Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Darwinism is wrong
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 151 of 305 (206520)
05-09-2005 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Jianyi Zhang
05-09-2005 1:17 PM


Isn't much of this just copied from your Message 34?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Jianyi Zhang, posted 05-09-2005 1:17 PM Jianyi Zhang has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Jianyi Zhang, posted 05-09-2005 2:53 PM Percy has not replied

Jianyi Zhang
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 305 (206521)
05-09-2005 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Percy
05-09-2005 2:46 PM


Isn't much of this just copied from your Message 34?
Yes, people just do not read them, I keep repeating the old story.

Jianyi Zhang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Percy, posted 05-09-2005 2:46 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Wounded King, posted 05-10-2005 8:12 AM Jianyi Zhang has replied

TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 305 (206523)
05-09-2005 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by crashfrog
05-07-2005 5:25 PM


...
Yeah, creationists are wrong, and evolutionists are right. Evolutionists are always right.
By "not knowing anything," I mean that nothing is 100% sure. But wait, I'm wrong again.
You obviously didn't read the last line of my last reply. DO NOT REPLY. That's it.
*I don't need the extra e-mail!
This message has been edited by TheNewGuy03, 05-09-2005 03:12 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 05-07-2005 5:25 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by crashfrog, posted 05-11-2005 4:41 PM TheNewGuy03 has not replied

TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 305 (206525)
05-09-2005 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by EZscience
05-07-2005 1:32 PM


Re: OK...
I just don't want all the reply notices cluttering my e-mail box.
Anyway, read my last post.
Of course it fits very nicely with evolutionary theory. It's because the observations are built around evolution. Duh.
And I didn't try to implement anything into anything. You could say I'm a creationist because there's only one way to classify me outside of being an evolutionist.
I realize that I'm fighting an impossible battle. I can't make people listen. The few creationists in here are heavily outnumbered by the evolutionists. Some things just take a longer time to change.
Oh yeah, isn't evolution also a "predetermined model" by empirical standards? What else could you call it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by EZscience, posted 05-07-2005 1:32 PM EZscience has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Arkansas Banana Boy, posted 05-09-2005 3:49 PM TheNewGuy03 has not replied

Arkansas Banana Boy
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 305 (206534)
05-09-2005 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by TheNewGuy03
05-09-2005 3:10 PM


email notification
You may deselect under 'email notification' in your profile to have no emails sent to you.
ABB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-09-2005 3:10 PM TheNewGuy03 has not replied

mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 156 of 305 (206590)
05-09-2005 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Jianyi Zhang
05-09-2005 2:09 PM


Hi Jianyi,
I'm sorry, I know you get fed up when people don't understand your theory. I'm not trying to pick faults or anything, but just to understand better.
I couldn't understand whether these are parts of the RMNS theory, or parts of your own theory.
Jianyi writes:
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Jianyi Zhang, posted 05-09-2005 2:09 PM Jianyi Zhang has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Jianyi Zhang, posted 05-09-2005 7:08 PM mick has replied
 Message 160 by Ben!, posted 05-09-2005 10:37 PM mick has not replied

Jianyi Zhang
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 305 (206592)
05-09-2005 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by mick
05-09-2005 7:03 PM


I couldn't understand whether these are parts of the RMNS theory, or parts of your own theory.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by mick, posted 05-09-2005 7:03 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by mick, posted 05-09-2005 7:30 PM Jianyi Zhang has replied

mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 158 of 305 (206595)
05-09-2005 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Jianyi Zhang
05-09-2005 7:08 PM


Thank Jianyi!
Your post made a lot of sense. I may stop posting on this thread.
Mick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Jianyi Zhang, posted 05-09-2005 7:08 PM Jianyi Zhang has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Jianyi Zhang, posted 05-09-2005 7:51 PM mick has not replied

Jianyi Zhang
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 305 (206601)
05-09-2005 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by mick
05-09-2005 7:30 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by mick, posted 05-09-2005 7:30 PM mick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by nator, posted 05-10-2005 7:54 AM Jianyi Zhang has not replied

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1399 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 160 of 305 (206622)
05-09-2005 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by mick
05-09-2005 7:03 PM


mick,
I've read just about all of this thread, and I'm excited because I actually have a question. The questions was already asked by Jianyi in the course of the thread, but I'd like to ask again. Wounded King
may have answered the question in passing, in message 93, by saying:
Wounded King writes:
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?
But I'm not sure. I had a harder time following that thread of investigation than yours, so I'm addressing this question to you, and not Wounded King. But if WK can clear this up... I'd be delighted to read the response.

