claims that every
: > article posted is the same.
: >
:
: I posted too many questions/remarks that you left unanswered to keep
: doing it.....
:
: You seem to think that posting the same crap in 100 different disguises
: makes your point valid.
:
: You would do better to dive into one the details of just one of your
: claims and try to learn instead of repeating the same stuff over and
: over again.
Notice you still haven't posted a question here, just claims that
elsewhere you posted questions that remained unanswered.
:
: Erwin Moller
: >
Erwin Moller
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:41:49 +0200, Erwin Moller
> <Since_humans_read_this...@spamyourself.com>
> wrote:
>
> : gabriel schreef:
> : > On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:13:57 +0200, Erwin Moller
> : > <Since_humans_read_this...@spamyourself.com>
> : > wrote:
> : >
> : > : gabriel wrote:
> : > :
> : > : <snip>
> : > :
> : > : Gabriel,
> : > :
> : > : Why don't you finish a discussion for a change instead of posting your
> : > : same-old-story time after time again?
> : >
> : > If you have a question, please post it. The only thing I see from
> : > you here is personal attacks and a false claims that every
> : > article posted is the same.
> : >
> :
> : I posted too many questions/remarks that you left unanswered to keep
> : doing it.....
> :
> : You seem to think that posting the same crap in 100 different disguises
> : makes your point valid.
> :
> : You would do better to dive into one the details of just one of your
> : claims and try to learn instead of repeating the same stuff over and
> : over again.
>
> Notice you still haven't posted a question here, just claims that
> elsewhere you posted questions that remained unanswered.
Liar.
>
> :
> : Erwin Moller
> :
> :
> :
> : > :
> : > : Be a man and finish what you start.
> : > : Coward.
> : > :
> : > : Erwin Moller
> : >
åñgèL™
<Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
> gabriel schreef:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:41:49 +0200, Erwin Moller
> > wrote:
>
> > : gabriel schreef:
> > : > On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:13:57 +0200, Erwin Moller
That's sure an easy way out of answering questiions, dnon't ya think?
KT
Erwin Moller
Indeed.
Gabriel avoid every discussion that gets remotely detailed and prefers
to play these kind of games instead.
I have endless open threads with Gabriel. He just stops posting or
starts diverting like above.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
>
>
> KT
gabriel
<Since_humans_read_this...@spamyourself.com>
wrote:
: gabriel schreef:
: > On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:41:49 +0200, Erwin Moller
: > <Since_humans_read_this...@spamyourself.com>
: > wrote:
: >
: > : gabriel schreef:
: > : > On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:13:57 +0200, Erwin Moller
: > : > <Since_humans_read_this...@spamyourself.com>
: > : > wrote:
: > : >
: > : > : gabriel wrote:
: > : > :
: > : > : <snip>
: > : > :
: > : > : Gabriel,
: > : > :
: > : > : Why don't you finish a discussion for a change instead of posting your
: > : > : same-old-story time after time again?
: > : >
: > : > If you have a question, please post it. The only thing I see from
: > : > you here is personal attacks and a false claims that every
: > : > article posted is the same.
: > : >
: > :
: > : I posted too many questions/remarks that you left unanswered to keep
: > : doing it.....
: > :
: > : You seem to think that posting the same crap in 100 different disguises
: > : makes your point valid.
: > :
: > : You would do better to dive into one the details of just one of your
: > : claims and try to learn instead of repeating the same stuff over and
: > : over again.
: >
: > Notice you still haven't posted a question here, just claims that
: > elsewhere you posted questions that remained unanswered.
:
: Liar.
You *have* posted a question here in this thread? If you say so.
Unfortunately, the thread itself contradicts your claim. =(
:
: >
: > :
: > : >
Erwin Moller
Try "Laws of Logic and science itself are only possible because of the
existence of God" just above here for various examples of yourself
avoiding discussion. My postings contain MANY questions/remarks you left
untouched.
It also contains examples written by you where you try to insult
biologists by insinuating we 'evolutionists' are nazis.
Get a mirror, Gabriel.
And try to be more honest.
gabriel
<Since_humans_read_this...@spamyourself.com>
wrote:
: gabriel schreef:
: > On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:36:14 +0200, Erwin Moller
You claimed you posted questions in *this* thread. Now you are
talking about other threads instead. As I said, you haven't
posted any questions in this thread between you and me, which is
what I said.
: It also contains examples written by you where you try to insult
Erwin Moller
Gabriel,
You really like to play this gae, don't you?
First: read better. I wrote:
>
> I posted too many questions/remarks that you left unanswered to keep doing it.....
>
> You seem to think that posting the same crap in 100 different disguises makes your point valid.
>
> You would do better to dive into one the details of just one of your claims and try to learn instead of repeating the same stuff over and over again.
>
> Erwin Moller
I still stand by that.
You back out every time, together with people like IllBeBauck,
Fankieboy, and the other dishonest hit-and-run creationists.
We both know why: You have run out of argumentation long ago.
So put some proof on the table for the crazy claims you keep repeating,
or keep it shut.
There is no sense in trying to divert the issue, as you keep trying to
do: I won't fall for it, nor will anybody with the slightest sense.
Creationism is a dead end.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
> : It also contains examples written by you where you try to insult
> : biologists by insinuating we 'evolutionists' are nazis.
> :
> : Get a mirror, Gabriel.
> : And try to be more honest.
> :
> : Erwin Moller
gabriel
<Since_humans_read_this...@spamyourself.com>
wrote:
: gabriel schreef:
: > On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 10:17:02 +0200, Erwin Moller
Is this a question? No. It's a statement you believe.
: >
: > You seem to think that posting the same crap in 100 different disguises makes your point valid.
Is this a question? No. It's a statement you believe.
: >
: > You would do better to dive into one the details of just one of your claims and try to learn instead of repeating the same stuff over and over again.
Is this a question? No. It's a statement you believe.
: >
: > Erwin Moller
:
: I still stand by that.
Still not a single question - yet you quote that as if it's a
question, claiming I ran from answering your questions. You are
either very confused, or very determined to just kick up a cloud
of smoke. =( Take care.
: You back out every time, together with people like IllBeBauck,