The Apostle Paul declared:
"Test or Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (1 Thess. 5:21).
Following that advice, I post the next considerations:
The Anti-Evolutionary Mechanism of Sexual Reproduction
Research guidelines provided by John A. Davison
On reading the writings of John A. Davison I have learned that the role of sexual reproduction is to prevent evolution. I have learned also that the origin of reproduction among living organisms "took place independently," and that it was "an independent occurrence..."
John A. Davison declares:
There is a "discrete nature and stability of the vast majority of all species, both recent and fossil." They can not evolve, "they were produced by instantaneous all-or-none devices ( [i.e.,] chromosome restructurings [, etc.]) which, by definition, can have no intermediate states."
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000520.html
http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/dpaper.html
"I accept the physiological definition of species. Two forms that can produce a viable hybrid will be considered separate species if that hybrid proves to be sterile."
"Selection can produce substantial changes in the expression of the genetic potential," "in nature, sexual reproduction seems incapable of proceeding beyond the subspecies. I am unaware of a single instance of the production of a new species through the known agency of sexual reproduction."
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000481#000000
"Sexual reproduction [is] a highly conservative device... a virtual standstill... a function which serves to prevent rather than promote progressive change."
"The capacity of the sexual reproductive mode [is] to fine-tune the genetic makeup."
http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/evolution.html
"Sexual reproduction has one great advantage in its capacity to produce virtually unlimited variation within a narrow range. The sexual mode then could be very useful in adapting the organism to minor environmental changes."
"Sexual reproduction is incapable of producing progressive evolutionary change."
http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/dpaper.html
"Sexual reproduction tends to prevent rather than promote chromosome restructuring."
This provides a reasonable explanation for the stability of fossil species as Julian Huxley, the author of "Evolution: the modern synthesis" (1942) had concluded. J. Huxley understandably neglected to indicate the source of that view which had resulted from correspondence he had carried on with Robert Broom [Huxley, J. (1942) Evolution: The Modern Synthesis. Harper, New York and London.]
"Huxley got this idea from Robert Broom as a result of a private correspondence between them. Huxley�s conviction that evolution is no longer going on has been completely ignored by the neoDarwinians."
JA Davison discovered that Broom and Huxley had corresponded on this matter as early as 1933 as revealed by the following: [Broom declares,] "In a letter I had from Professor Julian Huxley only a few months ago he says, "I have often thought about your idea of the fading out of evolutionary potency, and though I cannot pretend to agree with some of the philosophical corollaries which you draw from it, I more and more believe that it is of great importance as a fact." Huxley shared those Broom's scientific conclusions [Broom, R. (1933) Evolution -- Is there intelligence behind it? South African Journal of Science, 30: 1-19. See there page 14]
["The comparative analysis of scientific heritage of Richard Goldschmidt and Julian Huxley shows convincingly the resemblance of these two scientists' views... Both scientists belonged to initiators of development genetics... the concept of preadaptive mutations proposed by Huxley was close to Goldschmidt's idea of macromutants... They developed the larger biological problems in a similar way... Evo-Devo rediscovered Goldshmidt's Biology and Huxley's Synthesis": http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14723173]
"Leo Berg insisted that chance played no role in either ontogeny or phylogeny" [Berg, L. (1969) Nomogenesis; or, Evolution Determined by Law. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge. (Original Russian edition 1922.)]
["Berg has foreseen the development of molecular biology. Thus he was the foreteller of our branch of science. The theory of nomogenesis emphasized the limitations of natural selection"... Even the most conscientious critics of Berg have misrepresented the real sense of his works... [reader please,] separate "the grains from weeds": http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3309616]
"A sufficient factual body now exists to warrant serious consideration to the proposal that there has been, as Robert Broom had suggested, a teleological origin (plan) for biological information" and its expression.
http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/davison-manifesto.html
"Needless to say, the realization of this prospectus will have a profound effect on the way in which man regards his position in the universe."
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000520.html
"The Darwinians might simply say that the sexual model could also produce chromosome and gene homozygosity through the inbreeding associated with small or insular populations. It is precisely here that their hypothesis fails. For example, the biota of the Galapagos Islands closely resembles that of neighboring Ecuador. Darwin's celebrated finches have all been placed in the genus (or subgenus) Geospiza. Since they are all extremely similar, it is not surprising to learn that they produce spontaneous fertile and genetically fit hybrids" [Grant PR, Grant BR. Genetics and the origin of bird species. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Jul 22;94(15):7768-75: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9223262].
"In addition to size, great variations in [canine] coat quality, color and temperament have been produced. All of these differences are due to the action of Mendelian genes segregating and recombining in sexual reproduction, with the result that dogs are still able to hybridize freely with wolves. The hybrids are of course fertile which is to say that they are not really species hybrids at all."
[Some Indexed References:
"A male coyote hybridized with a female dog, and female hybrid offspring successfully integrated into the coyote population..." "The introgression of domestic dog genes into the southeastern coyote population does not appear to have substantially affected the coyote's genetic, morphological, or behavioural integrity. However, our results suggest that, contrary to previous reports, hybridization can occur between domestic and wild canids, even when the latter is relatively abundant."
