Why Darwinism is wrong

Originally posted by mick: Do I add anything? I published the book in 2003 and setup the website one year ago. The idea was there by then. Why does I need anything?
Read post 11 and 3. and see what I said there. You are just so careless.
Do not project your confusion to others.

---

Jianyi Zhang

Okay Jianyi,I will await your explanation of speciation in birds, reptiles and insects.No twinning allowed (they are oviparous; as far as I know twinning isn't physiologically possible, at least not in archaeosauria).No polyploidization allowed (maybe not unheard of in insects, but exceedingly rare in birds and reptiles)No virgin births allowed (none reported in the history of human science, as far as I know, in birds and reptiles; I would like to leave insects with an asexual phase in their life history out of it, just to keep it simple)No hermaphroditism allowed (none reported in the history of science, at least in birds and reptiles, as far as I know. Though I wouldn't be surprised if it occurs in insects. Nothing about insects surprises me)I would want an explanation that is general to archaeosauria plus insects, but also generalisable to other animals, including bacteria and viruses, in the same way that NS is universally applicable.mickThis message has been edited by mick, 04-28-2005 09:33 PM

Originally posted by mick: This is very simple. Birds, reptiles and insects (I assume they are oviparous organism). There are supertwins zygotes in mothers body, which are subject to various gross mutations. Identical gross mutation can be from viral infection as they are grouped together (both male and female), or develeped by splitting of mutated zygotes in both genders.
Multiple fertilized eggs in shells are layed and hatched, with a birth of group of animal in two genders. Key is whether an organism
has two or more zygotes at the same time. Almost all sexual animals do. Archaeosauria, bacteria and viruses are asexual organisms, biodiversity(not speciation) occur even much simpler; just gross mutation, no inbreeding. Gross mutation includes errors in self-replication, also lateral transfer, recombination, etc. NS only works after new group organisms were born. I discuss it in HIV case.This message has been edited by Jianyi Zhang, 04-29-2005 10:27 AM

---

Jianyi Zhang

Originally posted by Wounded King: If RM&NS can give rise to biodiversity, but nobody knows which organism work by the rule, and it is unfalsifiable. It is a faith or pseudo-science claim. My point is without NS biodiversity occur, as they are very few members. It takes a long time for us to find out them, NS works after they were born. It is not important whether plasmid, or virus, or bacteria, or something else involved with endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria, since nobody knows, they are all hypothesis. What I say is that it an tantaneous process. So, I did not say it speciation, I just say it biodiversity, which you might have different definition. The cheetah is one of the most amazing animals in the cat family. As the worlds fastest animal, it has been clocked at 110 kilometers per hour for short distances. In 1900, estimated 100,000 cheetahs were estimate worldwide and had, fallen to 30,000 by 1975. In 1997, only 9,000 C 12,000 cheetahs remained in Africa.
Blood samples taken from 50 cheetahs for genetic testing revealed they were genetically identical to each other. Electrophoretic studies have shown that cheetahs are monomorphic and homozygous at many loci, thereby lacking the 10-60% polymorphisms found in other species. Furthermore, skin graft experiments in cheetahs indicated a significant lack of variability at the major histocompatibility complex.
In another similar case, the pocket gopher lives in tunnels in the American west. Researchers at the University of California, Santa Cruz found out each Humboldt gopher accepted grafts of small skin patches from other members within its own species, whereas the Carmel Valley gophers did not. To test immune function of Humboldt gophers, the researchers grafted skin from Carmel Valley gophers onto Humboldt gophers that rejected the grafts. This result suggests a uniformity of the Humboldt gopher genome.
In biology textbooks, the bottleneck effect or genetic bottlenecks are considered as the result of environmental fluctuations. According to the theory, sudden reductions in population size can alter the resulting gene pools. In the recent past, with change in environmental condition, many individuals in these animals were killed and only a small number have survived. With the drastic reduction in their population, close relatives were forced to breed, and the cheetah became genetically inbred, meaning all cheetahs are closely related. Oddly, no explanation is available to elucidate why and how such kind events only selectively kill cheetahs and leave every other big cats alive to develop its expected genetic variation.
The proposed GMCMI provides an alternative explanation: in stead of mysterious events which only selectively killed only a few types of these animals, some of the animals might be new-evolved species, the plasticity of genetic structures in the animals are very poor, they are still identical and very close to the initial stage when they were created by Nature.
The other lessen is that regardless of how they were generated, they are genetically identical and survived. If they can, why not others in the similar situation?
These cases are just accidental findings. The estimated number depends on sample in the study, the female and male were from different samples. The study did not show only one Adam or Eve at that time, just says these man or women from one person at that time, the timing might be different, and there might be others then.

