|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Why Darwinism is wrong | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jianyi Zhang Inactive Member |
Why Darwins theory of speciation or biodiversity by random mutation and natural selection (RMNS) is wrong?
1. Different species has different chromosomal karyotypes Different species in sexual animals almost all have karyotic changes, which means chromosomal differences detected under microscope. They are deletion, amplification, duplication, insertion, and inversion, even chromosomal number changes. Neo-Darwinism is based on change of allele frequencies, which cannot provide explanation how allele change lead to addition, deletion of pieces of chromosome, or change of chromosomal numbers. 2. Against all scientific evidences so far available For example, lateral transfer in bacteria, polyploids in plants, generation of asexuals from sexual animals (virgin births), generation of SARS or HIV and many virus, incorporation of mitochondria by symbiosis, etc. they all fall into instantaneous biodiversity, not gradual one by RMNS mechanism.Can anybody give me an example of speciation by RMNS? (do not just tell difference allele frequencies in different groups of same species). 3. Lack of explanatory power Beside lack of transitional fossils, there are more examples, such as chicken-egg paradox, atavisms, innovative organ, bottleneck effect, mosaic evolution, Cambrian explosion, rate of evolutionary change, few speciation in big mammals, RMNS mechanism poorly explains these phenomena. 4. Un-falsification Because RMNS model has no predictory power, there is no way falsifying it, and you cannot prove it wrong by scientific methods. In other words, it stands in any outcomes. By Popperian criteria, Neo-Darwinism is a pseudo-science. 5. Too complicated According Neo-Darwinists, there are several mechanisms of speciation (biodiversity): genetic drifting, natural selection, geographical isolation, sexual selection and instantaneous speciation. Among geographical isolation, there is vicariant speciation, peripatric speciation, also parapatric speciation. Each mechanism has own myths and assumptions. Worse than that, nobody can tell which organisms come into beings by which mechanism; they are just intensive exercise of your imagination. This message has been edited by Jianyi Zhang, 04-26-2005 12:17 PM This message has been edited by Jianyi Zhang, 04-26-2005 12:18 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I don't want to poison the well, but IMHO it's worth pointing out that Dr. Zhang has a history.
A new theory of speciation
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5062 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
I have a history there as well.
me on Ggroups It looked like Zhang ran into the same ""David Jensen two years later. It only reaffirms why I dont post there any more. Writing in black and white is clearer. Z says that adaptation never creates a new species but no matter what NS keeps the thing fit. I'll have to read a little more. That is a perspective I have not seen before in print. This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-26-2005 02:49 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Before I reply, it should be noted that I am actually a physics student and that my understanding of biology and population genetics is limited to what I had learned back in the days when I was a biology major.
1. Different species has different chromosomal karyotypes
It is not entirely true that speciation can only result from an immediate change in allele frequency. At least in plants, polyploidy is a very common phenomenon that leads to new plant species.
Different species in sexual animals almost all have karyotic changes, which means chromosomal differences detected under microscope. They are deletion, amplification, duplication, insertion, and inversion, even chromosomal number changes. Neo-Darwinism is based on change of allele frequencies, which cannot provide explanation how allele change lead to addition, deletion of pieces of chromosome, or change of chromosomal numbers. 2. Against all scientific evidences so far available For example, lateral transfer in bacteria, polyploids in plants, generation of asexuals from sexual animals (virgin births), generation of SARS or HIV and many virus, incorporation of mitochondria by symbiosis, etc. they all fall into instantaneous biodiversity, not gradual one by RMNS mechanism.Can anybody give me an example of speciation by RMNS? (do not just tell difference allele frequencies in different groups of same species). Tarantulas.
3. Lack of explanatory power
I'm not sure how to interpret what you stated above. Could you be more specific?
Beside lack of transitional fossils, there are more examples, such as chicken-egg paradox, atavisms, innovative organ, bottleneck effect, mosaic evolution, Cambrian explosion, rate of evolutionary change, few speciation in big mammals, RMNS mechanism poorly explains these phenomena. 4. Un-falsification
Actually, Darwin said it himself in Origin of Species that if a true altruistic species ever be found, it would falsify his theory.
Because RMNS model has no predictory power, there is no way falsifying it, and you cannot prove it wrong by scientific methods. In other words, it stands in any outcomes. By Popperian criteria, Neo-Darwinism is a pseudo-science. 5. Too complicated
Aside from the "too complicated" claim, which I'm not sure that it has anything to do with what we are talking about, I don't think the underlined statement is true. According Neo-Darwinists, there are several mechanisms of speciation (biodiversity): genetic drifting, natural selection, geographical isolation, sexual selection and instantaneous speciation. Among geographical isolation, there is vicariant speciation, peripatric speciation, also parapatric speciation. Each mechanism has own myths and assumptions. Worse than that, nobody can tell which organisms come into beings by which mechanism; they are just intensive exercise of your imagination. Off the top of my head, I can name several examples of species that came from geographical isolation. But just for kicks, you can fly to any of the islands in South America to find examples of such species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jianyi Zhang Inactive Member |
If you read my website, http://chickensfirst.net and you will get better ideas.