Adams JR, Leonard JA, Waits LP. Widespread occurrence of a domestic dog mitochondrial DNA haplotype in southeastern US coyotes. Mol Ecol. 2003 Feb;12(2):541-6.
"The red wolf (Canis rufus), native to much of the southeastern United States, is endangered by man's activities and by hybridization with other species of the genus Canis."
Ferrell RE, Morizot DC, Horn J, Carley CJ. Biochemical markers in a species endangered by introgression: the red wolf. Biochem Genet. 1980 Feb;18(1-2):39-49.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6930264
"The principal threat to the persistence of the endangered red wolf (Canis rufus) in the wild is hybridization with the coyote (Canis latrans)."
Miller CR, Adams JR, Waits LP. Pedigree-based assignment tests for reversing coyote (Canis latrans) introgression into the wild red wolf (Canis rufus) population. Mol Ecol. 2003 Dec;12(12):3287-301.
"Chinese and Japanese� managed to duplicate the anal fin thereby converting the fish (the goldfish) from a quadruped to a hexapod and even duplicated the tail, a condition which does not exist in the natural world. They also removed the dorsal fin seriously impairing the animal's capacity to swim properly. None of this has produced any semblance of speciation and the animals are still Asiatic carp (Carassius auratus)."
"Some remarkably odd (goldfish) creatures those with telescopic eyes, some of which even look upward as in the variety "celestial.""
[Websites: http://www.bristol-aquarists.org.uk/goldfish/celest/celest.htm (pictures), http://www.elgoldfish.com/articulos/graham2.html (figures, in Spanish); Ohkuma M, Matsumura M. Retinal degeneration of the celestial goldfish (author's transl). Nippon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi. 1980;84(5):350-3; Sakaue H, Negi A, Matsumura M, Ohkuma M, Honda Y. The developmental changes of ERGs on spontaneous retinal degeneration of Celestial goldfish. Doc Ophthalmol. 1988 Sep;70(1):97-101: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3229298; " Certain strains of goldfish are characterized by large bulging eyes which have been shown to be extremely myopic� The fact that similar findings are reported in the case of experimental myopia in chicks, suggests the existence of a fundamental mechanism of refractive development for the vertebrate eye." Seltner RL, Weerheim JA, Sivak JG. Role of the lens and vitreous humor in the refractive properties of the eyes of three strains of goldfish. Vision Res. 1989;29(6):681-5: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2626825]
"Thus, by a physiological criterion they are one species and, as with dogs and goldfish, no significant evolution has really taken place. They too reproduce sexually."
"The standard Darwinian response is that evolution takes too long to be observable, an assumption which renders that proposal untestable."
http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/dpaper.html
"The [evolutionarily conceived] horse series shows an increase in size coupled with a decrease in digits. However, this series is not linear so the intermediate organisms cannot be arranged in any certain fashion. Furthermore, they differ from one another in so many independent factors that they must be relegated to separate genera. What we actually observe is the appearance of discrete phenotypes with no evidence of what might be described as missing links. This is exactly what one sees when one observes extant related organisms."
"There are limits to the developments possible, and these limits follow a law (the Law of the Reversion to the Average)." "I know from my experience that I can develop a plum half an inch long or one two and a half inches long, with every possible length in between, but I am willing to admit that it is hopeless to try to get a plum the size of a pea, or one as big as a grapefruit" [Burbank, L. (1939) Partner of Nature. D. Appleton-Century Co., New York; Burbank, L., 1931 The Harvest Of The Years. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, New York.]
"The ratio of five to one in the lengths of his plums corresponds to a mass ratio of 125 to 1 (five cubed), which agrees favorably with what man has been able to achieve with dogs (Great Danes versus some of the miniature breeds) or, for example, with the size of the fruits of tomato varieties. Burbank admits the futility of exceeding the limits he indicates and the prospect of speciation apparently never crosses his mind."
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Davison_IsEvolutionFinished_022204.pdf
["During the first half of the twentieth century, the horticulturist Luther Burbank was largely considered an irrelevant figure by the scientific community, despite winning acclaim from the public as an eminent scientist... Burbank stories directly engaged the question of who should legitimately count as a student of nature� the possibility of a philosophy of nature based on the concept of "living matter," as opposed to one grounded on mechanistic principles� his convictions regarding the power of the environment to release latent characteristics in physiological material�" Pandora K. Knowledge held in common. Tales of Luther Burbank and science in the American vernacular. Isis. 2001 Sep;92(3):484-516: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11810893]
"Mendelism is of course the genetics associated with sexual reproduction... Luther Burbank and William Bateson each independently questioned the capacity of sexual reproduction to support evolutionary change... These were not mere coincidences but reasoned conclusions reached after a careful consideration of all the facts which were then available. None of this can be accommodated within the Darwinian model. We owe these men a great debt... i.e. sexual forms are incapable of progressive change. The obvious inference is that sexual reproduction is the "Blind Alley" of evolution." "Note Bateson's use of the expression blind alley." "Bateson had the insight to recognize and the courage to admit." "Just as William Bateson indicated even before 1900, I too find it amazing how long the Darwinian view has prevailed in the face of an enormous and continually growing body of information with which it cannot possibly be reconciled."
