Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Darwinism is wrong
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 4 of 305 (202705)
04-26-2005 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by JonF
04-26-2005 3:16 PM


I have a history there as well.
me on Ggroups
It looked like Zhang ran into the same ""David Jensen two years later. It only reaffirms why I dont post there any more. Writing in black and white is clearer. Z says that adaptation never creates a new species but no matter what NS keeps the thing fit. I'll have to read a little more. That is a perspective I have not seen before in print.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-26-2005 02:49 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by JonF, posted 04-26-2005 3:16 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Jianyi Zhang, posted 04-26-2005 5:09 PM Brad McFall has replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 9 of 305 (202766)
04-26-2005 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Jianyi Zhang
04-26-2005 5:09 PM


Re: read my website
http://chickensfirst.net/model.htm
quote:
The proposed mechanism of speciation has four major steps; the whole process is called gross mutations in cluster and mutants inbreeding (GMCMI). Viviparous animals (living young not eggs are produced) is used to explain the model, slight modifications might be needed to accommodate unlimited biological variations.
1. Formation of two fertilized eggs of the opposite sex
Animal development begins when a sperm fertilizes an egg to form a zygote. Fraternal twins zygotes are formed when two eggs combines with an X and Y chromosome bearing sperm.
2. Gross mutations on the zygotes
In fertilized eggs, DNA synthesis is very active and these eggs are extremely sensitive to mutagens. Mutations might arise from mutagenic insults or errors in DNA replication. The mutations are random processes, determined by the nature of mutants and the microenvironments of the zygotes. These mutations can have deleterious or nondeleterious effects, and could occur at one locus or multiple loci. In addition, chromosomes can be affected through addition, deletion, and translocations. The outcome of these changes will generate a mutant organism with new genetic structures.
3. Self-replication of fertilized eggs
The mutant zygotes can self-replicate to form mixed multiple identical zygotes with gross mutations (MMIZWGM), which could develop into mixed identical supertwins with gross mutation (MISTWGM).
4. Mating among the siblings from the same gestation
The majority of the mutants would die during the embryo stage, leaving a very small number to survive as MISTWGM. Of these, even a smaller number would become adults. The characteristics of the novelties are determined by how the mutations occur. The mutations would be not only demonstrated in the somatic cells of offspring with the novel characteristics, but also inherited, and passed into their gamete cells.
Could/would you please Sir indicate how this vision is any shorter, different, or better than
quote:
Experimentally, therefore, the theory is confirmed that the pea hybrids form egg and pollen cells which, in their constitution, represent in equal numbers all constant forms which result from the combination of the characters united in fertilization.
The difference of the forms among the progeny of the hybrids, as well as the respective ratios of the numbers in which they are observed, find a sufficient explanation in the principle above deduced. The simplest case is afforded by the developmental series of each pair of differentiating characters. This series is represented by the expression A+2Aa+a, in which A and a signify the forms with constant differentiating characters, and Aa the hybrid form of both. It includes in 3 different classes 4 individuals. In the formation of these, pollen and egg cells of the form A and a take part on the average equally in the fertilization; hence each form [occurs] twice, since four individuals are formed. There participate consequently in the fertilization
the pollen cells A+A+a+a,
the egg cells A+A+a+a.
It remains, therefore, purely a matter of chance which of the two sorts of pollen will become united with each separate egg cell. According, however, to the law of probability, it will always happen, on the average of many cases, that each pollen form A and a will unite equally often with each egg cell form A and a, consequently one of the two pollen cells A in the fertilization will meet with the egg cell A and the other with the egg cell a, and so likewise one pollen cell a will unite with an egg cell A, and the other with the egg cell a.
Pollen cells A A a a
| \ / |
| X |
| / \ |
Egg cells A A a a
The result of the fertilization may be made clear by putting the signs for the conjoined egg and pollen cells in the form of fractions, those for the pollen cells above and those for the egg cells below the line. We then have
A A a a
----- + ----- + ----- + -----
A a A a
In the first and fourth term the egg and pollen cells are of like kind, consequently the product of their union must be constant, namely A and a; in the second and third, on the other hand, there again results a union of the two differentiating characters of the stocks, consequently the forms resulting from these fertilizations are identical with those of the hybrid from which they sprang. There occurs accordingly a repeated hybridization. This explains the striking fact that the hybrids are able to produce, besides the two parental forms, offspring which are like themselves;
A a
----- and -----
a A
both give the same union Aa, since, as already remarked above, it makes no difference in the result of fertilization to which of the two characters the pollen or egg cells belong. We may write then
A A a a
--- + --- + --- + --- = A + 2Aa + a
A a A a
This represents the average result of the self-fertilization of the hybrids when two differentiating characters are united in them.
Mendel's Paper (English-Collaborative)
If I am not mistaken your notion would divide the dashed line above EITHER vertically OR horizontally and yet I see no mathematical incorporation of the two different kinds of 1-D symmetry Weyl distinguised in SYMMETRY(book). The two eves idea no matter about the initial diversity of genetic variance across the line a progeniture motion crosses seems to give SHAPE to the dashed line. I had not seen your proposal before because *this* is not supported by anymath or any metric application I am aware of. I cant see how all species that would be comparable to paleontologically names ones MUST have identical structure. There surely is some variation in individual traits and yet the recursion your work remands seems to fly the middle without any slight variation on either side except size between the eves. Something other than magnitude is needed to composite morphospace it seems to me. How would you get 1:3 traits in the generations rather than the simple bifurcation your work seems to ply again. I suspect that the "similarity" is at alevel of physics below"" the language model of DNA-RNA-PROTEIN but that is unsubstantiated and is my own reading.
You had it asked
quote:
Why do you propose twins zygotes mutation in the model?
Mutation is a random, rare, unpredictable event, it is very, very unlikely for any identical mutation occur IF they are at totally non-associated situations
but as i continue to read it you could theoretically get two identical mutations by TWO different physical chemical paths if 1-D symmetry was a adapted continuum and not a chance junkyard art display.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-26-2005 05:05 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Jianyi Zhang, posted 04-26-2005 5:09 PM Jianyi Zhang has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Jianyi Zhang, posted 04-27-2005 1:18 AM Brad McFall has replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 13 of 305 (202964)
04-27-2005 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Jianyi Zhang
04-27-2005 1:18 AM