---

Jianyi Zhang

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

Jianyi, I’d go back and read your website again if I were you:

quote:

---

Every species has two Eves

​

Prediction

​

According to the GMCMI model, every species have two Eves. The first one is the single ancestral mother, who gave birth to a new species, the second Eve or ‘Eves is a group of females with very similar genetically structure, who are the first generation or seed of new species. In terms of human, most likely, its ancestor or first Eve was one member of ape-like animals; the second Eves was a group of mothers with identical human genetic structure and phenotype

---

This shows a misunderstanding of the ‘mitochondrial eve’ concept. ‘Eve’ is the most recent individual to whom all living members of a species can trace their mitochondrial inheritance back to. This means:

To use the tag-line from Highlander — There can be only one! The keys words being most recent.If you could pinpoint a mitochondrial eve in your model she would either be ‘supermum’ or one of her descendents. Your prediction is therefore not a prediction: it could never happen

​

Mitochondrial ‘Eve’ doesn’t have to be alone. There is nothing to suggest that any ‘Eve’ is the only female in her species. If you are saying that mitochondrial Eve’s are indicative of your ‘super-twinning’ events then following the male line of a species (ie Y chromosomal Adam) must lead back to the same point in time. As WK clarified quite nicely — in humans they spectacularly don’t! 80, 000 years is quite an age gap. Mitochondrial Eves therefore mean diddly squat in relation to your theory.

​

As you have made a big deal about "RM+NS" not being falsifiable in your original post, and claim in your website that your model has been tested, I hope you won’t mind me asking a couple of questions about the other things you mention on it.

​

quote:

---

Similarity of the initial genetic structure

​

Prediction:

​

By natural selection, at the beginning of any new species, diversity of genetic structures within the species existed, whereas in the GMCMI model, all species had similar genetic structure at the beginning.

---

​

How exactly would you really test this? There certainly have been genetic bottlenecks — but how can you tie them specifically to your ‘super-twin’ speciation events?

​

quote:

---

Prediction:

​

In the GMCMI model, the ability to generate prolific novelties in any species is directly related to the number of fraternal births. The size of animals throughout evolution has increased, while the number of siblings in the same birth decreased. Many species only have a singleton birth, such as humans, elephants, and tigers; multiple siblings from the same births are only the exception

---

​

In order for your idea to work, the ancestor of modern elephants, or of homo sapiens would have to be a twin factory. How can you possibly confirm/falsify this?

​

quote:

---

According the GMCMI model, speciation is the outcome of gross mutations by a random process. There are no specific patterns regarding how, why, where the mutations occur, any genes could be involved in the gross mutation. Irregularity of involvement of genes would make the inconsistency of results in molecular phylogeny a rule, not an exception.

---

​

This is another example of a misunderstanding on your part. Your model requires common ancestry just as much as the current ToE does.

​

How is this sequence of events significantly different to a scenario in which a point mutation to a particular gene confers antibiotic resistance, and then gets selected for within a population of bacteria? I don't see the difference. After all, how did the gene on your resistance plasmid evolve? Did it spring into the world all on it's own accord, or did it evolve by random mutation and selection in another bacteria?

There is no differencs. Both point mutation or HGT occur randomly, which could provide drug-resistant regardless existence of antibiotics. Application of a particular antibiotics only kill others sensitive ones, let drug-resistant ones proliferate.

​

Then I really fail to see why you have to invent ‘super-twinning’ at all. It has already been mentioned that you can view all changes in genetic content to be mutations. As HGT, duplication, deletion, insertion, single base change etc are all random in nature, and you’re not saying that N.S. doesn’t occur then there is no difference between your ideas and what is generally accepted anyway for asexual species.