First I wanted to say, the definition of "speciation" being used by Jianyi (and by me here) is (I think) an inability to reproduce with organisms of it's parent's species. OK. Here's my question:
What is the mechanism for speciation in neo-darwinian evolution theory?
Your argument, if I understand it correctly, is based on population genetics and collecting mutations based on reproductive isolation. Maybe I'm wrong, but (given this absolute, all-or-nothing view of speciation) I think that doesn't answer the question, and here's why:
Let's say a population of a single species (S1) is split into two groups (G1, G2), i.e. become reproductively isolated. They start as the same species, S1. One of the groups (G2) changes (eventually) to a new species (S2).
I THINK I understand the population genetics view, but here's my question: every organism in G2 is EITHER in S1 or S2, right? If that's right, then a single organism can either reproduce ONLY with S1 or S2. If that's right, then the population genetics mechanism is simply a larger and larger proportion of organisms in G2 being S2, and less being S1.
If that's right, then the question is, how does the S2 population come to be? I think it's clear that the population can increase via NS.
Let's say just one S2 organism is born. It can't reproduce, right? There's no S2 organisms. So, it dies without reproducing. It can't be like that. Then, it must be that TWO S2 organisms were born at the same time in order to reproduce. Well, that's exceedingly unlikely, right?
If all of this is the case, then HOW, at the INDIVIDUAL level, does the S2 population begin? In this way, Jianyi's hypothesis... at least answers the question.
Now, maybe this view on speciation is in error. Maybe an organism can belong to S1 AND S2 AT THE SAME TIME (meaning it can reproduce with BOTH S1 and S2 at the same time, thus creating a "bridge" between the species). In this case, thinking about species as "organisms which cannot sexually reproduce and produce viable offspring" may not be a valid way of thinking. I'm not saying that you suggested it IS a valid way of thinking, just that some people use it as a definition of species / speciation (including, in my own thoughts, me, and also Jianyi).

As you can tell from my writing, and my previous questions that you've graciously answered, I'm still "out of the loop" on this stuff. But I feel there's been a mismatch between Jianyi's statements and yours, and the movites I see behind Jianyi's hypothesis are ones that I don't have an answer to, and that I couldn't derive an answer from your posts from either.
Anyway, thanks for reading, and thanks in advance for any clarification.
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by mick, posted 05-09-2005 7:03 PM mick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by NosyNed, posted 05-09-2005 11:11 PM Ben! has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 161 of 305 (206625)
05-09-2005 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Ben!
05-09-2005 10:37 PM


Speciation without separation.
You have a misunderstanding in your post. Let me help by discussing a point made by Dawkins in his "The Ancestor's Tale".
First understand that I am simplifying things. It is not impossible for "instant speciation" to happen and it has been observed (IIRC) in plants. However for a sexual reproducting species I don't see how this can happen.
This statement seems to be the core of your misunderstanding.
I THINK I understand the population genetics view, but here's my question: every organism in G2 is EITHER in S1 or S2, right? If that's right, then a single organism can either reproduce ONLY with S1 or S2. If that's right, then the population genetics mechanism is simply a larger and larger proportion of organisms in G2 being S2, and less being S1.
Let us, for the moment, ignore the separation of a population into two. Let us take one population of sexually reproducing mammals. In fact, let us examine humans. ( If I recall they do reproduce sexually don't they? It has been awhile )
Today any human can successfully breed with any other ( I am ignoring details like fetility problems of a very few etc.). If we went back 1,000 years in a time machine any human of *today* would be able to successfully breed with any human of the year 1,000 AD.
Ok, now if our time machine was used to take a human of 1,000 AD to the year 1 (2,000 years ago) that middle ages human would be able to breed with the human of 2 millenia (2M) ago. Repeat, take a 2M human to 3M (3,000 years ago) and again they would interbreed, they are still the same species. Repeat, repeat and repeat.
At each step back 10,000 years, 100,000 years 1,000,000 the "human" taken back 1,000 years would still breed successfully with the earlier one. Repeat, repeat, repeat and we are back 5 million, 10 million years. At every step the later "human" and the 1,000 year earlier one are the same species but at some point we have critters that could no longer interbreed with a modern human. A speciation event has occured. However, no one 1,000 year jump contains all the changes needed to cross that speciation barrier.
Dawkins notes that eventually we are breeding fish of 300,000,000 years ago with those of 300,001,000 years ago and at not point was there a break.
That is what would go on with your population G2, it would produce a species S2 without there ever being a point where the population was more than one species. If the population is *one* population if has the necessary gene flow to stop that from happening.
At any intermidiate point trying a G2 individual with a G1 individual might produce offspring. They might or might not be fertile. The chances of a successful breeding might be high (if they have not accumulated a lot of genetic differences) or lower and lower as time goes by. There might be a sharp point in time where one of G1 and G2 gets a mutation that suddenly forbids successful breeding with the other group. But this would not be able to forbid successful breeding *within* it's group or the problem you bring up would occur. That is there can not be a parent to child change of species in this kind of population.
There would not be "a larger and larger proportion of organisms in G2 being S2, and less being S1." Instead there would be a group G2 which is, all of them, less and less like those that are in G1. (Of course, changes are going on in both G1 and G2).
Now, maybe this view on speciation is in error. Maybe an organism can belong to S1 AND S2 AT THE SAME TIME (meaning it can reproduce with BOTH S1 and S2 at the same time, thus creating a "bridge" between the species). In this case, thinking about species as "organisms which cannot sexually reproduce and produce viable offspring" may not be a valid way of thinking. I'm not saying that you suggested it IS a valid way of thinking, just that some people use it as a definition of species / speciation
The problem with this is that the definition of species is not as sharp as you think. Species are blurred both geographically and in time. It isn't that a species is organisms which can not reproduce but do not normally reproduce. Or don't reproduce very successfully(which then becomes a selective pressure to stop them from trying).
As one would predict from evolutionary theory there are times and places where species are NOT sharply defined. When they have had time to grow far enough apart then they are very clearly defined but there are times when they are not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Ben!, posted 05-09-2005 10:37 PM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Ben!, posted 05-09-2005 11:17 PM NosyNed has not replied

