Why Darwinism is wrong

Originally posted by mick: In the cases I list in OP: 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. All of these cases support biodiversity or speciation start at individuals. Do you have any cases to support it occur at population level, beside your wide imagination.
It is a mistake not think speciation occurs in individual organisms.
Even by Mayr, so-called top Darwinist in the last century, new species can occur by a pair of organism. It is your or other Darwinian view of speciation, in which speciation occurs between divergent populations of organisms. This only means these authors Darwinists, or something close to that.
Why does everybody else take their idea for granted?
You just repeat of a typical story or imagination by current evolution theorists with Xiphophorus example, it is not worthy of my argument line by line.
Assuming fish A evolve into fish B, fish A has genetic structure A, fish B has genetic structure B.
I just have two questions:1) Can genetic structure A become structure B random mutation without NS? Yes, or No please?2) If what you said is correct,
structure A:
AAABBBCCC
AaABBbcccstructure B:
AaABBbCCc
aaABBbCccA, B, C can be structural or regulatory genesThat means all genes are same, only difference is expression.structure B should not be:
AaAYYBBbCCcZZZ
aaAyyBBbCccZZZIf you agree, let me know. If not, please let me know howstructure A:
AAABBBCCC
AaABBbcccevolve intoAaAYYBBbCCcZZZ
aaAyyBBbCccZZZby your model?

---

Jianyi Zhang

Originally posted by schrafinator: Even I do not think it related with the topic, I can tell you that I have PhD in molecular biology from a reputated US school.

---

Jianyi Zhang

Originally posted by mick: I assume you mean X. maculatus and X. helleri. What are sample sizes in the study? What are the ranges, means and standard deviations in these two species? It is easy to apply instantaneous model to explain the case, I assume them true distinct species. Gross mutations can occur in parental species, with one piece DNA into its genome. There are multiple genes affected, including promoters and suppressors in the parent species. There might be some factors or isolated mechanism involved, which is needed to be explored. The same case can be explained by ST model, just much better. Without Darwinian RMNS, the speciation could occur more reasonablly. Why could they not occur by ST model? ST model can provide any explanation available to Darwin's RMNS, not vice versa.

---

Jianyi Zhang

Who was your advisor, and can we read any of your published papers?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-08-2005 07:52 AM

Theoritically, you can. But I do not think it related with the topic.
Why do you need to read the paper for my claim that Darwinism is wrong?

---

Jianyi Zhang

Originally posted by NosyNed: Read his books, such as "What is biology?" and "A long augument".
Even search geographical isolation or read some review articles. Both NS and geographical isolation has nothing to do with initial seeds of new species. You cannot avoid NS at all, it acts every seconds. However, NS is a filter, not an incubator, it keeps only something available, and does not create anything unborn. No, without geographical isolation and NS, speciation occurs every seconds. Ones have no way to find them, as they are very few, hide somewhere. Organism in different locations might be different with certain allele frequencies, which does not mean they become different species by biological sense. People living in Russia have different melanin genes or genes expression from ones in Ethopia, do they become different species? Ring species are related with geographical locations, not geographical
isolation. Read some papers first. Divergance is everywhere. which only means organism adapative to local environment by NS. If every organisms are divergant, some organis evolve instantaneously, some do by geograpical isolation according to Darwinism, that means divergance has nothing to do with speciation.
All of these organism I show in my OP are divergant, however, these biodiversity has nothing to do with geographical isolation. Your case does not falsify anything, and only shows your lack of understanding. Yes. so what? It is impossible to have nearly identical populations, even identical twins has some differences. With or without gene flow, two populations are different. Enough changes? by what? by NS or geographical isolation, No, they are still same species.This message has been edited by Jianyi Zhang, 05-08-2005 12:43 PMThis message has been edited by Jianyi Zhang, 05-08-2005 12:57 PM

---

Jianyi Zhang

Generally, we are polite enough here to take the time to copy a few sentences from our sources. Since you refered to a specific view of Meyr's you should also be, at the very least, willing to supply a specific reference and page numer. If the above is something you consider fair then my suggestion to you is that you read some articles and books on speciation. Then you would not have to ask how speciation is viewed by biology. This is a reisteration of an assertion that I don't think you have supported very well. If it acts every second (which is so extreme it may not be true but close enough to true in the big picture) then apparently you disagree wtith Mayr when you referenced him to say that NS had nothing to do with speciation. If it is always acting one can't say it didn't have anything to do with speciation.The second part of your statment is, I would have thought by now, redundant. We have already discussed RM as the source for new material for NS to act on. Do we have to back up to cover that again? If so it will be very hard to make much progress. I find this sentence very confusing. Speciation occurs every second but they are very few and can't be found? Could you try rewording it? Not all separated populations are, or have yet become, speparated species. Your example of humans is an atrociously badly chosen one. The reasons are that humans have not been separated long compared to their generation length and that there is still considerable gene flow.However, as a biologist you will be aware of many examples of such incipiant speciation. A number have been referenced on this forum. Please explan the difference between geographical locations and geographcal isolation. Perhaps you would like to reference the particular papers that make this distinction? More appropriate would be to explain why ring species are not an example of speciaion "in progress". I do not follow your chain of reasoning as to why this means that divergance has nothing to do with speciation. If two populations that , by some definition or another, start out considered as one species but then both undergo different genetic changes for a long enough period of time they will diverge will they not? Why would enough divergance not result in two populations that can no longer interbreed (for any number of reasons)? It is not helpful if you are going to appear to be deliberatly obtuse. However, since it seems you will need this made even more detailed and simpler I will have a go at doing that for you. In this case the populations are formed by spliting a population of fully interbreeding individuals. The two populations then have only the degree of genetic divergance that any individuals in a population have. In other words they are "identical" enough to operate as a single species. Why on earth would you suggest NS or isolation being the source of changes? Didn't you just say that NS doesn't create any new genetics. We already both understand that mutations will produce the changes.How long will they stay the same species if they are undergoing separate changes? That is the question? Why will they never reach the point of being separate species?