Darwin's RMNS is wrong from many scientific perspectives. The correct answer of mechanism for speciation in any sexaul organism is twins mutation and inbreeding. Jianyi Zhang
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
3. Lack of explanatory power Beside lack of transitional fossils well, the lack of what creationists are willing to call transitional fossils. that's not a lack of fossils, it's a lack of will. granted, we don't have enough dots that any idiot playing "connect the dots" could see that the work's already been done for him. but there's enough that we can make a picture.
such as chicken-egg paradox uh. you know what came first? something that was only almost a chicken.
atavisms recessive traits. genetics makes life easier.
bottleneck effect explain.
Cambrian explosion hard parts. we have lots of pre-cambrian fossils, really. it's just that HARD PARTS fossilize a lot better than soft ones.
few speciation in big mammals since we're only changing a little bit at a time, and big animals have a lot more little bits than small ones, it'd stand to reason...
4. Un-falsification Because RMNS model has no predictory power, there is no way falsifying it, and you cannot prove it wrong by scientific methods. In other words, it stands in any outcomes. By Popperian criteria, Neo-Darwinism is a pseudo-science. prediction: species will give to birth to animals of roughly the same genetic makeup, and all change will be gradualy compounding, even when accelerated. falsification: if one species gave birth to another.falsification: if no compounding changes took place. as one may notice, we have two things that would falsify random-mutation-natural-selection. either of those things would disprove it. we can observe that the second is untrue: we breed cats and dogs and can see the changes pretty plainly. the first, to my knowledge has never occured.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5062 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
http://chickensfirst.net/model.htm
quote:Could/would you please Sir indicate how this vision is any shorter, different, or better than quote:Mendel's Paper (English-Collaborative) If I am not mistaken your notion would divide the dashed line above EITHER vertically OR horizontally and yet I see no mathematical incorporation of the two different kinds of 1-D symmetry Weyl distinguised in SYMMETRY(book). The two eves idea no matter about the initial diversity of genetic variance across the line a progeniture motion crosses seems to give SHAPE to the dashed line. I had not seen your proposal before because *this* is not supported by anymath or any metric application I am aware of. I cant see how all species that would be comparable to paleontologically names ones MUST have identical structure. There surely is some variation in individual traits and yet the recursion your work remands seems to fly the middle without any slight variation on either side except size between the eves. Something other than magnitude is needed to composite morphospace it seems to me. How would you get 1:3 traits in the generations rather than the simple bifurcation your work seems to ply again. I suspect that the "similarity" is at alevel of physics below"" the language model of DNA-RNA-PROTEIN but that is unsubstantiated and is my own reading. You had it askedquote:but as i continue to read it you could theoretically get two identical mutations by TWO different physical chemical paths if 1-D symmetry was a adapted continuum and not a chance junkyard art display. This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-26-2005 05:05 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 5016 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
Neo-Darwinism is based on change of allele frequencies, which cannot provide explanation how allele change lead to addition, deletion of pieces of chromosome, or change of chromosomal numbers. The theory of evolution does not claim that changes in allele frequency result in karyotype changes. Changes in karyotype may, however, affect allele frequency (i.e. if an allele is deleted or duplicated). You will need to explain how the existence of various karyotypes is meant to be a challenge to the theory.
lateral transfer in bacteria
This is no challenge to neo darwinism. It just means that our population genetics models have to be modified when we study bacteria. The existence of HGT challenges neither the existence of mutations nor the existence of natural selection. In fact HGT is rightly viewed as just another mechanism (among many) that generates genetic variability within populations, i.e. the bedrock of neoDarwinism.
polyploids in plants
I fail to understand how abnormal cell division, resulting in duplication of the genome, is meant to challenge evolutionary theory. A polyploid cell resulting from whole genome duplication isn't "instantaneous biodiversity". It's just a normal individual with twice the amount of genetic material.
generation of SARS or HIV and many virus
The molecular evolution of HIV is in fact rather well understood and you are simply wrong to say it reflects "instantaneous biodiversity". There are around five distinct forms of SIV, each associated with a different primate species, and there are chimeric forms in hybrid zones; and it's clear that human HIV evolved from SIV and didn't appear instantaneously. The molecular evolution of HIV is explained well by neoDarwinism, showing purifying selection on some regions of the viral genome and diversifying selection on others. Are you really suggesting that HIV didn't evolve from SIV?
