Why Darwinism is wrong

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. 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

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

There's plenty of non-Darwinian models that are not creationist. Lamarkian evolution, for instance.

Yes, and don't hold your breath but Lamarkian inheritance might be making a comeback.Recent evidence suggests that the genetics of host plants can effect changes in the genetics of infecting viruses that are henceforth heritable for the virus, i.e. the virus is changed by passage through a particular host plant. (Not all host plants do this to the virus.)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.Is that Lamarkian enough for you - environmental influences having a heritable effect?This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-11-2005 10:45 PM

[quote]My thesis or publication is about oncogene, somehow, my name was spelled wrong in the paper for PhD.

quote:

---

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?

---

Frankly, my motivation in asking you about your qualifications as a molecular biologist is because, in the past, many people who share your general views regarding Evolution whao have also claimed to have Biology degrees had not actually been truthful about having earned those Biology degrees, had not published any relevant research, etc.While I definitely agree with the others whom have said that it's the strength of the argument, not the degree, that matters in debate, I still think it's important to get a good impression of the character of one's opponent.So, when someone like you, who espouses views so completely outside the views of any reputable, professional Molecular Biologist I have ever read or known about, I simply begin to wonder if perhaps you are one of those people I mentioned above.

Those hardly seem like good examples of Lamarckian inheritance.First off, a virus is obviously going to have any acquired changes in its genetic structure as heritable traits since it isn't really anything other than genetic information and a delivery system, this is a world away from Lamarckian inheritance in a multicellular organism. At the unicellular level almost everything must be Lamarckian if it changes the genetic structure, since there is no seperation of somatic and germ lineages.Viral insertions also hardly count, as while the progeny express the phenotype the parents do not. So this is hardly an acquired characteristic, simply an acquired mutation. Any mutation of the genetic struture is arguably 'acquired' in this way. Not really, Lamarckian evolution requires the inheritance of acquired characteristics. In your examples all that has been acquired is genetic change in the germ cells producing the progeny, and there are any number of environmental influences which can affect the rate and nature of mutations in the germ line cells. You could argue that this is the inheritance is of an acquired characteristic, but it certainly doesn't resemble Lamarck's examples of such a characteristic which is visible in the phenotype of the parent.TTFN,WK

I guess you're not too fond of sarcasm.And I do have knowledge of evolution, considering I was one myself.

This is true.

Well I have to agree they are not on a level of the characteristics that Lamarck had in mind. And I admit I was being a bit playful with this.And you are right about the virus of course. But the plant situation is a bit more interesting.
If you can accept a viral infection as a form of 'environmental influence' (and again, I know I'm stretching this a bit), then you have some heritable changes resulting from this influence.But of course the resulting characters are not expressed in the parent, so again, you could fairly use this as grounds for saying it is not as Lamarck had imagined.But it appears to be a bit more than the virus inserting some sequences in the plant genome.
There appears to be a re-arrangement of the plant genome in some cases, and permanently altered expression of certain plant genes without evidence of any incorporation of viral DNA (although I am not sure how this could be ruled out).
In these cases, you can generate an amazingly diverse array of plant morphologies among the progeny of the infected plant, many of which seem to 'breed true'.This is part of a colleagues' work on sorghum, not mine.
I am an ecologist, not a molecular biologist, so I am probably not doing his work justice either.

That sounds like an intersting source of genetic diversity.I had similar thoughts about Lamarckian mechanisms when I started learning about heritable epigenetic markers such as methylation which can be affected by environmental factors such as diet. But I realised that they were really just another form of mutation for the standard Darwinian mechanisms of evolution to act upon.TTFN,WK

Yes, I think what we are now beginning to 'see' (with all the new techniques), and therefore appreciate more, just how many forms of 'mutation' there really are.And I mean mutation in a larger sense than merely substitutions/additions/deletions. Various sorts of epigenetic modifications.Working with aphids for many years, I have always been amazed at how quickly a single clone can diverge in charcteristics from the parental line from which it was derived. You collect a single aphid from one plant, establish a colony on another plant (say, because its more suitable for lab culture), and 15-20 asexual generations later the damn thing won't even feed on the ancestral host anymore.Bottom line is, I don't think we have yet identified all possible sources of 'mutation', nor all possible causes of heritable genetic modifications, whether you want to term them mutations or something else.Opportunities there for an ambitious grad student in molecular biology to maybe make a name for him/herself

Originally posted by EZscience: 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

Thats really quite an assumption. As does all mutation.In what way is this any sort of evidence for your model?Once again it is simply an example of a particular form of mutation. It has nothing to do with supertwinning and doesn't seem to be an example of anything not entirely consistent with modern evolutionary theory. Simply because the mechanism by which the genetic changes are effected without viral insertion is unclear does not automatically mean you can claim it as evidence, 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. I realise that EZ mentioned genomic rearrangements, but there is no need to assume that they alone account for phenotypic diversity.TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 05-12-2005 11:58 AM

Well I won't deny that heritable genetic and epigenetic changes can happen abruptly in populations.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.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.What you are really delineating with your theory (it would seem to me) are just some genetic mechanisms that may have the *potential* to cause sympatric speciation in some cases.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.

I mention all speciation, do you agree? I said in the previous post, you fail to understand it. 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. 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