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.
It is meaningless to find out what significant events are in biology, it depends on individual preference.
My position is very clear, all events, no matter it is point mutation, or change of chromosomal number, are all outcome of random mutations. NS only works on these pre-existed mutations.
It isn't as if you actually referenced any source for this data so how is one to contextualise it?
I list many of them, such as 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 or speciation, not gradual one by RMNS mechanism.
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?
In website, I list bottlenect and Mito. Eves as evidences, I copy bottleneck in following:
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.
These findings are just accidental findings. Since evidences are hypothesis-driven research products, nobody has done anything so far with my hypothesis, it is understandable there are only a few evidences available.
So you are choosing to draw a clear distinction between Darwinism and modern evolutionary sciece?
No, modern ToE still holds Darwinian RMNS as major reason for speciation, that is absolutely wrong. But I am more sympathetic with Darwin, as he did not know genetics then, it is reasonably for him to make the mistake. Neo-Darwinism is different, they knew everything we know. With all genetic knowledge, there is no excuse still to think Darwinian RMNS as the mechanism.
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.
Since Darwin's original formulation has a number of fatal errors and ommissions in the light of our current knowledge, and the basic theory is totally wrong.
Jianyi Zhang
™ Version 4.2