Differences in allele frequency between populations of a single species, have been demonstrated repeatedly, and empirically, in the field.One such allele in Xiphophorus has been demonstrated to act as a reproductive isolation barrier. The gene has been characterized on a molecular level, and its phenotypic effect has been quantified in the laboratory. There is no doubt about the fact that it prevents hybridization between closely related sister species.The Xiphophorus example is not a "story or imagination". It is a scientific fact.Unless your theory can account for such facts in Xiphophorus and Drosophila, then you theory is simply worse than the Darwinian theory. There is no reason why Darwinists should accept a theory that performs worse than the current accepted theory.I did not understand the remainder of your post.Mick

You and your neighbor has different allele frequency, are you going to become different species? Why does not my theory account for facts in Xiphophorus and Drosophila? I do not expect Darwinists change their faith. Who cares?

---

Jianyi Zhang

This is just silly.Jianyi, I have argued that speciation generally occurs between populations, not individuals. I would seem more apposite to ask this question of yourself. You are the only person here who believes that speciation occurs at the individual level.In any case your suggestion that "I" have an allele frequency is statistically misguided. My allele frequencies are either 0% (don't have the allele), 50% (heterozygous) or 100% (homozygous), just like my neighbour. I suspect that we would share many allele frequencies, if the idea of statistical similarity of allele frequency is reasonable when we are talking about a sample size of 2. The paper by Wu and Ting describes evidence that reproductive isolation can occur by processes of random mutation and natural selection. In this thread you have denied this fact, based on your pet theory. This is why your theory cannot account for the phenomena in Xiphophorus and Drosophila described by Wu and Ting. If you think it can, please explain how. If you didn't care, you wouldn't be here. Why do you insist on talking of "faith"? I have provided references to empircal investigations that support the Darwinist hypothesis. It is only you who clings with misguided faith to a pet theory. The fact that you have made no attempts to test your theory, and just tell "stories and imagination" tells volumes.This message has been edited by mick, 05-08-2005 03:00 PM

That wasn't the question was it? The issue was that your 'theory' performs worse than the current one. In that case it will not be adopted.Since you avoided that issue there is an implication that you actually agree that your idea performs worse. If you think it does not then address the issue at hand. Please refer to Message 128 and explain how your theory does account for what mick has refered to. Again you seem to have forgotten he posted and not answered the issue at hand.

Originally posted by NosyNed: Speciation by geographical isolation was proposed by Mayr, which is independent of NS, which is geographical isolation about. You mention geographical isolation, and does not know what it mean. I can give me exact page numbers, however, you will not understand. You neee reading books and articles to understand key points. Learning is hard and time-consuming, there is no easy way to do it. I agree with Mayr that NS had nothing to do with speciation, and do not agree with his geographical isolation, think it also pseudo-science. Leaves always fall, the Earth always moves, why do they have to do something with speciation? I do not know what you agree. My position is that new species is outcome of RM (gross mutation) itself without NS, do you agree with it? I rephrase it. By ST model, new species start with gross mutation on twin zygotes in the same mom. As they are only few at birth, we do not know where they are. They proliferate and become populated with different characteristics. NS will work to keep fitted prosper. Why is it badly chosen? Because you do not know how to answer it. Without gene flow for very long time, they are still same specie. It is your imagination to think otherwise.
I skip some fragments, as it is difficult to explain how one can falsify something. Dealing with populations, ones need statistics. Two populations are never identical. You can say in terms of certain characters, their ranges, means, standard deviation are close, or statistical non-significant. I suggest NS or isolation being the force of adapatation, not the source of new mutants. new genetics? I mean new mutants. Yes, it is mutation, not NS that produce changes. NS only deletes ones not fitted, not generate mutants.
You really need taking some biology classes, find out what these words mean.This message has been edited by Jianyi Zhang, 05-08-2005 04:41 PM

---

Jianyi Zhang

How about your neighbor family, town, city? Are they different? Are you going to become different species? I did in my post 123. If you do not understand, you need more schooling, and know some basic genetics.

---

Jianyi Zhang

I answer it in post 123. I doubt if you can understand it.This message has been edited by Jianyi Zhang, 05-08-2005 04:53 PM

---

Jianyi Zhang

This is good. i think you are starting to understand. Different families, towns and cities constitute different populations. Now you are starting to agree with me. But your point is still basically silly. If you are going to persist in this tired argument about whether i am going to speciate from my neighbour, let's set things straight. The existence of widespread, cheap international travel and immigration suggests that we will not witness any future speciation events in the Homo sapiens lineage. This is because of the basic population genetic principle that gene flow reduces reproductive isolation. Telling your opponents that they are ignorant is no way to help the conversation progress. You may wish to educate me by providing me with evidence that RMNS is NOT capable of generating reproductive isolation, with reference to the article by Wu and Ting.Have you even bothered to read the article yet? last time, you said it was too complicated for you to understand.Mick