New Species Comes In Fraternal Twins

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by j61zhang, Jul 23, 2008.

?

How do you think the idea of speciation?

Poll closed Jul 23, 2009.
  1. I agree with it.

    33.3%
  2. I do not agree with it.

    33.3%
  3. I doubt about it.

    33.3%
  4. I do not know.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. j61zhang Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3
    I propose a new mechanism of evolution/speciation: there are only four steps in whole process:

    1. Formation of two fertilized eggs of the opposite sexes

    * Animal development begins when a sperm fertilizes an egg to form a zygote. Fraternal twin’s zygotes are formed when two eggs are each fertilized by a single sperm. Fraternal twins are common natural phenomena across almost all bisexual animals.

    2. Gross mutations on the zygotes

    * In fertilized eggs, DNA synthesis is active and these eggs are extremely sensitive to mutagens. The nature of mutations is determined by the nature of mutants and the microenvironments around the zygotes. The mutation could be minor, thereby causing little harm, or a gross one, which will cause failure of mating with ancestral species.
    * A gross mutation is defined by its outcome: any modifications on the DNA structure will be the gross mutation, if it leads to failure of bivalent binding or synapsis between the ancestral and descended haploid chromosomes. The gross mutation does not necessarily lead to gross physical changes of the involved organism or speciation. Many, if not all, chromosomal rearrangements, such as deletions, duplications, translocation, and karyotypic fission have the potential to be gross mutations, and only gross mutation can lead to speciation. These mutations could occur at one locus or multiple loci.

    3. Self-replication of fertilized eggs

    * The mutant zygotes can self-replicate to form mixed multiple identical zygotes with gross mutations could develop into mixed identical supertwins with a gross mutation. Mating among the siblings from the same gestation. The majority of the mutants would die during the embryonic stage, leaving a very small number to survive. Of these, even a smaller number would mature to adulthood. 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 onto their gamete cells.

    4. Mating among adult siblings

    * The newcomers live together, and have the similar anatomical structures. Neither pre-zygotic nor post-zygotic reproductive barriers are present among the fraternal siblings. Inbreeding would be natural among these siblings with the reproductive second generation as the outcome. In the whole process, only step two is an assumption, while the remaining three steps are natural daily phenomena.

    For detail, please go to:

    chickensfirst.googlepages.com
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    errr..no thanx
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Idle Mind What the hell, man? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,709
    Why do you feel we need to define a new mechanism for speciation?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,828
    Your Poll questions asks: “How do you think the idea of speciation?”

    It is unclear whether you are asking if we subscribe to the theory of speciation, or whether we support your particular interpretation of the mechanisms driving speciation. These are different questions. My answer changes depending on the precise meaning of your question.


    Why? What's wrong with the existing mechanisms? How does your hypothesis improve on them?


    Is DNA synthesis in a fertilized ovum any more susceptible to mutagens than DNA synthesis in any other somatic cell in either an embryo or an adult?


    No, I wouldn’t say that. The nature of mutations is dictated by the mutagen.


    It appears that English may not be your first language, but taking that into account I have to say that this paragraph makes no sense. It’s just a mixture of genetic-sounding terminology all jumbled together into nonsensical sentences. (I have a genetics and developmental biology background.)


    Do you have any references for this? I do not believe this statement is correct.
     
  8. j61zhang Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3
    My poll is regarding my theory of evolution.

    I discuss your question in the website under "Main Theories of Evolution" and
    "Why Neo-Darwinism is a Pseudoscience?".
    I challenge you to tell me what problems are in my proposal.

    My idea is somehow consistent with polyploidy, however polyploids only tells a phenomena at chroomosomal level, not tell how new polyploid species become reproductive. My proposal solves it, which get solved by fraternal twins and sibling inbreeding.

    I just say DNA synthesis in a fertilized ovum is very sensitive, not say them more susceptible.
    Many somatic cell in an adult are quite, with little DNA synthesis, such as nerve cells.

    You need more training, I guess. I have Ph.D in molecular biology.

    Following are quotes from a book by Dr. White:

    Karyotypic differences must be caused by gross mutation at chromosomal level. Many submicroscopic gross mutation can not be detected under microscope, as it requires 1 to 2 millions base pair change to be seen.
     
  9. Idle Mind What the hell, man? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,709
    You should really bring your discussion here, rather than try to direct us to your website. That's a method of spam.

    Hercules doesn't need more training. You need to be more clear in how you're defining terms and applying them to your ideas.
     
  10. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,828
    In my opinion, you guessed wrong.


    As do I.


    Uh huh. You made an absolute statement regarding the need for “gross mutations” for speciation. Of course, much of this argument revolves around the precise definition of “gross mutations”. But there’s plenty of evidence out there that small mutations, both in number and complexity, can drive reproductive isolation and, hence, speciation. Some of it is controversial, but it’s enough to prevent absolute statements along the lines that you have made. That’s all I’m saying. In fact, it can be argued that no mutations are required for speciation.


    No thanks. Now that you’ve revealed yourself as just another guy with a website detailing at great length the problems and deficiencies with “Evolutionists” and “Neo-Darwinists”, I know where this thread is heading and the value of trying to challenge your material.

    But good luck with roping someone else in.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. j61zhang Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3
    You play words game

    Much of this argument is not about the definition, can you give me exact definition of "small mutations"?. I can say any mutation, as long as it causes infertility between mating of its carrier and members from parental species or lower survival ability, a gross mutation. The point is that speciation is an event, caused by mutation ONLY, not a process, caused by both mutation and natural selection.

    With these words, I understand you much better.
     

Share This Page