Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Darwinism is wrong
Jianyi Zhang
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 305 (206760)
05-10-2005 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Wounded King
05-10-2005 8:12 AM


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.
My interpretation is that you lack ability to understand them.

Jianyi Zhang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Wounded King, posted 05-10-2005 8:12 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Wounded King, posted 05-10-2005 12:18 PM Jianyi Zhang has not replied

Jianyi Zhang
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 305 (206766)
05-10-2005 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Wounded King
05-10-2005 9:10 AM


You have shown neither evidence to substantiate this nor even a sufficient grasp of evolutionary theory to begin to argue it.
I am not interested to convert any Neo-Darwinians to somebody else.
If you do not think they are the evidences, I do not mind.
As long as it is the truth, it will prevail, just a matter of time.
I do not think you at the level to understand it. I just give up.

Jianyi Zhang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Wounded King, posted 05-10-2005 9:10 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by nator, posted 05-10-2005 3:10 PM Jianyi Zhang has not replied

Jianyi Zhang
Inactive Member


Message 175 of 305 (206876)
05-10-2005 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by TheNewGuy03
05-10-2005 11:46 AM


Re: Heh.
What does one do to have a sufficient understanding of evolution? Become an evolutionist...?
I have the anwere, become a Neo-Darwinist.

Jianyi Zhang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-10-2005 11:46 AM TheNewGuy03 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by nator, posted 05-11-2005 8:11 AM Jianyi Zhang has replied
 Message 188 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-11-2005 1:38 PM Jianyi Zhang has not replied

Jianyi Zhang
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 305 (207023)
05-11-2005 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by nator
05-11-2005 8:11 AM


Re: Heh.
My thesis or publication is about oncogene, somehow, my name was spelled wrong in the paper for PhD.
I use my real name here, it is insane to lie at front of public.
Besides PhD, I also have MS in preventive medicine. Since I do not think any of these degree related with the topic, I do not understand your motivation. Can you tell me what kind education you have?

Jianyi Zhang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by nator, posted 05-11-2005 8:11 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by nator, posted 05-11-2005 11:11 PM Jianyi Zhang has not replied

Jianyi Zhang
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 305 (207095)
05-11-2005 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by EZscience
05-11-2005 12:21 PM


Re: Mitochondria
Endocytosis of a bacteria by a primitive eukarotic cell that led to a symbiotic relationship and continued co-existence of the two.
So, endocytosis of a bacteria is an event, it occurs instantaneously. NS works on these pre-formed symbiotic organism.
Dr. Lynn Margulis's book (Acquring Genomes) is the best reference, since she is the person to propose the idea.

Jianyi Zhang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by EZscience, posted 05-11-2005 12:21 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by EZscience, posted 05-11-2005 1:03 PM Jianyi Zhang has replied

Jianyi Zhang
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 305 (207116)
05-11-2005 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by EZscience
05-11-2005 1:03 PM


Re: Mitochondria
Well, the actual event would probably have occurred a few billion times and resulted in consumption of the bacteria before a unique event led to the symbiosis becoming established.
Yes, any event out of billions billions events is an instantaneous one, they occur every seconds even now.
Likewise, speciation occurs every seconds instantaneously. With or without natural selection, they occur. That is huge difference between me and Neo-Darwinists.

Jianyi Zhang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by EZscience, posted 05-11-2005 1:03 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by EZscience, posted 05-11-2005 2:06 PM Jianyi Zhang has replied

Jianyi Zhang
Inactive Member


Message 190 of 305 (207143)
05-11-2005 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by EZscience
05-11-2005 2:06 PM


Re: Mitochondria
Do you mean like a polyploidy event that makes for instantaneous reproductive isolation?
Yes. Besides polyploids in plants, generation of asexuals from sexual animals (generation of virgin birth animals), a few polyloids cases in animals are other evidences. Instantaneous speciation has a much bigger picture, polyploids is only one part of it.