http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/dpaper.html
["The legacy of Mendel's pioneering studies of hybridization in the pea continues to influence the way we understand modern genetics... With genetics standing at the center of our present biomedical and biotechnological research, an examination of the history of our concepts in the field can help us better understand what we should and should not expect from current genetic claims. For that enterprise there is no better starting place than Mendel himself." Allen GE. Mendel and modern genetics: the legacy for today. Endeavour. 2003 Jun;27(2):63-8: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12798810 ,
To study the classic paper of Mendel, go to:
http://www.mendelweb.org/Mendel.html (Mendel, Gregor. 1865. Experiments in plant hybridization.)
To study the classic works of Mendel, Bateson, Morgan, including the excellent book of Sturtevant, Alfred H. 1965. A History of Genetics: http://www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/browse/author-s-lst.html
"Mendel's laws in the context of discussing human inheritance and the transmission of pathologies was pervading the medical literature from the 1920s onwards... In contrast to reluctant botanists and zoologists, the elite of the French medical profession was often 'Mendelian'... the 'Mendelization' of human pathologies after the war... facilitated the rise of medical genetics as a speciality focusing on genetic counselling and on the management of computable hereditary risks." Gaudilliere JP. Mendelism and medicine: controlling human inheritance in local contexts, 1920-1960. C R Acad Sci III. 2000 Dec;323(12):1117-26: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11147098 , "Mendelian genetics gave birth to a revolution in plant and animal breeding which produced the spectacular 20th century agricultural progress and made it possible to feed the exploding population of the Earth... Plant and animal breeding continued to depend mainly on the old 19th century techniques, hybridization, mass selection and individual selection. But they were combined and used in much more efficient ways than before. New theoretical knowledge, general theories as well as particular knowledge about species, strains and individuals, radically improved the planning and execution of breeding work." Roll-Hansen N. Theory and practice: the impact of Mendelism on agriculture. C R Acad Sci III. 2000 Dec;323(12):1107-16: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11147097]
["William Bateson coined the term genetics and, more than anybody else, championed the principles of heredity discovered by Gregor Mendel. Nevertheless, his reputation is soured by the positions he took about the discontinuities in inheritance... Chromosomes are the sites of genes but genes move between chromosomes much more readily than had been previously believed and chromosomes are not causal in individual development." J Genet. 2002 Aug;81(2):49-58. William Bateson: a biologist ahead of his time. Bateson P.: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12532036 , "Bateson turned to botanists, zoologists, and physiologists associated with Newnham College, Cambridge, for critical assistance in advancing his research program at a time when Mendelism was not yet recognized as a legitimate field of study. Cambridge women carried out a series of breeding experiments in a number of plant and animal species between 1902 and 1910, the results of which provided crucial evidence that both supported and extended Mendel's laws of heredity� women in science in the early twentieth century was a factor--along with scientific, institutional, social, and political developments--in establishing the new discipline of genetics." Richmond ML. Women in the early history of genetics. William Bateson and the Newnham College Mendelians, 1900-1910. Isis. 2001 Mar;92(1):55-90: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11441497 , "The second century of poultry genetics, coming 100 years after the use of the chicken to demonstrate Mendelian inheritance in animals by William Bateson." Cytogenet Genome Res. 2003;102(1-4):291-6. Chicken genome sequence: a centennial gift to poultry genetics. Dodgson JB.: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14970719 , "William Bateson's plenary address to the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Toronto in 1921 was titled "Evolutionary Faith and Modern Doubts." In it he expressed his deep-seated skepticism about the causes of evolution (and in particular, his dissatisfaction with Darwinian natural selection)... The address led to controversy at both the scientific and popular levels. Scientific criticism centered on Bateson's rejection of natural selection; popular controversy, as evidenced by contemporary newspaper clippings, was very widespread..." J Hered. 1989 Mar-Apr;80(2):96-9. Bateson's two Toronto addresses, 1921: 2. Evolutionary faith. Cock AG.: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2647826 , "Although both were controversial, the text of the second, "The Outlook of Genetics," was never published. I present a transcript of a partial text and notes of this address in which Bateson explains, for the first time in public, a recent change in his views on the chromosome theory of heredity which resulted from a week spent with T. H. Morgan's group in New York en route to Toronto. He now accepts "the main essentials" but withholds assent from what he calls "the many extensions" of chromosome theory (such as linkage theory). He devotes considerably more space to discussing what he sees as difficulties precluding an unqualified acceptance of chromosome theory in its entirety. All in all, his tone is defiant rather than penitent." J Hered. 1989 Mar-Apr;80(2):91-5. Bateson's two Toronto addresses, 1921: 1. Chromosomal skepticism. Cock AG.: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2647825 , "Cyril Dean Darlington (1903-1981) has been forgotten by historians, but was in his day, the leading cytologist of the premolecular era. Of humble and inconspicuous beginnings, Darlington started his career as an unpaid volunteer worker under the aging William Bateson. Working in almost total isolation and with no scientific guidance, he boldly deduced the laws of chromosome behaviour, making cytology relevant once again." Endeavour. 2003 Jun;27(2):69-74. Darlington and the 'invention' of the chromosome. Harman O.: , Ann Sci. 1983 Jan;40:19-59. William Bateson's rejection and eventual acceptance of chromosome theory. Cock AG.; Br J Hist Sci. 1987 Oct;20(67):399-420. William Bateson's introduction of Mendelism to England: a reassessment. Olby R.]