​

For sexual species: Do you have any evidence that only ‘gross’ mutation (something that you haven’t yet defined satisfactorily) leads to a new species, or is it just a feeling you have? If a beneficial mutation occurs in you super-twins what is the mechanism for stopping them mating with members of supermum’s species? Remember it has to cover all types of mutation, not just changes in chromosome number.

​

This message has been edited by Ooook!, 29-04-2005 05:58 PM

​

This message has been edited by Ooook!, 29-04-2005 06:05 PM

Yo.I was reading this, and I got interested. Yeah, that's usually how things start.So, various evolutionists have given me their opinions on evolution. What they all agreed on was this: it is a random process.I responded to one person, "Hey, so are we accidents?"He said, "Yeah."I replied crudely, "So, really, what you're saying is that we happened for no reason.""Yeah.""I wanna die."I know that dialogue is similar to a stray dog; it hasn't found its place. But I don't and I won't believe in anything that negates purpose in its purest form. I will not believe that intelligence happened randomly. It defies logic. If I had to believe that, then I don't want to think anymore."But Darwin said so!!"To heaven with Darwin.OK, Admin, do your worst.

No knowledgable "evolutionist" would agree to that. Evolution has a random component, but selection is not random and the overall process is not random.

What makes you so afraid of randomness?This message has been edited by sykozoan, 04-29-2005 04:34 PM

Well, selection is random in the sense that the actual filter varies from moment to moment. The filter can be any of a number of things, conditions and events, many of which are random in nature.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Therein lies the psychological immaturity of creationists and the like, they cannot bear the fact that humans have no special purpose in life...

What's stopping you? Maturity is the process by which we learn to accept the outcomes that we cannot change, and learn to find our place within the reality that we have, not the one we wish we had.Honestly where do people get this idea that, if they don't like the conclusions the evidence necessitates, they can simply jump to different ones? Who honestly thinks that's an ok way to think?

Originally posted by Ooook! Mitochondrial study suggests there might be alone Eve, even not the Eve in the study. The estimated number depends on sample in the study, the female and male were from different samples. The study did not show only one Adam or Eve at that time, just says these man or women from one person at that time, the timing might be different, and there might be others then. I did not say the model has been tested. I said "every species has two Eves", I use Human Mitochondria study as my support. This is the my prediction, which can be falsified with future study. Sequence a few individuals from branch new species Sequences from super-twins are much more homogenous than ones from otherwise. Ones can not confirm something in the past, if there are many missing links. However, one can look for the future. By definition of prediction, it is about future. Yes, my model suggests common ancestry, how does that show my misunderstanding? Super-twining is needed for sexual animals, it has nothing to do with asexual ones. Over 90% sexual animals have distinct karyotic patterns under microscope, the rest of them might have karyotic changes invisible under microscope, as to be seen under microscope, one needs 1-2 million base pair difference. The definition of gross mutation in sexual animals is at FAQ section of my website. I do not know what you mean.This message has been edited by Jianyi Zhang, 04-30-2005 10:50 PM

---

Jianyi Zhang

I know you would come with the "typical creationist" crap.Anyway, I don't really want to die. Idiot.It is immature and illogical to think that nothing has purpose. I said that if nothing had purpose and placement, THEN I want to die.I do realize that randomness is an everyday occurrence. If there was no randomness, then I would be able to predict the future quite accurately, if not 100%.The concept of randomness needs no explanation, because any [legitimate] scientist should know that as a fundamental concept. However, I DO NOT believe that everything is a big accident.I love you guys.

Oh, don't get me wrong. There's plenty of purpose - there's exactly as much purpose as you think there is. "Accident" as in, not the intended outcome? Who is there in the first place to do the intending?This is what I was talking about. You don't like the influence randomness has on the universe, so you assume that it has less influence than it appears. You just pick the conclusion you want and leap to it, never mind the evidence.By what rationale is that justifiable? Just jumping to conclusions? What kind of person thinks that's a better idea then arriving at a conclusion via evidence?