Another Case of Misappropriating What is Not Evolution to Evolutionary Theory

Another one from Bret and Heather. They are talking about a discovery he made some years earlier about the length of mouse telmomeres, which were understood to be longer than in other animals but whicvh he determined were really only longer in laboratory mice, that is, mice bred for use in laboratories. The way they are selected and bred caused them to develop long temomeres. That is, these long telomeres are not found in mice in the wild, only in oaboratory mice, a consequence of the way they are bred for that role.

And this is important because the long telomeres confer a resistance to toxity and other things that means they aren't good models for laboratory experiments where the toxicity of say drugs is being tested on them. They would have resistance to toxic drugs that would give a false judgment of their toxicity for use in humans. Which of course could be very dangers.

This sounds like an important discovery with very important ramifications.

But of course that's not the point of my post. I have one little point to make. It odes NOT take "evolutionary thinking" to recognize such a problem. I have to make an issue of this because it's a mjor way evolution keeps getting validated based on a false idea of whart is really going on. They are al=ways coop coopting normal variation to evolution, microevolution as they think of it. It is not evolution at all. Variation is built into the genome of each Species orf Kind and it's as obvious to all of us as the fact that the offspring of sexually reproducing craetures, such as humjann beings, differ from their parents and from eacfh other. That's the result of sexual recombination, not evolution. It has nothing to do with evolution, it has nothing to do with mutation. It does not take evolutionary thinking to recognize this obvious ordinary simple fact.

Selection works on normal variation. If you isolate a part of a population of any sexually reproducing animal, each separated part witll develop new characteristics. By isolating a small number of individuals you create a new population with a new set of gene frequ3encies which is going to bring about a new set of observative traits within some number of generations. This is not evolution at all, although I've used it to demonstrate that this process in producing new phenotypes requires the reduction of genetic diversity which spells death to evolution through its own processes. But that's another discussion.