Why Darwinism is wrong

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,WKP.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

No it doesn't, it means that RM&NS can give rise to biodiversity, not that they are the only concievable mechanisms, although depending on how broadly you define random mutation a case could be made for that. In fact if you define biodiversity strictly in terms of genetic variation, at whatever level, then natural selection is entirely unneccesary. Natural selection becomes neccessary however if one wishes to come up with something that actually bears some relation to the biodiversity we see around us. As has already been suggested this is completely wrong. Plasmids have nothing to do with the endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria, except perhaps as intermediaries for gene transfer between the mitochondrial and nuclear genome.The protomitochondria, according to the traditional endosymbiotic hypothesis, would itself be a prokaryotic bacteria not a plasmid. This bacteria would exist as an intracellular endosymbiont providing the host cell with energy. Over time the internal endosymbiont would lose genetic information for a number of now redundant systems, such as perhaps locomotory or sensory systems. Eventually the mitochondrial genome may be no more than the barest minimum neccessary for the structure of the mitochondrion itself and its esential metabolic enzymes. Indeed many mitochondrial genes are thought to have been transferred to the nuclear genome over time, so even that bare minimum may be reduced even further.Using early bacteria in a discussion of speciation is totally pointless. The gaining of an endosymbiont would not preclude the exchange of genetic information with other bacteria, indeed it is a hard job trying to stop bacteria exchanging information. Well at least we all agree on that, but no one ever suggested otherwise. Any shred of evidence for that? That isn't an explanation, Oook was pointing out that the genetic evidence places the existences of mitochondrial Eve and y chromosome Adam about 80,000 years apart, unlikely for fraternal twins.TTFN,WK

All organisms are subject to RM/NS. If you could show that there can be speciation events in organisms that are completely static at all genetic levels then that would certainly falsify a neccessary role for RM&NS. Random mutation, as has already been pointed out, covers pretty much the whole gamut of heritable change, traditionally the modern synthesis has focused on changes in the DNA sequence but there is no reason why 'mutation' should be viewed in such narrow terms. I can't understand this. Your fraternal twins would also only be identifiable as a seperate species after they are born, and indeed after they have both reached reproductive age. In terms of biodiversity your theory is even more pointless. Even quite small scale genetic variation quite clearly leads to biodiversity in bacteria, any allelic variation is arguably biodiversity. Indeed, a few instances showing that some populations go through bottlenecks at some stage is nothing even remotely resembling evidence that all sexually reproducing populations have bottlenecks in their initial stages. Which somehow suggests that the whole species can be traced back to 1 pair of fraternal twinned siblings?TTFN,WK

You still seem to fail to appreciate that all mutation is instantaneous and therefore the initial origin of all biodiversity is instantaneous. It doesn't show this at all unfortunately. All it shows is that there are significant events in the evolutionary history of life which are not simply a product of simple small scale genetic mutations, but no one ever claimed this was not the case. It certainly provides no evidence that random mutation and natural selection can't give rise to reproductive isolation.In what way is genetic variation, at any level, not a form of biodiversity.TTFN,WK

I certainly understand the Darwinian one, mutation itself is instantaneous speciation is not. The existence of many species showing spectra of interfertility demonstrate that there is a variable range of interfertility. Why do you feel there is some barrier to complete interfertility between 2 populations developing when there are so many populations in which this process is already underway?Once again you claim that mutation occurs by natural selection, a meaningless statement showing a complete failure to comprehend either Darwin or modern evolutionary theory. The mutations occur instantaneously, the gradual process is one of an accumulation of mutations through natural selection which may lead to a loss of interfertility and eventually to reproductive isolation between two populations. What are you using to define a significant event? Where is the scientific literature ranking the significance of all events in evolutionary history? How small is a small scale genetic mutation? Is it only point mutations? Insertions-deletions? inversions? Gene duplication? Chromosome duplication? Genome duplication? Where is the cut off? Except we can see incipient speciation where populations are losing the ability to interbreed. Where are your examples of supertwinning giving rise to a seperate reproductively isolated, or even just a less interfetrile, population? Surely your proposal is considerably closer to pseudo-science since it suffers the exact same defects you highlighted but lacks the evidence suggesting that speciation can indeed develop via small scale genetic mutations.I am using small scale to mean anything between a point mutation to a duplication event spanning a multigene locus.TTFN,WK

Don't blame me. Don't even blame Darwin. Taxonomical organisation was around long before modern evolutionary theory. It isn't my fault that a lot of modern day species are totally independent of any sort of verification as a truly distinct species from close relatives.Is it also wrong to think of species which can successfully breed but produce sterile offspring as related?None of this changes the spectrum of interfertility, changing the term to sub-species won't get away from the facts of the matter. What barrier prevent populations from reaching extremes on this variable scale at which RI is observed? Where? Please provide a reference to substantiate this nth repitition of such a vacuous and obvious falsehood. I understand how I was using it, but I don't assume that you neccessarily understood what I was saying or were using the same meaning. Also since I was using an inclusive rather than exclusive example it isn't a problem. Since you are using it to exclude a certain level of events it is up to you to make that level explicit. A high school physics teacher can provide pretty substantial experimental evidence for the existence of electrons, why should it be beyond you? I've seen a number of proposed falsifications of modern evolutionary theory on this very site, what is wrong with them?TTFN,WK

