Why Darwinism is wrong

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: 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

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

Jianyi,This thread seems both a discussion of Darwinism AS WELL AS a discussion of your "super-twinning" model of speciation. I'd like to ask a question about your "super-twinning" hypothesis.I'm not a biologist at all; I haven't completed an introductory to biology course at all yet. So I may be asking an uneducated question. This is a really simple question about allele frequencies and "super-twinning"It seems to me that, if you're right, and if a species were instantly created by the simultaneous birth of fraternal twins with the same gross mutations, that there's some really clear predictions about allele frequencies in the resulting species (which would proliferate, if selected by the filter of NS, from these two "second-level" Eves)The prediction is specifically that the allele frequencies in the parent species' population would be changed. For example, a genotype whose alleles had 50% probability in the parent's species have a 62.5% chance of changing drastically (12.5% chance that the variation will be completely eliminated, 50% chance that one of the alleles will INSTANTLY become 75% probable). Note that I didn't map this into phenotypes, ... maybe that would help clarify things.Anyway, seems to me that this instant change in allele frequencies in the new species, as compared to that of the parent species, should be observable. However, a RMNS speciation model would predict nothing special, just regular drift / change rates of alleles due to population drift or selection principles.Have there been any measurements similar to this that have been done? For example, comparing allele frequencies of homologous genes between two species believed to have a common ancestor (especially those who are thought to have speciated "recently").Is this just nonsense?-------------
The numbers (model is for a phenotype controlled by a single gene with two alleles, both with frequency 50% in the parent population)

MOM
| A(50%) | a(50%)
------+--------+--------
D  A(50%)| AA(25%)| Aa(25%)
A  ------+--------+--------
D  a(50%)| AA(25%)| aa(25%)
​
Now, this is going to be true for each twin.  So, here are the
overall percentages for each twin:
​
Twin 1    Twin 2
-----------------------------------------------
Allele elminated: 12.5%
---------------------
aa (25%)  aa    (25%)  -> both aa (6.25%)
AA (25%)  AA    (25%)  -> both AA (6.25%)
--------------------------------------------
​
"a" freq = "A" freq = 50%, in pop: 37.5%
---------------------
aa (25%)  AA    (25%)  ->  6.25%
AA (25%)  aa    (25%)  ->  6.25%
[a,A](50%) [a,A] (50%) -> 25%
​
--------------------------------------------
one allele's frequency in pop set at 75%, (50%)
the other allele's frequency in pop set at 25%:
​
aa (25%)  [a,A] (50%)  -> freq("a")->75% (12.5%)
AA (25%)  [a,A] (50%)  -> freq("A")->75% (12.5%)
[a,A](50%) aa   (25%)  -> freq("a")->75% (12.5%)
[a,A](50%) AA   (25%)  -> freq("A")->75% (12.5%)

This message has been edited by Admin, 05-17-2005 10:22 AM