"Subspecies are actually, therefore, neither incipient species nor models for the origin of species. They are more or less diversified blind alleys within the species" [In 1940 (two years before Huxley's "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis") Goldschmidt published The Material Basis of Evolution, based on the Silliman lectures he had delivered at Yale University] (Goldschmidt, R. B., 1940 The Material Basis Of Evolution. p. 249. Yale University Press, New Haven.)
[http://evolution-facts.org/a15.htm]
"The male-determining (Y) chromosomes lack, both quantitatively and qualitatively, the semblance one would expect had the four genera [man, chimpanzee, gorilla and orangutan] evolved through sexual reproduction. Other differences include alterations in chromosome ends or telomeres as well as variations in the position of nucleolar organizers..." [Davison on doing a critical review of: Yunis JJ, Prakash O. The origin of man: a chromosomal pictorial legacy. Science. 1982 Mar 19;215(4539):1525-30: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7063861]
http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/davison-manifesto.htm
"It has yet to be demonstrated that any creature reproducing by obligatory sexual means is capable of evolution beyond the generic level. Since 1984 no response to that challenge has been forthcoming and so I repeat the proposition. I hope the present paper will serve to stimulate a lively response from the community of evolutionists."
http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/evolution.html
"It has yet to be demonstrated that any diploid organism, reproducing by obligatory sexual means, is capable of exceeding the subspecies level..." "I place the burden of proof on the Darwinians by challenging them to present karyotypic, genetic, taxonomic, fossil, or any other kind of evidence indicating that true species, genera, families, or any of the higher taxonomic categories have ever been produced or can now be produced through the agency of sexual reproduction. I, in general agreement with [Michael J.D.] White, can find nothing in support of that proposition." "White is saying that... speciation has not been produced sexually." [Davison on commenting, White, M.J.D. (1973) Animal Cytology and Evolution. Comstock Publ. Co., Ithaca, New York; and Davison, JA (1984) J. Theor.Biol. 111: 725-735.]
http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/davison-manifesto.html
[May 27, 2004. The Scientist (http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040527/01): Chimps are not like humans. Whole-chromosome comparison reveals much greater genetic differences than expected, By Cathy Holding. The vigorous debate on how different chimpanzees are from humans is fuelled by new data in this week's Nature, as the International Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium reports that 83% of chimpanzee proteins are different from their human counterparts. The difference is "much more complicated that we initially imagined or speculated," Yoshiyuki Sakaki, who headed the consortium, told The Scientist.Sakaki said their analysis found about 68,000 insertions or deletions. "That is almost one insertion/deletion every 470 bases," he said. Early molecular comparisons between humans and chimpanzees suggested that the species are very similar to each other at the nucleotide sequence level-a difference of between 1.23% and 5%, Sakaki said. The results reported this week showed that "83% of the genes have changed between the human and the chimpanzee-only 17% are identical-so that means that the impression that comes from the 1.2% [sequence] difference is [misleading]. In the case of protein structures, it has a big effect," Sakaki said."They found a lot of length differences rather than single-base changes, and the fact that those seem to occur in coding sequences more than expected was one of the surprising findings of the paper," said Matthew Webster, from the Evolutionary Biology Centre at Uppsala University, Sweden. "[The authors] also found that there were more changes than you might expect in length within coding sequences which don't interrupt the function."Webster said that by incorporating gene expression data with comparisons of the human and chimpanzee genes, the authors had provided an approach that would be important in the future, particularly when the chimpanzee genome was finished. Original Article: International Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium, "DNA sequence and comparative analysis of chimpanzee chromosome 22," Nature, 429:382-388, May 27, 2004. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15164055
Related topic: Bailey JA, Yavor AM, Viggiano L, Misceo D, Horvath JE, Archidiacono N, Schwartz S, Rocchi M, Eichler EE. Human-specific duplication and mosaic transcripts: the recent paralogous structure of chromosome 22. Am J Hum Genet. 2002 Jan;70(1):83-100. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11731936
Matthew Webster: http://www.egs.uu.se/evbiol/Persons/Matt.html , "...our perceived sequence divergence of only 1% between these two species appears to be erroneous, because this work... puts both species much further apart," concluded Tatsuya Anzai et al. They used comparative genomics to reveal a total of 64 insertion/deletions (indels) >100 bp long in the human sequence (mismatches were represented by 9% substitutions and by over 90% indels) in the entire MHC region. The major histocompatibility locus (MHC) contains some 224 genes and is one of the most gene-dense regions of the human genome. Holding C: Driving man and chimp apart. Indels, not single base substitutions, in the MHC region account for differential immune responses. Genome Biology. June 26, 2003. Source:
http://genomebiology.com/researchnews/default.asp?arx_id=gb-spotlight-20030626-01 , Anzai T et al. Comparative sequencing of human and chimpanzee MHC class I regions unveils insertions/deletions as the major path to genomic divergence. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Jun 24;100(13):7708-13. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12799463]
"Sexual reproduction is not well suited to the elimination of genetic defects. Nearly all point mutations are deleterious if not lethal; in the sexual mode, they tend to accumulate. Particularly vulnerable are animals that reproduce infrequently." JA Davison
http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/dpaper.html
"All of the necessary genetic information for both sexes is contained in the female genome." JA Davison
"The capacity of the female genome to produce both sexes is not limited to the vertebrates since it is also demonstrable in the social insects, water fleas (Cladocera) and rotifers just to mention a few of many invertebrate examples. The same capacity is obvious in all monoecious (hermaphroditic) organisms, examples of which occur throughout both the animal and plant kingdoms."