Read my website
Thnaks for your response. I hope you continue...
The "unsolved myth" that your assumption solves is simply the extrapolation of Ian Stewarts statement
quote:
Tobacco mosaic virus...is a hollow rod...This helps bridge the gap between the inorganic and the organic worlds by showing that one of the most striking features of the living world -replication - is here a consequence of molecular architecture; it does not require further intervention, either by genetics or God.
p66(Life's Other Secrect) scaled into population thinking and yet your website seems to read red as if this is done contra Stewarts position on the FUTURE of math and biology, namlely that it is closer to my own approach than that of Stewart's (page243)
What we have here is mostly a challenge, and only occasionally an answer. Whatever that challenge may be, it is not simply a question of writing down an equation of life and solving it. I doubt very much that any such thing exists. Finding exact solutions to ultimate laws is not a sensible role for mathematics. It's not math's role in physics, and it certainly should not be math's role in biology.
But I have another thread working where contra Holmes a bit I will show that the two step(inbreeding and mutation are not a unified stepper no matter how linked the ladder chains the being to it) is not what is dancing here. I dont have any more time this week. I will agree with ONE but yours is not this uno or moko. Your reply still seems more complicated than Mendel to me. Even granting no god or more genetics I cant find on the web site how I am supposed to add up the mutations gross or otherwise. Perhaps I just missed that. If so, my bad esle back to Homes.la la le la la la. Anyway I will try to show how the bacterial flagellum is not IC(suffiently) to the inversion metrically of the TB virus(structure) and point out how there are two chemical paths in the same population by use of phase reasons. But more later. God might still be and genetics, well, again, where is that ? it still didnt take shape.
If I cant write down the illustration, delimit the equation and solve for space time and form I am no longer interested in science. But hey, that's just me. By the way, one such equation, IS is likely refering to was Murray's approach to leopard spots and it is because the equations they wrote down at Oxford were not general to say your notion that I DID NOT go that way for grad work. That thing exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Jianyi Zhang, posted 04-27-2005 1:18 AM Jianyi Zhang has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 79 of 305 (204989)
05-04-2005 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jianyi Zhang
04-26-2005 11:57 AM


