|
Author
|
Topic: Fernando Castro-Chavez: Intelligent Design to Generate Biodiversity
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 27. September 2005 16:13
Dear Dave,
You have posted an excellent question!
Considering your statement's premises and equations, if we make them to be:
A = Small variety of dog (i.e., Chihuahua),
B = Medium size variety of dog (i.e., Terrier),
C = Biggest variety of dog (i.e., Saint Bernard).
We may see that 'A' still is genetically compatible with 'B' and with 'C', even if physiologically it isn't.
This, and the rest of the 'biological radiations' can have physical problems to reproduce amongst its extremes, but they still are genetically compatible.
So, we can confidently consider them as members of the same kind of organism.
The 'backs and forths' of biology can only produce new varieties, but never producing the purported high-minded claims of darwinism!
Here, I want now to briefly present a new comparison: As both energy and the orbits of the planets are conserved, in the same way and by the same Word, the modular 'genos' (as Genesis calls them) of compatible organisms, are as well conserved! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Genetic compatibility is the main requirement and tool to produce fertile offspring and to generate new varieties, which is the main thesis of this article.
[ 28. September 2005, 22:35: Message edited by: Fernando Castro-Chavez ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 03. October 2005 22:02
Hi; From the previous post I was reminded of something I had read in Michael Denton's book "Evolution; A theory in crisis" about gulls (p81). He refers to it as the classic case of the two species of European Gull - the herring gull (Larus agentatus) and the lesser black backed gull (Larus fuscus).
quote:
In Europe the two species are distinct. They do not interbreed and are quite different in terms of appearance and behavior. - - - All the different races interbreed with adjacent races except at the two ends of the ring where the two forms are two distinct non-interbreeding species.
However, Denton goes on to express his belief that the two ends of the "ring" are really different species and that the "ring" itself is an excellent example of how speciation takes place!
quote:
One can trace, step by step, the formation of the two species by following the intergrading subspecies right round the northern hemisphere. A more dramatic demonstration of the reality of speciation in nature can hardly be imagined
Well with what you say one is left wondering if this is really speciation at all? Does one need to look at the full genome of this gulls to find out - i.e. to see whether or not their genes match one-to-one? Is it possible if a long enough time elapses that the genomes really become incompatible with each other (in terms of cross-over) and one is really left with two - non interbreeding members of a Genus (i.e. and no longer subspecies of a species)? Thanks for answering these questions.
- Chris
[ 03. October 2005, 22:25: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 04. October 2005 15:09
Dear Christopher D. Beling,
Thanks for your great comments and pictures!
You asked,
quote:
"with what you say one is left wondering if this is really speciation at all?"
Yes, I have seen that under the current neo-Darwinian paradigm, there is a generalized misconception in biology to consider extreme varieties as if they were examples of "speciation."
quote:
Is it possible if a long enough time elapses that the genomes really become incompatible with each other (in terms of cross-over) and one is really left with two - non interbreeding members of a Genus (i.e. and no longer subspecies of a species)?
I have seen that such concept has been the standard idea, pushed as 'fact' by the evolutionary community of today and since Darwin's days. However, our current knowledge of molecular biology, if left unbiased (which means "Darwin Out"!), indicates that the normal genome plus its orbiting molecules are sufficiently robust, i.e., by using quality control mechanisms to prevent them to naturally "escape their own orbits" of genetic compatibility.
quote:
Does one need to look at the full genome of this gulls to find out - i.e. to see whether or not their genes match one-to-one?
I think that if we start tracking their ability to produce fertile offspring, we can improve our understanding of varieties, variation and to promote a more realistic biology and ecology; and my 'Mendelian Bioengineering'! For such purposes, the Internet is the more useful tool when compared to the ordinary and Darwinian-biased peer-reviewed journals, as Google's hits may demonstrate. Hundreds of thousands of organisms currently misclassified as different species or even genus will fall then within the good ol' concept of "Kind"!
If we think in terms of mathematical disciplines, we can consider the prototype of a similar kind of organism as a stable planetary orbit. Each variety is a particular and different motion within the same orbit. If the planetary orbits and energy are conserved forces, thinking ID will lead us to predict that also animal variation or "radiation" within 'the similar' is a conserved force in nature!
For me, this is a beautiful prediction of ID that can be experimentally proved and confirmed.
So, it is not an easy job, but it is possible; if not done by myself, at least it may be done by a new generation of 'Darwin-free' students!
Again, thank you very much for your questions!
An expanded answer with links can be found at:
http://fdocc.blogspot.com/2005/10/gull-variation.html
[ 04. October 2005, 15:11: Message edited by: Fernando Castro-Chavez ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 02. January 2006 04:20
Hi Fernando, Thanks for the interesting response with the certainty (and clear references to demonstrate it) that Larus Argentatus and Larus Fuscus are just sub-species of the same species.
I thus understand the definition of species to mean " the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring " and since there may be physical - sociological factors being able to totally inhibit breeding - am I justified in adding " the final test being under in-vitro fertilization conditions "? Apologies for asking something of such a primitive nature!