"I agree with Michael J.D. White... there is no compelling evidence that point (base pair) mutations have ever played a role in evolution beyond the production of varieties or subspecies. Quite the contrary, all expermental attempts with selection for such mutations has met with not only failure but with a decrease in general fitness... The time is long past due to consider some alternatives to the Darwinian model" [Posted by nosivad (Member # 767) on 14. April 2004, 07:34]
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000488-p-5.html
"Like differentiation, ecological succession and growth, phylogeny has been, in my opinion, a self-limiting process in which sexual reproduction has served to terminate and stabilize the creative sequence. This view demands only the original actions of an incomprehensibly intelligent creator" [Posted by nosivad (Member # 767) on 20. April 2004, 08:01]
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000488-p-6.html
"Why might some insist that evolution is still in progress? I propose it is in large part due to the acceptance of authority. For centuries, Aristotelian physics was accepted because it made intuitive sense that the heavier an object was, the faster it would fall... Darwin and Wallace unhesitatingly accepted the authority of Lyell and his doctrine of Uniformitarianism." JA Davison
"How, or how many times, life has originated?" a question raised by JA Davison.
//////////////
Is sexual reproduction incapable of supporting evolutionary change?
YES! It is incapable.
The Russian cytologist N.N. Vorontsov was one of the first to call attention to the independence in sex determination: i.e., "an independent occurrence of the XX-XY system in Melandrium as well as in many Insects and Mammals, whereas the ZW-ZZ system evolved independently in Trichoptera, Lepidoptera, Serpentes and Aves. Against the background of these facts it is unclear whether the male species of different groups are homologous to each other or not; they appear to be nonhomologous."
[Vorontsov, N. N., 1973 The Evolution Of The Sex Chromosomes. In: Cytotaxonomy and Vertebrate Evolution, edit. A. B. Chiarelli and E. Capanna. p. 646. Academic Press, New York.. See page 646]
http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/evolution.html
Notice specially Vorontsov's indication:
"Males seem to be nonhomologous, a conclusion that would, by definition, demand that they were independently produced and accordingly could not be involved in a macroevolutionary continuum."
http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/davison-manifesto.htm
Vorontsov says:
"Just as the transition from isogamy to anisogamy and to oogamy took place independently of each other in the various phyla of plants so the formation of mechanisms of the cytogenetical sex determination with differentiated heterochromosomes follows the same pattern in various kingdoms and phyla and results in an independent occurrence of the XX-XY system" and "the ZW-ZZ system."
http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/evolution.html
["Hairless mutants are known in Peromyscus, Mus musculus, Rattus rattus, R. norvegicus, Canis familiaris, Ovis aries. Hairlessness as norm is found in 53 among contemporaneous 1037 mammalian genera... Part of these cases (hairlessness in all Cetacea and Sirenia) may be explained in terms of... macromutations... [and also] in the bat Cheiromeles and the rodent Heterocephalus (Bathyergidae)... [and in] walrus (Odobenus)... the possibility of fixation of a macromutation in nature as a species and genus character contradicts strongly the concept of obligatory gradualism of evolution." Genetika. 1988 Jun;24(6):1081-8. Macromutation and evolution: the fixation of Goldschmidt's macromutations as species and genus traits. Hairlessness mutations in mammals. Vorontsov NN: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3049233 , "Mechanisms of the fixation of Goldschmidt's "systemic mutations" during phylogeny are discussed." Genetika. 2003 Apr;39(4):519-24. Macromutations and evolution: fixation of Goldschmidt's macromutations as species and genus characters. Papillomatosis and appearance of macrovilli in the rodent stomach. Vorontsov NN: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12760252]
In addition to the devices mentioned by Vorontsov, other independent mechanisms include, "In the social insects, the female is diploid, the male haploid, a situation that also occurs in certain rotifers. In addition to these chromosomal mechanisms, the temperature during sensitive embryonic stages can serve to determine the sex as in some turtles and crocodilians. Sex reversal is common in certain animals as well as other forms of sex determination such as the age of the eggs when fertilized. This huge and varied literature has been reviewed by Bull [Bull, J.J. (1983) Evolution of Sex Determining Mechanisms. Benjamin Cummings, Menlo Park.] This is hardly the sort of situation one would anticipate if sexual reproduction were a requirement for evolutionary change."