Your notion seems to be some cutting between these two charts of Wallace formerly at Cornell published from a talk in Syracuse in the late 60s edited by Richard Lewontin "Population Biology and Evolution".

but I really only see sprial possibility(below) not an indeterminately bifurcating one which is the one I think if I understand your work correctly is what you would have to remand if prooved true in a future.
If all you are trying to do is set up a structure for evolutionary theory and await proof as Gould luckily did finish before he passed then I can have no more critical comment but I think this way of proceeding in biology is going away not towards what society outside the small groups otherwise pursuing thier own research do do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jianyi Zhang, posted 04-26-2005 11:57 AM Jianyi Zhang has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Jianyi Zhang, posted 05-04-2005 9:35 PM Brad McFall has replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 84 of 305 (205087)
05-04-2005 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Jianyi Zhang
05-04-2005 9:35 PM


The charts relate micro and possibly macro levels of phenomena and given your notion it would relate to density dependence as exampled by the graph together. If there is structure there other than simple spliting of information your view might fail in the future just as Gould's would but for opposite reasons, Gould's because it insists on constraints from the right (as I displayed it) and your notion from the left.
I copyed this work so as to get your relations to populations. I saw your predictions. Good luck.
Wallace writes in his discussion
quote:
The importance of density-dependent factors upon the Darwinian fitnesses of populations is clear: novel sources of premature death need not be met by a corresponding increase in the number of progeny produced. They are met, rather, by a reduction in population size. Population size not progeny size, takes up the immediate shock of both genetic and nongenetic deaths.
If there are more deaths your notions of species change must meet evidence in the first paragraph of Wallace's
quote:
Birch(1960) has given a succinct account of the central problem of ecological genetics: ecology concerns itself with numbers of animals and what determines number. Population genetics concerns itself with kinds of animals and what determines kind. Ecological genetics concerns itself with the bearing on their kinds. The models presented in Figures 9,10, and 11 deal with the last named relationships. They represent an attempt, however crude, to relate a number of observations in a meaninful manner and in so doing, they deal with the interrelations of numbers and kinds.
while Gould's need not necessarily if cell death is not the then sought for culprit etc. You might be correct about the egg however.
I will expand on this as I promised in a thread Wounded King participated in on plant mutations across a generation by suggesting how both pollen selection and RNA editing can be universally considered (possibly) with such graphs but without apriori invariants from either side later ie dependent on the recursive nature of strucutre itself and not on the division of labor of biological deparments' research.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-04-2005 10:13 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Jianyi Zhang, posted 05-04-2005 9:35 PM Jianyi Zhang has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 85 of 305 (205088)
05-04-2005 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Jianyi Zhang
05-04-2005 9:35 PM


Double post sorry.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-04-2005 09:48 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Jianyi Zhang, posted 05-04-2005 9:35 PM Jianyi Zhang has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 233 of 305 (210435)
05-22-2005 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by mick
05-21-2005 5:06 PM


Re: On-line Darwinism Documentary
I was intially put on edge, with the "ama" applelation but then I quickly recalled, that this IS Croizat's attitude towards Darwin(that Charles was a great observer but poor theorizer etc) as well as JZ's as he represents homogenously thoughout this threadheaded thread and presents in his book. Percy had warned us-all before.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by mick, posted 05-21-2005 5:06 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