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

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

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

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

Many tribes has been isolated for long time before international travel and immigration. If you think they move into different species over time, that is your imagination. I can not, nobody can. It is unfalsified and that is what pseudo-science means. You can not DISPROVE it. You even do not understand the questions I posted, I have nothing to say.This message has been edited by Jianyi Zhang, 05-08-2005 05:19 PM

---

Jianyi Zhang

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. 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. 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. 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. 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

1) Speciation occurs at individual level, new species did not come as population at the beginning.
2) There is no NS involved at the creation, only gross random mutation is enough.

---

Jianyi Zhang

Yes, people just do not read them, I keep repeating the old story.

---

Jianyi Zhang

I think it mine. There is no shadow of NS involved with speciation at all . Maybe, some Neo-Darwinists has proposed the similar one before. Let me know if it is the case.

---

Jianyi Zhang

Mick:I think Darwin one of the greatest scientists in the history, even he was not completely correct. Because of his work, people start a new direction to understand real world and ourself. He is much greater than current Neo-Darwinists. His work is a very important part of contributions made by great British people.

---

Jianyi Zhang