["Because of their discrete and well-defined nature, sex determining mechanisms lend themselves to three types of evolutionary questions: what variety occurs and might be expected but does not occur, how do changes occur from one mechanism to another?, and why do certain changes occur?" Bull JJ. Sex determining mechanisms: an evolutionary perspective. Experientia Suppl. 1987;55:93-115. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2961606]
"Any theory of evolution must recognize and incorporate nonhomology when that becomes evident. It is to the credit of Vorontsov that he did so when describing the various sex determining systems which have evolved. They have indeed evolved independently and accordingly are by definition nonhomologous. Another example of nonhomology which correlates beautifully with the various sex determining devices which have evolved is demonstrated by the origins of the germ cells in contemporary vertebrates."
http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/dpaper.html
"Not only are the cytological mechanisms of sex determination often nonhomologous but the expression of the sexual phenotype may also be nonhomologous. For example, both Drosophila and all mammals have a heteromorphic (different form) XY male - XX female system. However, sexual differentiation is mediated at the local cellular level in Drosophila but by means of hormones in all mammals. It is obvious that the two systems are in no sense related but independent."
"One of the hitherto most baffling features of vertebrate ontogeny is offered by the origin of those cells (oogonia and spermatogonia) destined to become the eggs and sperm."
"I regard this conclusion as inescapable."
http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/davison-manifesto.htm
"All known mammals have male heterogamety with the familiar XY male and XX female. By contrast, all birds are the opposite with ZW females and ZZ males." And a similar dichotomy "within the amphibia with most urodeles (newts and salamanders) like birds and all anurans (frogs and toads) except Xenopus like mammals. In reptiles examples of both kinds occur as well as temperature determination of sex in certain turtles and crocodilians."
"Among the arthropods similar differences prevail. Diptera generally have heterogametic males while Lepidoptera are like birds and urodeles with heterogametic females. In the social insects a haplo-diplo (male-female) system operates. In certain parasitic forms even the size of the host can determine the sex of the parasite. The literature is well reviewed in Bull's (Bull 1983, see above) book significantly titled "Evolution of Sex Determining Mechanisms".
"The vertebrate gonad develops from portions of the urogenital ridge, a bipartite structure consisting of an outer cortex and inner medulla. The gonadal cortex develops into the ovary, the medulla into the testis. Oddly the vertebrate gonad is a sterile organ completely incapable of functioning as a germinal epithelium. During embryonic development the gonad receives, by a process of invasion, presumptive germ cells from extra-gonadal sources. Gonads failing to receive these cells remain sterile, while those receiving presumptive germ cells differentiate with the sex of the host organ not that of the donor cells. Thus the gonad proper is clearly a part of what Weismann called the somatoplasm."
"The important point to make here is that the sources as well as the means of induction and modes of reaching the gonad vary in nonhomologous fashion from vertebrate group to group in a manner which remarkably parallels the equally nonhomologous modes of sex determination."
"In mammals, including man, the presumptive germ cells are first seen in the region of the allantois corresponding roughly to the position of the urinary bladder in the adult. From here they migrate anteriorly and laterally to enter the embryonic gonad. In birds the future germ cells originate outside the embryonic axis in the extra-embryonic endoderm consisting of the so-called germinal crescent anterior and lateral to the head. From here they enter the vitelline circulation and after a period in the circulatory system invade the gonad after first passing through the walls of the venous circulation. Reptiles as one might expect show a similarity with variations on the bird mechanism. It is in the amphibia that the most dramatic differences are manifest in the origin of the germ cells. From their monograph Nieuwkoop and Sutasurya write (see below):
http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/evolution.html
"When comparing PGC formation in the urodeles with that in the anurans, one is unavoidably led to the conclusion that not only do the PGCs originate from two different sites in the two groups, but that there are moreover two fundamentally different mechanisms at work ... In the anurans all the PGCs originate from the endodermal moiety of the egg in the vicinity of the vegetal pole, whereas in the urodeles they arise from the animal 'ectodermal' moiety, more particularly the presumptive lateral plate mesoderm in the ventral to ventro-lateral equatorial region. In the anurans all the descriptive and experimental evidence pleads in favor of the predetermined nature of the PGCs, based on the presence of a germ-cell-specific sytoplasmic component, the germinal plasm, which is present in the embryo from the very beginning of development. In constrast, in the urodeles the PGCs develop strictly epigenetically from common, totipotent cells of the animal moiety under the inductive influence of the ventral yolk endoderm" [Nieuwkoop, P.D. & Sutasurya, L.A. (1979) Primordial Germ Cells in the Chordates. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.]