Jianyi Zhang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by EZscience, posted 05-11-2005 2:06 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by EZscience, posted 05-11-2005 2:35 PM Jianyi Zhang has replied

Jianyi Zhang
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 305 (207162)
05-11-2005 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by EZscience
05-11-2005 2:35 PM


Re: Instantaneous Speciation
But I would not call it a common event.
What kind of animals were you thinking of here ?
Although most higher animals reproduce by copulation, various lower animal forms can reproduce in a parthenogenetic manner without copulation. Aphids (plant lice), some ticks, water fleas, ants, wasps, bees and certain lizards and snakes can all develop without male fertilization.
http://www.braincourse.com/virga.html
What other phenomena are you refering to ?
Any references ?
Every sexual animals, go my website http://chickensfirst.net
Also in this thread, and other on-going debates:
http://www.arn.org/...b.php/ubb/get_topic/f/13/t/002150.html
http://www.arn.org/...b.php/ubb/get_topic/f/13/t/002172.html

Jianyi Zhang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by EZscience, posted 05-11-2005 2:35 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by EZscience, posted 05-11-2005 4:21 PM Jianyi Zhang has replied

Jianyi Zhang
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 305 (207191)
05-11-2005 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by EZscience
05-11-2005 4:21 PM


Re: Instantaneous Speciation
But how does that relate to mechanisms of speciation for obligately sexual (amphimictic) populations that make up the majority of higher animals?
I put it there just showing ones every biodiversity, no matter they are bacteria, viruses, parthenogenesis or sexual animals, occur instantaneously, no exception. Neo-Darwinism fails in all cases, no exception.
I looked at the four parts of your theory as explained on the website, and I immediately see at least one problem for applying it to higher animals.
What about inbreeding depression and detrimental homozygosity among siblings?
Even the majority of super-twins died initially, some of them would survive. If they did not survive, you never see them, what we see in the world is ones survived.
In fact, many animals survive inbreeding. For example, Jackson Lab keeps over 3000 inbreeding mice, they are created technically (transplant mice).
This message has been edited by Jianyi Zhang, 05-11-2005 08:17 PM

Jianyi Zhang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by EZscience, posted 05-11-2005 4:21 PM EZscience has not replied

Jianyi Zhang
Inactive Member


Message 197 of 305 (207193)
05-11-2005 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by crashfrog
05-11-2005 4:45 PM


Somehow I've become very familiar with creationist models and positions - better than most of their proponents, in fact - without actually becoming a creationist.
What does Super-twinning model belong to? Probably, any models inconsistent with Neo-Darwinists belong creationian one. Neo-Darwians alwyse think in this world, only Neo-Darwinians and Creationists exist, nobody else.

Jianyi Zhang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by crashfrog, posted 05-11-2005 4:45 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by crashfrog, posted 05-11-2005 5:00 PM Jianyi Zhang has not replied

Jianyi Zhang
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 305 (207410)
05-12-2005 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by EZscience
05-11-2005 10:42 PM


Re: The return of Lamarkian evolution is imminent !
Originally posted by EZscience:
Likewise, infection by the virus can (sometimes) permanently and heritably alter the geneome of the host plant in various, apparently random ways.
(yes - germ cell lines !)
When this is experimentally tested with crop plants, some of the progeny of infected parents express completely novel traits, some of which are potentially desirable for the crop.
What you present here is just another evidences for my proposed model:
gross changes in germ cells, progenies with mutated structure is a new species (assumed), and it occurs at individual level; with or without NS, virus infects plants, new type of plants are created.
Nothing cannot be more obvious.

Jianyi Zhang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by EZscience, posted 05-11-2005 10:42 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Wounded King, posted 05-12-2005 11:51 AM Jianyi Zhang has replied
 Message 209 by EZscience, posted 05-12-2005 12:22 PM Jianyi Zhang has replied

Jianyi Zhang
Inactive Member


Message 210 of 305 (207433)
05-12-2005 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Wounded King
05-12-2005 11:51 AM