I use a phrase in a specific context, you then use the phase in a different but related context and I am supposed to assume they are the same? Why? I didn't specify any particular level of event so how on Earth can I assume that your estimation of the neccessary level to be either significant, or large scale in the case of the change, is the same as mine.If you actually define your terms clearly then I can't play any trick at all so why not explain in slightly more detail what you mean by It isn't as if you actually referenced any source for this data so how is one to contextualise it? Well why not direct me there rather than claim that you can't show me any evidence and as a defence then claim that you couldn't show me evidence of electrons, quarks etc.. either? So you are choosing to draw a clear distinction between Darwinism and modern evolutionary sciece? One might wonder why you would choose to attack a theory more than 150 years old rather than its modern descendent. The obvious answer is that in those instances where Darwin was wrong, such as on blending inheritance, he simply lacked the wealth of information we have today which would have allowed him to make his theory fit the real world more accurately. Similarly omissions of things like HGT in bacteria and endosymbiosis are entirely understandable given the scientific level of the day.So Darwin's original formulation has a number of errors and ommissions in the light of our current knowledge, but the basic theory is still as sound as it ever was.TTFN,WK

I have read them, and indeed addressed most of them. The problem is that none of them actually consititute anything remotely resembling positive evidence for your theory.TTFN,WK

Which is why I asked you to define what your own particular preferences were. That is also the standard position, as has been pointed out to you many times. These aren't actually references to data, these are just things which you consider to be examples of 'instantaneous biodiversity'.In some cases I have already discussed why this isn't true, for instance the acquisition of the protomitochondrial bacteria may be effectively instantaneous but that event is not the same as if a cell had engulfed a fully modern mitochondrion. There is a gradual evolutionary process by which the endobacteria becomes an endosymbiont.There is no evidence that the shark examples are actually virgin births. Both the bonnethead and bamboo shark instances had the Zoo's people promising genetic analyses and forthcoming papers, but none ever seem to have materialised in the scientific literature. Chapman, et al. gave a talk at a conference in Florida the abstract of which reads:- But nothing ever made it into the published scientific literature, which rather suggests that the results of their investigation were not as exciting as they might have wished. So the upshot is that there is no compelling evidence that this was a pathenogenetic birth.Lateral transfer in bacteria doesn't neccessarily generate anything new in terms of biodiversity, except perhaps in terms of combinations of genes. The material in a plasmid still has to have an initial origin which is anything but instantaneous.Your example of a bottleneck is just that. The rest of the big cats would probably not been affected as they obviously do not occupy the same niche as the cheetah, without knowing the actual cause of the population crash you can't tell whether you would expect it to affect other African big cats or not. You have yet to show a scrap of evidence to support this claim. The 'challenges' to Natural Selection on your site show nothing but a failure to grasp the whole concept of darwinian evolution. Your main objection centres around the concept of speciation taking place in individuals in one generation, which is something which is certainly not suggested by Darwinian evolution. You have shown neither evidence to substantiate this nor even a sufficient grasp of evolutionary theory to begin to argue it.TTFN,WK

Then why not address my rebuttals to show my lack of understanding instead of simply presenting the same 'evidence' over and over again as if it is self confirming?TTFN,WK

No, they have to show some familiarity with modern evolutionary theory and ideally be able to refer cogently to the contemporary scientific literature.Jianyi has done neither of these things. He is attacking a strawman formulation of modern evolutionary theory and relying on 'evidences' which give no support at all to his claims, many of which he clearly fails to understand, i.e. the origin of mitochondria.TTFN,WK

Jianyi's website gives a brief resume- TTFN,WK

This has already been covered briefly in post no. 26.I can give you a more detailed review of the current literature if you like but I think it would be off topic for this thread. If you are interested you might start a thrad specifically on endosymbiosis.TTFN,WK

He could have a PhD and no publications, it isn't unheard of, especially as he is a practicing physician for whom academic publications are not neccessarily a priority.I have to say I think this is an unneccessary line of enquiry. I certainly wouldn't want to give out details like that online about myself.Surely whether he has a PhD or not is totally irrelevant to the quality, or lack thereof, of his argument. If his PhD is the only support for his argument then you know exactly how much weight you should lend to it.TTFN,WK

Those hardly seem like good examples of Lamarckian inheritance.First off, a virus is obviously going to have any acquired changes in its genetic structure as heritable traits since it isn't really anything other than genetic information and a delivery system, this is a world away from Lamarckian inheritance in a multicellular organism. At the unicellular level almost everything must be Lamarckian if it changes the genetic structure, since there is no seperation of somatic and germ lineages.Viral insertions also hardly count, as while the progeny express the phenotype the parents do not. So this is hardly an acquired characteristic, simply an acquired mutation. Any mutation of the genetic struture is arguably 'acquired' in this way. Not really, Lamarckian evolution requires the inheritance of acquired characteristics. In your examples all that has been acquired is genetic change in the germ cells producing the progeny, and there are any number of environmental influences which can affect the rate and nature of mutations in the germ line cells. You could argue that this is the inheritance is of an acquired characteristic, but it certainly doesn't resemble Lamarck's examples of such a characteristic which is visible in the phenotype of the parent.TTFN,WK