http://www.degeneratie.nl/artikelen/geslachtsbepaling.htm
["Markedly different mode of mesoderm formation in anuran and urodelan amphibians (which is related to the early double-layered nature of the anuran blastula wall in contrast to its single-layered nature in the urodeles), but particularly the fundamentally different place and mode of origin of the primordial germ cells in the two groups of amphibians." Nieuwkoop PD, Sutasurya LA. Embryological evidence for a possible polyphyletic origin of the recent amphibians. J Embryol Exp Morphol. 1976 Feb;35(1):159-67: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1083885]
"Note the clear correlations between nonhomologous modes of sex determination and equally nonhomologous methods and sources for germ cell formation. As I have indicated elsewhere any theory of evolution must include in its postulates these fundamental differences (Davison 1984, see above). As well as I can determine the neo-Lamarckians, the neo-Darwinians, and the Creationists all fail even to acknowledge the existence of this experimental and descriptive literature, not to mention its significance for their particular views. In that respect the Creationists are missing an opportunity for their case since nonhomology means separate origin, which prima facie might be interpreted to mean special creation."
http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/evolution.html
"First, since the definitive sex cells of the various vertebrate groups cannot be homologized, they cannot be considered as ancestral cell lineages. Rather they are secondary or derived lineages correlated in their origins with the equally independent and nonhomologous invention of sexual reproduction."
http://www.degeneratie.nl/_disc2/000003a3.htm
"The actual facts are as follows. In birds the cells destined to become the germ cells first appear in the extra-embryonic endoderm (germinal crescent) anterior to the head of the developing embryo. Incidentally, this region has no homologue in the hatched bird as the extra-embryonic endoderm is, by definition, resorbed as nutrient for the developing chick. From there the presumptive germ cells enter the circulatory system and, after a period of time in the bloodstream, penetrate the walls of the venous circulation and invade the gonad where they differentiate into the definitive gametes. In mammals the presumptive germ cells first appear in the endoderm of the allantois, a structure destined to become the urinary bladder of the adult. From here they migrate in amoeboid fashion anteriorly and laterally to reach the gonad where they complete their differentiation. Thus, there is no way that the reproductive cells of mammals can be homologized with those of birds as they originate from opposite ends of the embryonic axis and reach the gonads by completely different means."
[See also: "To maintain a forebrain or even a neural phenotype, cells must receive stabilizing signals (`stabilization step'). This maintenance function might be provided by prechordal plate mesendoderm and/or anterior head process, both of which emerge from the organizer region during gastrulation... By stage 4� the hypoblast expression is displaced further anteriorly into the forming germinal crescent, which extends bilaterally and caudally... We propose that retinoids have a dual role in patterning the anterior forebrain during development. During early gastrulation, retinoic acid (RA) acts in anterior endodermal cells to modulate the anteroposterior (AP) positional identity of prechordal mesendodermal inductive signals to the overlying neuroectoderm. Later on, at neural pore closure, RA is required for patterning of the mesenchyme of the frontonasal process and the forebrain by modulating signalling molecules involved in craniofacial morphogenesis� RA signalling is involved in patterning anterior endodermal cells� It is well established that the primitive (or extra-embryonic) and definitive (or embryonic) endoderm are required for forebrain development; however, little is known about the molecular mechanisms and signalling pathways involved in this process." Development 130, 2039-2050 (2003) A novel role for retinoids in patterning the avian forebrain during presomite stages. Aida Halilagic, Maija H. Zile and Michèle Studer: http://dev.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/130/10/2039]
"Similarly, the eggs and sperm of the Anura (frogs and toads) arise in an entirely different way than do those of the Urodela (salamanders and newts). Staining methods reveal that in frogs, the cells destined to become the germ cells result from the presence of preformed granules near the vegetal pole of the unfertilized egg, a region destined to become part of the endoderm. From there they move first dorsally and then laterally to enter the embryonic gonads which are mesodermal structures. In salamanders the presumptive germ cells first appear in the mesoderm as a result of the inductive action of the underlying endoderm on the lateral plate mesoderm. From there they migrate medially to invade the embryonic gonads. Thus the germ cells of the Anura and the Urodela do not even arise from the same germ layer! In short, there is not a scintilla of evidence to support the notion of germ cell continuity. The details of these differences have been discussed elsewhere (Davison 1984). Also, the vertebrate gonad is a sterile organ unable to produce germ cells from its own epithelium (Nieuwkoop and Sutasurya 1979). Instead, the testis or ovary receives its complement of eggs or sperm by a process of invasion from extragonadal sources early in development. Since the sources and modes of invasion are not homologous from group to group, the continuity of the germ plasm is a myth."
