 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Declaration of the Genetics Revolution
(perhaps you can win a prize of $15,000)
Muying Zhou
¡¡
From this assumption we can get such a judgment: The gene is the facilitator that makes the (individual) plants tall (or short). Who can deny this judgment?
"Modern genetics" boasts itself as Mendelian genetics, and regards Mendel as the father of genetics. It should regard Mendel's original idea on the gene as a classic. But the fact is exactly the opposite.
The "modern genetics" is built on genes as its basis. It regards genes as the hereditary material, and "germplasm: the hereditary material of the germ cells: genes¡± [2] is its basic idea. Since germplasm is able to give rise to the individual, so the genes of "modern genetics" should be the producer rather than the facilitator of the individual. For this reason, Morgan said: ¡°So long as a complete set of units (genome) is present, the power to produce a new whole (individual) is potentially given¡± [3]. Professor Shouyuan Zhao, a famous geneticist of China and the chairman of the 18th International Congress of Genetics, also said, "If the smallest genomic DNA is artificially synthesized, life can be constructed by adding other components needed for life activities, such as water, metal ions and organic molecules "[4].
Thus it can be seen that Mendel's original meaning of genes has been already tampered with by "modern genetics".
The mistake of "modern genetics" has been proved. Obviously the "modern genetics" claiming to be Mendelian genetics is precisely anti-Mendelian genetics. Mendel's words about the assumption of genes are the iron evidence of this conclusion.
But one more thing needs to be done, and that is to prove that the Mendel¡¯s original meaning of genes is correct. The fact that genes are located on chromosomes and eventually identified as DNA is well known. But the meaning of genes is only an assumption of Mendel, whether it is true or not needs to be proved by facts. The discovery of genes does not mean that the meaning of genes is determined. Only if the actual function (truth) of genes is consistent with the assumption, Mendel's assumption can be confirmed as an objective fact. Therefore, we should have a further understanding of Mendel's assumption so as to check it correctly using objective facts.
As mentioned above, the gene is the facilitator that makes the (individual) plants tall (or short). Similar facilitators are common in daily life, in the form of templates, drawings, moulds, design schemes, etc. For example, ¡°The aircraft factory contains drawings that make the aircraft large, and also contains drawings that make the aircraft small¡±;¡°The casting factory contains a mould that makes the head of the product arrow-shaped, but also contains a mould that makes the head spherical¡±; and ¡°The decoration company contains design schemes that make my house European or Island style¡±; and so on.
The facilitator is not equal to the producer, but it is the participant of the production. Its function is to provide product specification information and guide the producing operator to produce products in accordance with the specifications controlled by it, so it is an element to control product specifications. That is to say, the producer consists of two elements (producing operator and specification controller). The product is produced by the producing operator following the specifications defined by the specification controller. In the above examples, in the aircraft factory the aircraft production line is its producing operator, and the drawing is its specification controller; in the casting factory casting workers and their equipment tools are its producing operator, and the mould is its specification controller; in the decoration company the decoration workers and their instrument tools are its producing operator, and the design scheme is its specification controller.
Let us now see if the truth of the scientifically discovered gene (DNA) is consistent with Mendel's idea of genes.
In 1944, Avery et al. confirmed that genes are made of DNA and stated: ¡°(deoxyribonucleic acid) DNA is capable of stimulating unencapsulated R variants of Pneumococcus Type II to produce a capsular polysaccharide¡± [5]. This suggested that DNA (genes) is not the producer of capsular polysaccharide (trait), only a stimulator guiding Pneumococcus Type RII (as a producing operator) to produce a capsular polysaccharide. Namely, the gene controls the product specification limiting the product to be a capsular polysaccharide.
Today's science (biochemistry or molecular biology) tells us more truth: 1) Any individual, no matter whether animal or plant, is a normal, predetermined and natural automatic result of a certain egg¡¯s transcriptase-system (including transcriptase and a set of transcription factors) performing transcription of DNA (a genome). 2) In the process of transcription, DNA (genome) consumes no energy, does no work. It is only the template guiding transcriptase to produce products (first of all RNA) in accordance with the specifications controlled by it. 3) The genome controls the specifications of all products of an individual. Because DNA controls the specification of RNA, RNA controls the specification of proteins, and proteins control the specifications of other organic substances including lipid and carbohydrate etc. 4) All cells of an individual are descendants of its first cell (fertilized egg), and all products of an individual are products of its cells; so all the products and their specifications of an organism's lifetime are ultimately determined by the transcription of its first cell (fertilized egg).