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1399 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 162 of 305 (206627)
05-09-2005 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by NosyNed
05-09-2005 11:11 PM


Re: Speciation without separation.
OK, got it. Thanks for taking the time to write that. I'll take another read through tomorrow to make sure I really do understand everything you said. For now, I think I've got it.
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by NosyNed, posted 05-09-2005 11:11 PM NosyNed has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 163 of 305 (206688)
05-10-2005 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Jianyi Zhang
05-09-2005 7:51 PM


I guess you must have missed my message #143.
I'd really like to read some of the publicatons you have written as a PhD.
Please provide the citations.
Also, who was your PhD advisor?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Jianyi Zhang, posted 05-09-2005 7:51 PM Jianyi Zhang has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 164 of 305 (206694)
05-10-2005 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Jianyi Zhang
05-09-2005 2:53 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Jianyi Zhang, posted 05-09-2005 2:53 PM Jianyi Zhang has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Jianyi Zhang, posted 05-10-2005 11:43 AM Wounded King has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 165 of 305 (206713)
05-10-2005 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Jianyi Zhang
05-09-2005 1:17 PM


It is meaningless to find out what significant events are in biology, it depends on individual preference.
Which is why I asked you to define what your own particular preferences were.
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.
That is also the standard position, as has been pointed out to you many times.
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.
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:-
CHAPMAN, DEMIAN; SHIVJI, MAHMOOD; LOUIS, ED; PRODOHL, PAULO.
A genetic investigation into a shark 'virgin-birth': Asexual reproduction, inter-specific hybridization or long-term sperm retention?
Asexual reproduction via parthenogenesis is relatively rare among chordates and has never been recorded in the class Chondrichthyes. In December 2001, a female Bonnethead Shark, Sphyrna tiburo, gave birth in captivity to a single female pup, despite having been separated from any male S. tiburo for a period of at least three years. Widespread media attention quickly led to this case being billed as "the shark-virgin birth" (i.e., asexual reproduction), however other explanations (sexual reproduction coupled with long-term sperm storage, inter-specific hybridization with a male leopard shark, Triakis semifasciata, tank-mate) could not be ruled out. We present the results of a genetic investigation aimed at ruling out these alternatives and determining whether this birth is the first known case of asexual reproduction in this ancient lineage.
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.
No, modern ToE still holds Darwinian RMNS as major reason for speciation, that is absolutely wrong
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.
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.
You have shown neither evidence to substantiate this nor even a sufficient grasp of evolutionary theory to begin to argue it.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Jianyi Zhang, posted 05-09-2005 1:17 PM Jianyi Zhang has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-10-2005 11:46 AM Wounded King has replied
 Message 168 by Jianyi Zhang, posted 05-10-2005 11:56 AM Wounded King has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024