[My comment (http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/christ.htm): "There is Continuity in the female ovules within the same true species, but not in the male sperms. Specifically there is Continuity in the human female ovules." See for example: "we should seriously look for the mechanism whereby mortality as an acquired character has been transmitted. There is no particular reason to assume that such a mechanism exists among other living things; indeed, we know that for millions of living things, such a mechanism does not exist, for they are truly potentially immortal." "The seed of the woman is the only remnant that has retained the original immortality possessed by our first parents." "Generation after generation, the seed of the woman reiterates itself." A. C. Custance, The Seed of the Woman, 1980, Doorway Publications, Ontario, pp. 210-232, 254-267, Online at custance.org; see also: "The ovum, considered as a living organism (which indeed it is), need never experience death, provided that it is induced to divide and multiply by successive divisions," "the single ovum becomes another ovum one generation later in history and no corpse is left behind as evidence of its death," "the two "daughter" cells in turn divide, if fertilized, and so, the line goes on unbroken and can continue endlessly," "fertilization of the ovum is really only a means for preserving its integrity, until one generation later, it is again released and presented for fertilization. And so it is simply passed on and on, generation after generation, in an unbroken chain of continuous life. The living ovum is the ovum of yesterday" (Custance on reading: Weismann, August, Essays Upon Heredity and Kindred Biological Problems, tr. E. B. Poulton, S. Schonland and A. E. Shipley, Oxford, 1889, 1892, in 2 vols., Vol. 1, p. 26.)."]
"As someone so aptly put it: "Hypotheses have to be reasonable -- facts don't" (Anonymous.)"
http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000857-p-2.html
"Note that these nonhomologies correlate favorably with the nonhomologous devices that serve to determine the sex differences. In order to deal with all this, it is necessary to postulate that contemporary reproductive cell lineages cannot be ancestral�"
["The theory of programmed death [was initially] suggested by August Weismann." ScientificWorldJournal. 2002 Feb 7;2:339-56. Evolutionary theories of aging and longevity. Gavrilov LA, Gavrilova NS: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12806021 , "For various reasons, Weismann's ideas on ageing fell into neglect following his death in 1914, and cytogerontology has only reappeared as a major research area following the demonstration by Hayflick and Moorhead in the early 1960s that diploid human fibroblasts are restricted to a finite number of divisions in vitro. In this review we give a detailed account of Weismann's theory, and we reveal that his ideas were both more extensive in their scope and more pertinent to current research than is generally recognised." Hum Genet. 1982;60(2):101-21. Cytogerontology since 1881: a reappraisal of August Weismann and a review of modern progress. Kirkwood TB, Cremer T: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7042533 , "August Weismann is famous for having argued against the inheritance of acquired characters. However, an analysis of his work indicates that Weismann always held that changes in external conditions, acting during development, were the necessary causes of variation in the hereditary material. For much of his career he held that acquired germ-plasm variation was inherited. An irony, which is in tension with much of the standard twentieth-century history of biology, thus exists - Weismann was not a Weismannian." J Hist Biol. 2001 Winter;34(3):517-55. August Weismann on germ-plasm variation. Winther RG: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11859887 , "August Weismann popularized the notion that metazoans have a potentially immortal germ line separated from a mortal soma" Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992 Oct 15;89(20):9920-3. Asexual metazoans undergo senescence. Martinez DE, Levinton JS: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11607334 , "None of these patterns contradict Weismann's hypothesis, but they do show that many additional principles unrelated to the function of sex are required to fully explain its distribution. Weismann's hypothesis is also consistent with what we know about the mechanics and molecular genetics of recombination, in particular the tendency for chromatids to recombine with a homolog rather than a sister chromatid at meiosis, which is opposite to what they do during mitosis." : Evolution Int J Org Evolution. 2000 Apr;54(2):337-51. Perspective: sex, recombination, and the efficacy of selection--was Weismann right? Burt A: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10937212 , "A. Weismann's theory of germ plasm is of special importance... predicted reduction division, the continuing of germ plasm and the significance of chromosomes in heredity. For the first time it brought a new methodology to the experimental genetics and the idea of interdisciplinary synthesis." Muzrukova EB. A. Weismann's germ-plasma theory: a new methodological approach to the problems of general biology. Zh Obshch Biol. 1997 Nov-Dec;58(6):99-107: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9494429]
Repeating the simple facts again: "There is no way that the reproductive cells of mammals can be homologized with those of birds. Similarly, the eggs and sperm of frogs arise in an entirely different way than do those of salamanders and accordingly cannot be assumed to exhibit homology. In short, there is not a scintilla of evidence to support the notion of the continuity of the germ plasm" [between the different real species.]
These nonhomologies correlate beautifully with the equally nonhomologous devices that determine the sexes. "This remarkable conclusion is of course totally incompatible with the neo-Darwinian concept of the evolutionary process."
Understanding the
The following information is missing because of limitations in the 60000 characters per page