Why Darwinism is wrong

True, but it would give us an idea of the honesty of our opponent.

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

Does anyone remember Peter Borger?

Endocytosis of a bacteria by a primitive eukarotic cell that led to a symbiotic relationship and continued co-existence of the two.Go to message 36 of this thread to read more.

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

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. I have no problem with this.
NS can only work on what already exists and has some mechanism of heritability.This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-11-2005 01:03 PM

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

Yep, Dr. Zhang, it certainly does seem that way. But, unfortunately for them, I won't add myself to their ranks.Αγάπη,
Το Παιδί

OK now we have a problem.
I am familiar with gradualism versus punctuated equilibria etc when it comes to phylogenies, and allopatric and sympatric models of speciation,
but instantaneous speciation ?Do you mean like a polyploidy event that makes for instantaneous reproductive isolation?That's about as close to instantaneous speciation as I can conceive.

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

Loss of sexuality is an interesting evolutionary scenario that appears to have occurred more than once in some lineages.
But I would not call it a common event.
What kind of animals were you thinking of here ? I am interested.
What other phenomena are you refering to ?
Any references ?

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 Every sexual animals, go my website http://chickensfirst.netAlso in this thread, and other on-going debates:http://www.arn.org/...b.php/ubb/get_topic/f/13/t/002150.htmlhttp://www.arn.org/...b.php/ubb/get_topic/f/13/t/002172.html

---

Jianyi Zhang

Of course. I have worked with aphids for almost 20 years.
I am also quite familiar with the distribution of parthenogenesis and apomixis among animal taxa.
Incidentally, when I said 'not a common event' I was referring specifically to the 'loss' of sexual reproduction within a phylogenetic lineage.I would also agree that asexual lineages can *potentially* diverge more quickly than sexual ones.But how does that relate to mechanisms of speciation for obligately sexual (amphimictic) populations that make up the majority of higher animals?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?
Most higher animlals have many behavioral mechanisms (dispersal etc.) that evolved specificall to reduce or prevent inbreeding.
The only organisms truly adapted to inbreeding are those that routinely mate only with siblings, like gregarious hymenopterous parasitoids.
Your model might work for them, but not for organisms adapted for outbreeding.
The first few generations of your new species would have very low fitness compared to their progenitors, and yet presumably they would still be trying to occupy the same niche.

Only because creationists rely on evolutionists for information and research. If they actually bothered to do any work they might be right once in a while. But not being 100% sure doesn't mean we don't know anything. Those phrases don't mean the same thing, so why did you use them like that? That's what? It's a public forum; I'll reply to whomever I chose.

You know what? Somehow I've become very familiar with creationist models and positions - better than most of their proponents, in fact - without actually becoming a creationist.So I think you can familiarize yourself with modern evolutionary models with no risk to your mortal soul, ok? Shouldn't you have at least half an idea about the position you're arguing against?