For some time I have been wondering if the African elephant ( Loxodonta Africana ) and the Indian elephant ( Elephas maximus ) could possibly be of the same species [if the in-vitro condition was employed]. Is there any certainty of present biological knowledge in this area? A student of mine recently raised this issue.
-Thanks, Chris
[ 02. January 2006, 04:25: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 02. January 2006 19:52
Of course the only significant test is in vitro breeding. I am supremely confident that a successful cross could be made between a Chiuaua and a Great Dane or a St Bernard in either direction and the progeny would be fertile. I documented a spontaneous cross between a male St Bernard and a female Dachshund in my Manifesto and the product was a fertile bitch. Darwinians are scared to death to test their hypothesis because they know darn well it is a joke. Why didn't they long ago test Darwin's celebrated finches? Finches are among the most easily birds to domesticate, Fortunately we now know that all of Darwin's finches are physiologically compatible and produce genetically fit offspring. That also has now been documented. How much longer can this mass hysteria prevail? Darwinism has and had absolutely nothing to do with creative evolution. It has only produced varieties and for many life forms even that is quite impossible as often they lack the genetic plasticity to allow even that. How much longer can any serious student continue to support this most failed hypothesis in the history of science?This is all much ado about nothing so excuse me while I find something more productive to do with my diminishing remaining time.
Happy New Year
IP: Logged
|
|
Fernando Castro-Chavez
Member
Member # 1201
|
posted 03. January 2006 15:01
Dear Dr. Beling,
There are thousands of examples, like the finches mentioned by Dr. Davison, and in more detail covered by me elsewhere:
The Finch Variation
On thousands organisms the interbreeding to produce fertile offspring is relatively easily achieved. So, only for the extreme cases, like in that classic example of Dr. Davison in dogs, artificial methods may be used to demonstrate the genetic compatibility, to the point to produce fertile offspring in those cases of extreme size differences, or of different mating seasons, or on the animals' preferences for a particular song, color or body shape...
Next, to address your inspiring question I searched for:
The Elephant Variation
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 03. January 2006 15:47
For the ring species of gulls, since genes flow throughout the system they are obviously only subspecies. Isn't it sad that the Darwinians have to go to such ludicrous lengths to make a point that genes ever had anything to do with organic evolution? It is or more accurately WAS the chromosomes, not the genes that WERE the instruments and the units of organic evolution. My God we are 50% identical with bananas at the DNA level and 99.9% identical with chimpanzees. The particulate gene never had any creative role in the past and has none now. All living things are practically identical at allelic loci. It is largely A matter of which genes are silenced and which expressed. In short it is 90% position effect as Goldschmidt recognized 65 years ago. Some folks are slow learners. I am not one of them.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 03. January 2006 19:30
I am willing to bet ten thousand dollars that a fertile hybrid will be produced in either direction from a cross between a St Bernard and a Chihuaua. Any takers?
In fact I am going to call up my Vet tomorrow to see if we can arrange the procedure. I hope others will do the same. Darwinians no longer test their hypothesis. They grew tired of constant failure yet they continue to believe it nevertheless. It boggles my mind. What I can't understand is why it doesn't boggle the minds of all. That it doesn't means only that it has an ideological rather than an objective basis.
Darwinism, soon to disappear to join the Phlogiston and the Ether, remains the most infantile hypothesis in the history of science and the only one to my knowledge that has persisted in the face of constant and perfect failure.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 05. January 2006 10:33
Hi Fernando and John. I just cannot tell you my amazement and excitment to discover that the African elephant ( Loxodonta Africana ) and the Indian elephant ( Elephas maximus ) can actually mate and produce offspring! (It was not such a foolish question after all). According to their names these "species" are not even of the same genus - and yet they could indeed be the same species (according to the interbreeding definition - which I believe is due to Ernst Mayr). I suppose the question is now whether or not the hybrids are fertile or not? Any idea? I read that over the last 100,000 years there have been 8 other elephant species that have become extinct - could it be that they were all variaties within the same species!
I suppose it is possible that the hybrids are not fertile as in the case of the crossing of the female domestic horse ( Equus Caballus )[32 haploid chromosomes] and the male donkey ( Equus Asinus ) [31 haploid chromosomes] to make the Mule. Am I correct in understanding that the Mule is infertile because the 32 maternal chromosomes and the 31 paternal chromosomes simply cannot match up for cross-over in Meiosis. I suppose according to the PEH some programmed chromosomal re-arrangment has taken place to make the donkey slightly different from the horse - but essentially they have the same gene set? Any information on the Elephant's chromosomes?
John, so interested in the St Bernard and a Chihuaua experiment - although I have no doubts. Surely this has already been tried though?