All the scientific truths (including those provided by the Avery team) show that genes (DNA) are the template for individuals (including traits). Its (the template) function is to provide individuals (including traits) specification information and guide the producing operator to produce individuals (including traits) in accordance with the specifications controlled by it, so it is an element to control individuals (including traits) specifications. These truths finally confirmed that genes (DNA) in the world are truly as defined by Mendel, and there is no evidence of the existence of the so-called genes (DNA) of "modern genetics" as the hereditary material or the producers of the individuals.
Now, Mendel's genes assumption could finally see the sunshine once more, and so-called "modern genetics" as a theory of genetics should be sent to the historic garbage dump.
This Declaration would be reviewed worldwide as a paper. So I promise: anyone in the world (only the first person) who can refute this declaration and let "modern genetics" continue to stand up can ask me for RMB 100,000 Yuan (See <Offering a reward of 15,000 US dollars for solving scientific problems>, Link http://www.science-china.com/ ). However, to be honest, I am not worried about losing the $15,000. Because the two pieces of evidence I provide are impossible to be overthrown, and they are necessary and sufficient evidence for the collapse of "modern genetics." The first evidence is the original meaning of Mendel's assumption on genes; The second evidence is that DNA is the template of the individual (including traits) consuming no energy, doing no work in the process of producing the individual (including traits). Whether you are an academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, a famous professor in Tsinghua or Peking University, a doctor, a dean or even a Nobel Prize winner, I do not believe that you can deny the two evidences I have provided. This is called the truth is better than eloquent, and there is reason to go all over the world. However, in order to debate fairly and openly and avoid both the prosecution and the defense respectively declaring own-self winner, I advocate that if the debate is to be held, it should be presided over by the State Council and the Ministry of Science and Technology as the "judge". The Institute of Heredity of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Chinese Society of Genetics are one side, and I am the other. Who is the prosecution or the defense could be optional. The language used in the debate is Chinese. If I am the prosecution, I will file two charges against the defense: 1) tampered with the original meaning of the gene set by Mendel; 2) ignoring the scientific truth, regarding DNA (genes) as the producer of the individual (including traits). If the other side is the prosecution, they will also file two charges against me: 1) The original meaning of the gene set by Mendel that I provide is false; 2) The scientific truth I mentioned (DNA is the template of the individual consuming no energy, doing no work in the process of producing individual) is also false. The debate should, in the light of the "court" trial, establish jurors which should include biochemists, molecular biologists, linguisticians (including English, Chinese), logicians and legal experts. The cost of the entire debate will be paid by the government first. If I lose the case, I will accept it as my debt and will be responsible for the full payment for life.
The final results will be released to the media at the end of the debate.
References:
[1] Morgan, T.H. (1928) The Theory of the Gene. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp2.
[2] Germplasm (20 Nov. 2018 cited from Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Encyclopaedia Britannica) www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/germ
[3] Morgan, T.H. (1928) The Theory of the Gene. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp28.
[4] ÕÔÊÙÔª.£¨2001£©×îС»ùÒò×éÑо¿½øÕ¹£¬ÉúÃü¿Æѧ£¬13£¬£¨1£©£º23-27.
[Or Zhao Shouyuan. (2001) Progress in Minimal Genome Research, Life Sciences, 13£¬£¨1£©£º23-27.(original in Chinese)
[5] Avery OT, MacLeod CM, and McCarty M. (1944) Studies on the chemical nature of the substance inducing transformation of Pneumococcal types. Journal Experiment Medicine 79, 152. https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.79.2.137
[On http://www.science-china.com you can get more information about this item, including such papers£º
[6] Zhou, M.Y. (2019). "Modern genetics" is wrong, where is the error, and how was the error formed? Unpublished.
[7] Zhou, M.Y. (2018) Do You Realize Two Basic Questions in Genetics? Open Access Library Journal, 5, e4396. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1104396
[8] Zhou, M.Y. (2018) The Answer to the ¡°First Question¡± in Genetics: The Hereditary Material. Open Access Library Journal, 5: e4645. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1104645
[9] Zhou, M.Y. (2018) Mendel Actually Wants to Say: Genes Are Only One Element of the Hereditary Material. Open Access Library Journal£¬5: e4941. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1104941
