Convergent evolution Genetics Intelligent Design

Mice from opposite coasts of North America show same the changes in genes

Spread the love

The house mouse, beloved of cats, only arrived in North America with Europeans, so there aren’t millions of years to make up a story about how things happened. Well, here are some things that happened:

The western and eastern mice from cold climates shared changes in 16 genes, many involved with the regulation of body temperature.

“This suggests that there’s some predictability to evolution, that some of the same genes have changed in parallel to give rise to similar traits,” says Nachman.

Jake Buehler, “Mice on opposite North American coasts evolved the same way ” at New Scientist

Well, wait. It’s not just the same outcome; it’s the same genes that changed. That suggests an underlying pattern. The pattern better fits Lee Spetner’s non-random evolutionary hypothesis,where adaptability is built in, as he set out in The Evolution Revolution (2014).

If there were any life form that would have built-in adaptability it would be mice. They need it.

31 Replies to “Mice from opposite coasts of North America show same the changes in genes

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    Interesting. I didn’t realize mice were an invasive species here.
    “Initial spreading along a southern route” seems less likely than arriving on ships from Europe around the same time. Spain was colonizing the West Coast and Florida before the other Euros moved into the northeast.

  2. 2
    Bob O'H says:

    Well, wait. It’s not just the same outcome; it’s the same genes that changed.

    Well, no. From the paper:

    In addition to the greater than expected patterns of parallel genetic change, we observed that most loci show signatures of selection in only one transect.

  3. 3
    BobRyan says:

    The mice have everything needed for speciation to occur. Distance from Europe and each other. Well over a million years equivalence to mice as humans due to the short life spans. Yet, no speciation, no positive mutations of any kind. Mice remain mice at the genetic level.

  4. 4
    martin_r says:

    BobRyan, you will like this:

    from PMC (mainstream magazine):

    “The Puzzle of HIV Neutral and Selective Evolution”

    “HIV is one of the fastest evolving organisms known. It evolves about 1 million times faster than its host, humans. Because HIV establishes chronic infections, with continuous evolution, its divergence within a single infected human surpasses the divergence of the entire humanoid history. Yet, it is still the same virus, infecting the same cell types and using the same replication machinery year after year. Hence, one would think that most mutations that HIV accumulates are neutral. But the picture is more complicated than that. HIV evolution is also a clear example of strong positive selection, that is, mutants have a survival advantage. How do these facts come together?”

    source:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6658841/#:~:text=HIV%20is%20one%20of%20the,of%20the%20entire%20humanoid%20history.

  5. 5
    BobRyan says:

    martin_r

    Interesting reading. One has to wonder if anyone reads what they write, or so blinded by belief they can’t see the problems within their own work. HIV evolves, but remains HIV. HIV has positive mutations, but remain HIV. If logic was required, adaptation would need to be put in place of evolution. HIV is a virus that adapts, but never goes beyond HIV. If viruses evolve, why is HIV still HIV?

  6. 6
    JVL says:

    BobRyan: HIV is a virus that adapts, but never goes beyond HIV. If viruses evolve, why is HIV still HIV?

    Where do you think HIV came from in the first place?

  7. 7
    jerry says:

    Is anyone interested in an extremely real world extremely current example of design vs evolution, then there is one with the C19 virus. Here are the specifics

    3) The furin cleavage site.

    The furin cleavage site is a minute part of the virus’s anatomy but one that exerts great influence on its infectivity.
    It sits in the middle of the SARS2 spike protein. It also lies at the heart of the puzzle of where the virus came from.

    The spike protein has two sub-units with different roles. The first, called S1, recognizes the virus’s target, a protein called angiotensin converting enzyme-2 (or ACE2) which studs the surface of cells lining the human airways.

    The second, S2, helps the virus, once anchored to the cell, to fuse with the cell’s membrane.

    After the virus’s outer membrane has coalesced with that of the stricken cell, the viral genome is injected into the cell, hijacks its protein-making machinery and forces it to generate new viruses.

    But this invasion cannot begin until the S1 and S2 subunits have been cut apart.

    And there, right at the S1/S2 junction, is the furin cleavage site that ensures the spike protein will be cleaved in exactly the right place.

    The virus, a model of economic design, does not carry its own cleaver. It relies on the cell to do the cleaving for it. Human cells have a protein cutting tool on their surface known as furin. Furin will cut any protein chain that carries its signature target cutting site. This is the sequence of amino acid units proline-arginine-arginine-alanine, or PRRA in the code that refers to each amino acid by a letter of the alphabet. PRRA is the amino acid sequence at the core of SARS2’s furin cleavage site.

    Viruses have all kinds of clever tricks, so why does the furin cleavage site stand out? Because of all known SARS-related beta-coronaviruses, only SARS2 possesses a furin cleavage site. All the other viruses have their S2 unit cleaved at a different site and by a different mechanism.