Thanks for the research Fernando - Chris
[ 05. January 2006, 10:48: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 05. January 2006 20:59
Hi, I found this interesting "elephant" reference today on this website
1999-OCT-17: Russia: Woolly Mammoth: A team of French, American, Dutch and Russian paleontologists successfully airlifted a male, 23 tonne (25 ton) woolly mammoth from its grave in Siberia where it had been frozen for 20,000 years. It was almost complete except for its head which had been exposed to air in the past. Since the species has been extinct for over 10,000 years, some scientists have proposed that attempts be made to breed a living mammoth from DNA, sperm or cell nucleus retrieved from the carcass. An modern elephant ovum would be used, because it is the closest living relative to the mammoth. Some suggestions are:
(1) Retrieve some mammoth DNA from its bones or tissue and insert it into a living elephant cell. If successful, this would produce an elephant-mammoth hybrid with mammoth DNA pieces in some of the elephant chromosomes. If successful, the result would be an elephant with some mammoth features.
(2) Perform artificial insemination between a mammoth sperm and unfertilized ovum of a living elephant. If successful, this would produce an animal with mixed mammoth-elephant chromosomes.
(3) Clone the mammoth by inserting the nucleus from one of its cells into an empty ovum of an elephant. This would produce a full clone of the mammoth. Unfortunately, thawing out the animal tends to destroy cell nuclei. Thus, cloning may not be possible.
What do you make of this? Any news on this since 1999? Chris
[ 05. January 2006, 21:00: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 06. January 2006 07:02
The structural reason for infertility in the mule for example is due to the fact that while the chromosomes one of which is has an inverted segment with respect to the other, can line up properly, locus for locus, which in itself would be fine, any cross over that takes place within such a meiotic pair leads, when the dyads separate from one another to unbalanced products, some of which have no centromere others of which may have two centromeres etc. Unbalanced gametes, whether eggs or sperm, cannot support normal development. In my 1984 paper and again in my Manifesto I present a diagram of the cytological situation prior to the first meiotic division. By simply tracing the effects of a cross-over within the inverted segment region, one can verify this. Thus the sterility of hybrids can be explained on purely mechanical grounds and there is no need to postulate any point mutation differences. In other words, hybrid sterility is simply a manifestation of "position effect" and has nothing whatsoever to do with Mendelian allelic mutation. Indeed any two such forms would be sterile when crossed even if they were otherwise genetically identical. The Mendelian differences between many forms are trivial in any event. The short legs of my Dachshund Otto (named for Otto Schindewolf) are manifestations of exactly the same gene that produces the human achondroplastic dwarf and the Ancon sheep, a simple Mendelian dominant.
As I have repeatedly claimed, Mendelian genetics has now and never had anything whatsoever to do with creative evolution. Mendelism is the genetics of anti-evolution just as natural selection performs the same function. Both prevent change and serve only to preserve the status quo. This was clearly anticipated by William Bateson when, shortly before his death, he told his son Gregory (named of course for Gregor Mendel):
"that it was a mistake to have committed his life to Mendelism, that it was a blind alley which would not throw any light on the differentiation of species nor on evolution in general."
Davison, J.A., Evolution as a Self-limiting Process, Rivista di Biologia 91: 199 - 219 (1998)
Personally, I believe that the vast majority of all evolution has resulted from the rearrangement (position effect) of otherwise indentical information. These rearrangements have resulted in rate changes of key developmental processes which are the real factors that have established creative evolutionary transformations.
It is interesting that, in 1922 at about the same time Bateson denied a Mendelian basis for evolution, Leo Berg published "Nomogenesis" in which he presented at the end the following highly prophetic assertions:
"The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard."
page 406
"Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments."
ibid
I only wish he could have said "was" rather than "is." It should surprise no one that I regard Berg as the greatest evolutionary scholar of all time. His only failure was his inability to recognize that evolution was finished, soon to be recognized by Robert Broom, Julian Huxley and Pierre Grasse and then much later by John A. Davison.
I hope this helps.
IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Fox
Member
Member # 1847
|
posted 06. January 2006 18:54
Professor Davison remarks:
quote:
The short legs of my Dachshund Otto (named for Otto Schindewolf) are manifestations of exactly the same gene that produces the human achondroplastic dwarf and the Ancon sheep, a simple Mendelian dominant.
Right. A single gene is responsible for producing reduced length in various long bones. Surely this confirms my point that there is no "blueprint" in the genome, and it is a misleading term.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 06. January 2006 22:16
Of course there is no "blueprint" in the genome. Alan Fox has so decreed. Write that down folks.
IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Fox
Member
Member # 1847
|
posted 07. January 2006 06:08
John
I contend that information encoded in the genome, for instance, in the human embryo, contains no information that is in any way analogous to a "blueprint". Use of this word leads to the same sort of anthropomorphic misconception that sometimes arises when discussing eye/brain function and image interpretation.
Of course the result of normal development of the human embryo in the womb and subsequently is a human being, but the morphology arises implicitly.
From your comment
quote:
Of course there is no "blueprint" in the genome.
should I deduce that you agree? If the remark was ironic, perhaps you could explain where I am in error.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 07. January 2006 06:32
No comment for reasons I have aready explained.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic