THERE BEING NO SUCH THING AS SPECIES (via Mike Daley)

Dog DNA differences breed insights: First detailed comparison of DNA differences among purebred dogs may help identify genes associated with specific traits or diseases in humans (BARBARA BERG, June 3, 2004, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center)

A new genetic analysis of man’s best friend could help scientists explain why a border collie has knack for herding or why poodles sport a curly coat.

In the May 21 issue of Science, researchers in the Clinical Research and Human Biology divisions report the first extensive genetic comparison of domestic dog breeds. The study, led by graduate student Heidi Parker, reveals distinct DNA blueprints for the 85 varieties of purebred participants as well as similarities between certain breeds. The researchers expect that understanding these genetic relationships will help them uncover the genes responsible for the physical features and behaviors unique to each breed as well as the diseases to which they are commonly susceptible, such as cancer, deafness, blindness, heart disease and hip dysplasia. [...]

The dog is a geneticist’s dream because each pure breed represents a group of genetically similar animals that have descended from only a few ancestors.

“Most breeds have been artificially created by man,” said Parker, a student in the Molecular and Cellular Biology Program. “Although all are members of the same species, this selective breeding has resulted in amazing variation between breeds with respect to weight, size, head shapes, coat, ear shape, behaviors and diseases.”

The level of diversity within the species is unprecedented, Kruglyak said. “Obviously, we’d like to understand the genetic differences that are responsible for this.”

Since any traits associated with a given breed must result from a shared set of genetic determinants, these genes stand out much more obviously than they would in a population of unrelated, or genetically dissimilar, animals. In addition, because most breeds were developed within the last 300 years — considered a very short period of time by evolutionary biologists — scientists expect that each distinctive trait has arisen from a small number of genes. Both of these features greatly ease scientists’ ability to identify a gene or genes responsible for a specific trait.

To identify the genes for a particular characteristic or disease in man, scientists often focus on human groups known to share a common ancestry. Examples include large, multigenerational families or isolated populations, such as Icelanders, whose members descend from a small group of founders. The small number of isolated human populations available for study has hampered the identification of genes for many common diseases, a problem that Ostrander and others believe could be overcome by studying the dog.

“There are more than 400 breeds of dog, and each is an isolated breeding population,” Ostrander said. “What that means is that each dog breed is a like a little Iceland — an isolated population that allows us to simplify a complicated genetic problem."

MORE:
The Evolution of Theory: Defining the Debate (Allan Dobras, February 16, 2006, Breakpoint)

A curious metamorphosis of the language of evolution seems to be taking place as the Darwinian theory becomes more suspect in the eyes of scientists who advocate intelligent design, and with the public at large. [...]

Proponents of evolution have made some headway in altering the meaning of theory in popular reference dictionaries. For example:

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1961: 1. Contemplation; speculation. 2. The analysis of a set of facts in their ideal relations to one another; as essays in theory. 3. The general or abstract principles of any body of facts; pure as distinguished from applied, science or art; as the theory of music or of medicine. 4. A more or less plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle offered to explain phenomena. 5. Loosely, a hypothesis or guess. 6. Math. A body of theorems presenting a clear, rounded, and systematic view of a subject; as, the theory of equations.

Webster’s Seventh Collegiate Dictionary, 1967: 1. The analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another . . .

Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, 1983: 1. Originally, a mental viewing; contemplation. An idea or mental plan of the way to do something. 2. A systematic statement of principles involved; as the theory of equations in mathematics . . .

But in some later dictionaries, the primary definition changed:

Webster’s College Dictionary, 2000: 1. A coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Darwin’s theory of evolution. 2. A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural . . .

The New Oxford American Dictionary, 2005: 1. A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something; especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained; Darwin’s Theory of Evolution . . .

Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 2004: 1. [Obsolete]. A mental viewing; contemplation. SYN: theory, as compared here, implies considerable evidence in support of a formulated general principle explaining the operation of a certain phenomena; The theory of evolution.

So it seems that the “Humpty Dumpty theory” is coming through for evolutionists, in a strategy not uncommon in today’s culture war: Unrestricted abortion is really reproductive health; sodomy is a lifestyle alternative; Christmas is Winter Holiday; and family is whatever one wants it to be. Perhaps we’re approaching a time when the definition of words will no longer be important—we can just make them up as we go along.

Even funnier is what they've done to the word species.

Posted by Orrin Judd at February 14, 2006 7:00 AM