    How then did SARS2 acquire its furin cleavage site? Either the site evolved naturally, or it was inserted by researchers at the S1/S2 junction in a gain-of-function experiment.

    https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-the-clues-6f03564c038

    There is much more so just search for furin cleavage site.

  8. 8
    JVL says:

    Jerry:

    Where do you think the HIV virus came from?

  9. 9
    jerry says:

    Where do you think the HIV virus came from?

    Have no idea.

  10. 10
    JVL says:

    Jerry: Have no idea.

    Do you think it’s plausible that it derived from a similar virus via unguided natural processes?

  11. 11
    jerry says:

    Do you think it’s plausible that it derived from a similar virus via unguided natural processes?

    Have no idea. Probably likely it was unguided unless there was something similar to what’s on the SARS2 genome that is unusual.

    There is a coverup going on with the SARS2 virus and the press has no interest nor does the science community have any curiosity in exposing what is going on. I wonder why?

    Was there something similar in HIV? I have no idea but would think not. The technology we have today is much better than what was available when HIV came out over 40 years ago. I doubt there was any lab that could have manipulated the HIV virus in the 1970’s the same way as the coronavirus has probably been manipulated.

  12. 12
    JVL says:

    Jerry: Have no idea. Probably likely it was unguided unless there was something similar to what’s on the SARS2 genome that is unusual.

    Okay, I was just wondering what your opinion was.

    There is a coverup going on with the SARS2 virus and the press has no interest nor does the science community have any curiosity in exposing what is going on. I wonder why?

    You think the COVID-19 virus was designed? By the Chinese? Based on the evidence you posted above? I can’t imagine why the US press and government would be so reluctant to point the finger at the commies in China. Why do you think the evidence is being glossed over?

  13. 13
    anthropic says:

    The research is quite clear on who to blame for C-19: Furin-ners.

  14. 14
    JVL says:

    Anthropic: The research is quite clear on who to blame for C-19: Furin-ners.

    That’s the claim.

    I can’t quite figure out why the Americans or the Russians would not be declaring that fact if there were evidence to support it. Surely Putin and/or Trump (when he was in office) would have been happy to make that call. But they didn’t.

  15. 15
    anthropic says:

    Well, it was meant as a pun, considering the post began with a discussion of furin. But as to your question, Russia is increasingly allied with China as part of an anti-US coalition so Putin would not be motivated to anger Beijing. In the US, too many companies and influential people have a major financial stake in China to countenance severe criticism. Heck, just try to get the NBA to condemn Uighur slavery! And don’t forget that Dr Fauci has ties to the Wuhan gain of function lab that may be to blame. He and his supporters, including almost all the mainline media, are thus committed to denying that possibility.

  16. 16
    JVL says:

    Anthropic: And don’t forget that Dr Fauci has ties to the Wuhan gain of function lab that may be to blame. He and his supporters, including almost all the mainline media, are thus committed to denying that possibility.

    He would put his own family (cousins, uncles, aunts, etc) at risk for what exactly? Money? He doesn’t seem to be rolling in the stuff.

    I don’t get the motive: why should Dr Fauci lie? What does he gain from it? To stay in office? President Trump didn’t fire him. If there was evidence he was in bed with the Chinese you’d think Trump would have got rid of him quickly.

  17. 17
    asauber says:

    “why should Dr Fauci lie?”

    Because he can and that’s what people do, JVL. It’s an Emergent Property of humans. If you don’t get that, it’s going to be difficult for you to do any serious analysis of political figures.

    Andrew

  18. 18
    JVL says:

    Asauber: Because he can and that’s what people do, JVL. It’s an Emergent Property of humans. If you don’t get that, it’s going to be difficult for you to do any serious analysis of political figures.

    Okay. Well then, how do I know that you’re not lying?

    I think we should try really hard to make sure we don’t condemn people without giving them the benefit of the doubt and judging the evidence the same way we would in a court of law.

    If you just want to decide who’s honest and who isn’t then that makes your position unfalsifiable. Which is fine . . . if that’s what you want.

    Is that what you want?

  19. 19
    asauber says:

    “how do I know that you’re not lying?”

    JVL,

    You can’t know for certain, either way, through comments on the internet.

    “If you just want to decide who’s honest and who isn’t”

    Well, before I decide, I do the scientific thing and evaluate the evidence available.

    Do you think there is evidence that Dr. Fauci has lied? And has he lied about things related to his official titles/positions?

    Andrew

  20. 20
    JVL says:

    Asauber: You can’t know for certain, either way through comments on the internet.

    That makes sense.

    Well, before I decide, I do the scientific thing and evaluate the evidence available.

    That makes sense. Especially if you commit to evaluating all the evidence available.

    Do you think there is evidence that Dr. Fauci has lied? And has he lied about things related to his official titles/positions?

    Perhaps you’d like to suggest times when you think he has lied. And I’ll try and keep an open mind.

    Like in a murder case: it’s not just motive or opportunity, it’s both.

  21. 21
    asauber says:

    “And I’ll try and keep an open mind.”