incorporation of mitochondria by symbiosis... fall into instantaneous biodiversity, not gradual You are way off the mark on this one. The plastid genomes of eukaryotes are highly diverse, and they are subject to ongoing evolution (i.e. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...).{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal. - Adminnemooseus} They could well have arisen by multiple endosymbiotic events, not just one spontaneous event. Just compare a chloroplast or a mitochondrion to a bacterium, and look at the diversity of chloroplast structure in plants, to see that this wasn't just an instantaneous transition that has been frozen over the millenia. atavisms, innovative organ, bottleneck effect, mosaic evolution, Cambrian explosion, rate of evolutionary change, few speciation in big mammals, RMNS mechanism poorly explains these phenomena.
I find it difficult to see what you are trying to get at here... What exactly is it about bottlenecks or different evolutionary rates that evolutionary theory can't account for? Your examples are rather odd. For example evolutionary theory (or more specifically population genetics) has a very sensible explanation for the rareness of speciation events in big mammals (hint: it has to do with generation time)
Because RMNS model has no predictory power, there is no way falsifying it, You are just betraying your own ignorance here.
Too complicated it's a complicated world out there. This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-27-2005 02:03 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jianyi Zhang Inactive Member |
Could/would you please Sir indicate how this vision is any shorter, different, or better than I went in other sites and just come back. The idea in the website is very simple: I propose a new model that suggests twins mutation and inbreeding, only one step assumed. For speciation of a sexual organism (viviparous), there are only four steps in whole process. 1. Formation of fraternal twins zygotes (male and female).2. Similar gross mutations on these zygotes by a certain probability (even very low). 3. Self-splitting of zygotes into two groups of identical zygotes in both genders. 4. Development of zygotes with birth of babies and inbreeding when they mature For oviparous animals and asexual organism, these principles will be same, i.e. gross changes in genetic material, instantaneous biodiversity, and inbreeding (if sexual organism). Only step 2 is assumed, the rest 3 steps are natural phenomena. Many unsolved myths have answers under the proposed mechanism, which are discussed in the website. Also I list several falsifiable mechanisms to the model. I had some discussions in talk.origins, I answer major critiques in FAQ section of a website.
I see no mathematical incorporation of the two different kinds of 1-D symmetry Weyl distinguised in SYMMETRY(book). The two eves idea no matter about the initial diversity of genetic variance across the line a progeniture motion crosses seems to give SHAPE to the dashed line. I had not seen your proposal before because *this* is not supported by anymath or any metric application I am aware of.
I never thought any metric application necessary, and I do not know them anyway.
How would you get 1:3 traits in the generations rather than the simple bifurcation your work seems to ply again.
Why do I have to get 1:3 traits? With similar gross mutations at both zygotes (female and male), inbreeding among them would generate a new species with new genomic struture.
i continue to read it you could theoretically get two identical mutations by TWO different physical chemical paths
Why two different physical chemical paths? Same type virus can infect both twin zygotes easily with same gross mutation. Jianyi Zhang
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
To address some of your points.
1:- It is true that these are certainly not expicitly covered in either Darwin's original formulation nor in the original neo-darwinian 'modern synthesis'. It is worth remembering though that even the 'modern synthesis' is now at least 20 years old. The relevance of your karyotypic changes escapes me. Changes in allele frequencies do not explain these karyoptypic changes because many of these changes are themeselves changes in allelic frequency. Duplications, deletions, inversions, amplifications and insertion may all lead to a change in allele frequency in a population, although they do not neccessarily do so. These are some of the forms of mutation upon which natural selection may act. It is also by no means a given that differences in karyotype are the be all and end all of speciation. 2:- None of these are evidences against the operation of RMNS, all they show is that there are many more sources of variation than had been supposed when the 'modern synthesis' was being developed. As has been pointed out they are by no means 'instantaneous' biodiversity any more than a point mutation is. 3:- Rather than a lack of explanatory power these seem rather to be areas which might more profitably be researched. I'm sure people could come up with half a dozen ad-hoc just so stories for how RMNS could lead to any of these, the important thing is to do enough research to have a good idea what actually happened. In the case of the chicken and egg the answer is obviously egg. Reptiles and various species of bird had been laying eggs long before chickens turned up. 4:- I don't see how RMNS makes no predictions. there are many papers investigating the theoretical exploration of fitness landscapes providing testable models of how organisms adapt to selective pressures and a number of experimental approaches, especially in bacterial cell culture, to test such hypotheses. 5:- Too complicated, well maybe. But then living things are complicated. It may appear messy but that doesn't actually suggest it is wrong. TTFN, WK P.S. Are you the first author on 'Testing the Chromosomal Speciation Hypothesis for Humans and Chimpanzees' from Genome Research? Feel free not to answer, I'm well aware of the problems associated with publicising ones real life identity in such an open forum. It just seemed that that research, not to mention the authors name, concurred very well with the first question you were asking. After looking at your website you obviously aren't the same J. Zhang, never mind. This message has been edited by Wounded King, 04-27-2005 10:22 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5062 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Thnaks for your response. I hope you continue...