Re: The return of Lamarkian evolution is imminent !
As does all mutation.
I mention all speciation, do you agree?
In what way is this any sort of evidence for your model?
I said in the previous post, you fail to understand it.
It has nothing to do with supertwinning and doesn't seem to be an example of anything not entirely consistent with modern evolutionary theory.
Supertwinning are most applied to sexual animal, in plant, there might be some modifications, but the principle same. Modern evolutionary theory? What part of it? As it contains everything, and it says speciation by RMNS major one, how does the case fit into RMNS (assuming the plant new species)?
If you say it case for instantaneous speciaiton, I do not have problem with it.
you don't even know how substantial the changes are, an induced point mutation can easily affect phenotypes, it might simply be that some anti-viral immune response has increased the rate of point mutations throughout the plant.
Underlying assumption is that mutanted plants is a new species of plant. Why do I need to know "how substantial the changes are, anti-viral immune response has increased the rate of point mutations throughout the plant."
If it is a new species, it is created by viral infection instantaneously, if not, viral infection creates a plant with new property WITHIN the same species of plant. That is it.
You are just so confused, and do not have common sense in biology.
However, you are very good to transform a simple question to a complicated maze.

Jianyi Zhang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Wounded King, posted 05-12-2005 11:51 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by mick, posted 05-12-2005 12:43 PM Jianyi Zhang has replied
 Message 212 by Wounded King, posted 05-12-2005 12:47 PM Jianyi Zhang has replied

Jianyi Zhang
Inactive Member


Message 213 of 305 (207455)
05-12-2005 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Wounded King
05-12-2005 12:47 PM


Re: The return of Lamarkian evolution is imminent !
This assumption is still completely unwarranted.
How about assuming it a new species? How kind of role for NS in its arrival?

Jianyi Zhang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Wounded King, posted 05-12-2005 12:47 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Wounded King, posted 05-13-2005 4:56 AM Jianyi Zhang has replied

Jianyi Zhang
Inactive Member


Message 214 of 305 (207607)
05-13-2005 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by EZscience
05-12-2005 12:22 PM


Re: Mutant clusters as mechanism of speciation
Originally posted by EZscience:
I did raise the challenge about inbreeding depression in the progeny of your 'clustered mutants' as applied to higher animals that you haven't really addressed.
In post 196, I wrote:
Even the majority of super-twins died initially, some of them would survive. If they did not survive, you never see them, what we see in the world is ones survived.
In fact, many animals survive inbreeding. For example, Jackson Lab keeps over 3000 inbreeding mice, they are created technically (transplant mice).
In my website, I have following writing:
First generation is supertwins brother-sister from the same birth, they mate to have the second generation, brother-sister from the same parents (assuming only twins parent); their offspring are brother-sister from different parents.
If an organism has a few weeks in the life cycle, it only takes a couple of years for them to have over 20 life cycle. By then, majority of the members in the organism will be remote-related.
EZscience wrote:
And, I also do not see how novel sources of heritable variation can negate the validity of natural selection in any way, whether they happen to sometimes generate new species or not.
The products will all be subjects of natural selection.
Nobody completely negates the validity of natural selection, the model say NS not involved with arrival of products, but all products will be subject to natural selection. That is huge difference. NS is a filter, not an generator.
EZscience wrote:
And I don't think you should extrapolate too much generality of applicability for your mechanisms yet.
I think they are unlikely to be important in higher animals that are obligately outcrossing.
You certainly can have your opinion.
This message has been edited by Jianyi Zhang, 05-13-2005 01:10 AM

Jianyi Zhang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by EZscience, posted 05-12-2005 12:22 PM EZscience has not replied

Jianyi Zhang
Inactive Member


Message 215 of 305 (207611)
05-13-2005 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by mick
05-12-2005 12:43 PM


Re: The return of Lamarkian evolution is imminent !
Originally posted by mick:
Your hypothesis does sound pretty similar to RMNS to me.
It sounds similar, in fact, they differ greatly.
First you have a gross mutation. So we agree on the importance of random mutation.
Gross mutation may create a new species by itself without natural selection, do you agree?
so your model is: random mutation + natural selection.
My model is:
random mutation generates everything without NS,
natural selection eliminates unfitted.
This message has been edited by Jianyi Zhang, 05-13-2005 09:35 AM
This message has been edited by Jianyi Zhang, 05-13-2005 09:36 AM

Jianyi Zhang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by mick, posted 05-12-2005 12:43 PM mick 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