    JVL,

    Before I present my evidence, why did you say, “And I’ll try to keep an open mind” @20?

    You normally don’t?

    Andrew

  22. 22
    JVL says:

    Asauber: Before I present my evidence, why did you say, “And I’ll try to keep an open mind” @20. You normally don’t?

    No, it means I shall make an extra-special effort. In case something buts up against my preheld beliefs.

  23. 23
    anthropic says:

    Dr Fauci has already admitting being, ah, less than fully candid.

    Remember how he said masks were useless while knowing the opposite was true? He also said that the US would achieve herd immunity with 60% vaccinations…then 70%…then 80%. Fauci recently admitted that he fudged his real thinking so as to encourage people to vaccinate. In other words, he lied.

    Obviously, his role in steering US funds into gain of function research at the Wuhan lab, after such research was banned in the US, makes his reputation vulnerable in the extreme if the lab engineered the virus. That does not mean he is lying about it. He wants the Chinese denials to be true and thus believes them. Just as he believed there was no reason to ban flights from China since they said the virus wasn’t transmissible human to human…

  24. 24
    JVL says:

    Anthropic: Remember how he said masks were useless while knowing the opposite was true? He also said that the US would achieve herd immunity with 60% vaccinations…then 70%…then 80%. Fauci recently admitted that he fudged his real thinking so as to encourage people to vaccinate. In other words, he lied.

    As I don’t live in the US I probably missed some of the pertinent news items. Can you link to them?

    Obviously, his role in steering US funds into gain of function research at the Wuhan lab, after such research was banned in the US, makes his reputation vulnerable in the extreme if the lab engineered the virus.

    And that means he benefits personally how exactly? Can you provide links?

    He wants the Chinese denials to be true and thus believes them. Just as he believed there was no reason to ban flights from China since they said the virus wasn’t transmissible human to human…

    That’s assertions and not actual evidence. I’m not saying you’re wrong but you haven’t provided actual evidence those assertions are true.

    I don’t want to guess what evidence you are considering so I do not want to prejudge and say you’re wrong based on what I have seen.

  25. 25
    JVL says:

    Anthropic

    Were you perhaps thinking of this issue wherein Dr Fauci changed his advice based on the evidence?

    https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-fauci-outdated-video-masks-idUSKBN26T2TR

    You would expect a scientist to update their views based on a changing situation surely.

    May I ask you Anthropic, have your views on masks changed during the course of the pandemic?

  26. 26
    asauber says:

    JVL,

    This is a good one for starters:

    “When pressed on the moving target in a New York Times interview, Fauci said he purposely revised his estimates gradually. The newspaper, which posted the article on Thursday, said Fauci changed his answers partly based on “science” and partly on his hunch “that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks”.

    https://www.farsnews.ir/en/news/13991005000558/Faci-Admis-Lying-Ab-COVID-9-Herd-Immniy-Threshld-Maniplae-Pblic-Sppr

    Andrew

  27. 27
    JVL says:

    Asauber: “When pressed on the moving target in a New York Times interview, Fauci said he purposely revised his estimates gradually. The newspaper, which posted the article on Thursday, said Fauci changed his answers partly based on “science” and partly on his hunch “that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks”.

    Okay, so he thought the data had changed and he thought it might be best to ease the public around.

    Not really a big lie is it? And not because he was trying to mislead people.

    Is there any indication in that article that Dr Fauce was intentionally trying to harm the US public?

    Anyway, you didn’t answer the question: has your view on the effectiveness of masks changed during the course of the pandemic?

    And you’ve not addressed the issue of the virus being ‘made’ in a Chinese lab. I assume you have some hard evidence to support your views?

  28. 28
    asauber says:

    “Not really a big lie is it?”

    “Is there any indication in that article that Dr Fauce was intentionally trying to harm the US public?”

    These aren’t the questions at hand, JVL, and you and I both know it.

    If you’d like to have a serious dialogue, let me know when you are ready.

    Andrew

  29. 29
    asauber says:

    JVL,

    I’ll even help you…

    Do you think there is evidence that Dr. Fauci has lied?

    YES

    And has he lied about things related to his official titles/positions?

    YES

    Andrew

  30. 30
    JVL says:

    Asauber: These aren’t the questions at hand, JVL, and you and I both know it.

    I should think intent was a big issue in this case. But, maybe you’re right . . . next time you LIE to your spouse about your plans for their birthday I shall condemn you heavily.

    And has he lied about things related to his official titles/positions?

    If you think that case is strong enough then you are welcome to present your case to a court of law in the US because that is a prosecutable offence. Are you going to do that?

    AGAIN: you have not spoken on if your own views on mask wearing changed. Nor have you answered whether or not you think the virus was made in a Chinese lab. Why is that? Are you afraid to state your opinions on these matters? Why would that be?

  31. 31
    asauber says:

    JVL,

    You’re getting yourself upset and confused. Read through the comments again.

    Andrew

Leave a Reply