The "unsolved myth" that your assumption solves is simply the extrapolation of Ian Stewarts statement quote:p66(Life's Other Secrect) scaled into population thinking and yet your website seems to read red as if this is done contra Stewarts position on the FUTURE of math and biology, namlely that it is closer to my own approach than that of Stewart's (page243) What we have here is mostly a challenge, and only occasionally an answer. Whatever that challenge may be, it is not simply a question of writing down an equation of life and solving it. I doubt very much that any such thing exists. Finding exact solutions to ultimate laws is not a sensible role for mathematics. It's not math's role in physics, and it certainly should not be math's role in biology. But I have another thread working where contra Holmes a bit I will show that the two step(inbreeding and mutation are not a unified stepper no matter how linked the ladder chains the being to it) is not what is dancing here. I dont have any more time this week. I will agree with ONE but yours is not this uno or moko. Your reply still seems more complicated than Mendel to me. Even granting no god or more genetics I cant find on the web site how I am supposed to add up the mutations gross or otherwise. Perhaps I just missed that. If so, my bad esle back to Homes.la la le la la la. Anyway I will try to show how the bacterial flagellum is not IC(suffiently) to the inversion metrically of the TB virus(structure) and point out how there are two chemical paths in the same population by use of phase reasons. But more later. God might still be and genetics, well, again, where is that ? it still didnt take shape. If I cant write down the illustration, delimit the equation and solve for space time and form I am no longer interested in science. But hey, that's just me. By the way, one such equation, IS is likely refering to was Murray's approach to leopard spots and it is because the equations they wrote down at Oxford were not general to say your notion that I DID NOT go that way for grad work. That thing exists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Folks, though I'm replying to JonF, this is to everyone. JonF pointed out that Jianyi Zhang had a thread on this issue at talk.origins. If you decide to participate in this thread, be sure you set your frustration tolerance level to maximum. Example:
From message 1 of his talk.origins thread:
I believe in evolution, but not in natural selection as the mechanism of speciation. From message 39:
I never denied roll of NS. If you think I did, tell me where and when. Enjoy, but stay within the Forum Guidelines.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jianyi Zhang Inactive Member |
Original post by Wounded King
Changes in allele frequencies do not explain these karyoptypic changes because many of these changes are themeselves changes in allelic frequency. Duplications, deletions, inversions, amplifications and insertion may all lead to a change in allele frequency in a population, although they do not neccessarily do so.
The key is changes of allele frequency a gradual process, also at population level; it occurs by NS, however, duplications, deletions, inversions, amplifications and insertion are instantaneous processes at individual level, which occur without NS, and subject to NS effect after they are generated.
It is also by no means a given that differences in karyotype are the be all and end all of speciation.
Yes, not all differences in karyotypes leads to speciation, but different species almost have different karyotic patterns, some gross mutations can not be seen by karyotypic study, as they are not big enough to be seen.
None of these are evidences against the operation of RMNS, all they show is that there are many more sources of variation than had been supposed when the 'modern synthesis' was being developed. As has been pointed out they are by no means 'instantaneous' biodiversity any more than a point mutation is.
All of these evidences are against RMNS as the mechanism of speciation. Can you tell me how polyploids in plants occur by RMNS?If you still think polyploids consistent with RMNS, you should read some books by E. Mayr, top Darwinists. How about virgin birth of shark in zoo? How do you apply RMNS to it? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...20925_virginshark.html
In the case of the chicken and egg the answer is obviously egg. Reptiles and various species of bird had been laying eggs long before chickens turned up.
Do you mean eggs give a birth to a new species?
I don't see how RMNS makes no predictions. there are many papers investigating the theoretical exploration of fitness landscapes providing testable models of how organisms adapt to selective pressures and a number of experimental approaches, especially in bacterial cell culture, to test such hypotheses.
There is no way to predict anything with RMNS. BWT, does a new bacteria a new species? Almost all antibiotics bacterai are generated from lateral transfer, which is an instantaneous process, regardless of existence of antibiotics, they were there, ones have no way to find out them. Jianyi Zhang
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024