 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
¡¡
"Modern genetics" is wrong, where is the error, and how was the error formed?
Muying Zhou
The Central Hospital of Shandong Feicheng Coal-mining Group Corporation, Feicheng, China
Abstract
Because DNA has no the ability to synthesize macromolecules, it is not true that the Venter team created "synthetic life". This led to the crisis of ¡°modern genetics¡±: its cornerstone ¡°genes are the hereditary material¡± is false. So we have to check the meaning of the gene assumed by Mendel and found that it originally refers to a mould-like element controlling individual specifications. Therefore, it can be confirmed that "modern genetics" is wrong. The paper then traces and analyses the causes of the error. It is found that the lack of awareness of the two basic questions of genetics is the root cause of people's mistakes. It led the founders of "Modern Genetics" to wrongly attribute Mendel's merits to "the discovery of two of the fundamental laws of heredity on which the modern theory of heredity is based". In this way, without any evidence and just out of their own ignorance, people swapped a mould-like element controlling offspring's specifications for the hereditary material, meanwhile swapped the gene's rules of heredity for the fundamental laws in genetics.
Keywords genetics; hereditary material; genes; template; producer
¡¡
1. Introduction
Contradictory judgments come from two scientists have exposed the crisis of "modern genetics".
1) In 2010 J.C. Venter et al. reported that they had created a man-made genome and had used it to make ¡°synthetic life¡± [1]. That is to say: the genes (genome) are the producer of an individual (cell), which is consistent with the ¡°modern genetics¡± consensus: ¡°germplasm: the hereditary material of the germ cells: genes¡± [2].
2) However, Dr. Gerald Joyce, an internationally renowned life scientist at the Scripps Institute in California, said in the New York Times: ¡°Dr. Venter copied the DNA from one species of bacteria
and inserted it into another. The second bacteria made all the proteins and organelles in the so-called ¡®synthetic cell¡¯ by following the specifications implicit in the structure of the inserted DNA¡± [3]. That is to say: the genes (genome) are not the producer of the individual (cell).
It is common sense that only one of two contradictory judgments can be true.
Since it is an objective fact that genes are not the producer of an individual, no one can deny it. So, scientists who respect the facts have to choose it. But this choice immediately put "modern genetics" in a crumbling position. This is the current state of science today.
2. It is the duty of each geneticist to acknowledge the facts and find out why
The response from the genetics community in the face of the crumbling position has been disappointing. No one is addressing this topic; it is as if nothing has happened. The two contradictory judgments coexist for a long time and no one pays any attention. The conscience of scientists should be questioned. Genes are either the hereditary material or not; it is common sense. Is it difficult to determine? A responsible geneticist should not play dumb; he or she should speak their mind. The silence of the genetics community is actually arresting scientific development. If the old untenable authoritative theory is not defeated, then the new theory will have difficult being accepted. As a frustrating historic example, it took more than 150 years for the ¡°heliocentric theory¡± to overwhelm the ¡°geocentric theory¡± after it was proposed. The abnormal response of the genetics community reveals that the community is unsure of where and how ¡°modern genetics¡± went wrong. It is extremely urgent for us to enlighten the world as soon as possible and accelerate the pace of error correction.
DNA consumes no energy and does no work in the process of individual formation. In the process of producing RNA and replicating DNA it only serves as a template without establishing 3', 5'-phosphodiester bonds. All these are undeniable facts. If DNA produced individuals, then we would not require energy for production and life would not require sunlight for reproduction. That is to say, if DNA produced the trait or individual, it would become a perpetual motion machine. This is contrary to the law of energy conservation and is anti-scientific.
Therefore, it is imperative to accept the truth and to find out why and how the error of ¡°modern genetics¡± occurred.
3. Where is the error of the "modern genetics"?
Are genes the hereditary material? Mendel should be asked. Because the meaning of genes was set by Mendel.
3.1 The original meaning of genes established by Mendel has been altered
Mendel assumed ¡°if the tall variety contains in its germ cells something that makes the plants tall, and if the short variety carries something in its germ cells that makes the plants short¡±. The ¡°something¡± above is what was later called a ¡°gene¡± [4]. That is what Mendel meant by genes. From Mendel¡¯s assumption we cannot see that Mendel thought that the gene is the producer of tall or short or the producer of plants. Genes have never been set as hereditary elements capable of producing. How could it become the hereditary material being able to produce individuals (traits included)? Consequently, it is groundless for ¡°modern genetics¡± to regard genes as the hereditary material. In other words, the fault of ¡°modern genetics¡± is that it misrepresents the original meaning of genes as established by Mendel.
For Mendel, genes were simply facilitator of the product (individuals or traits). Similar facilitators are common in daily life, in the form of templates, drawings, molds, 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 mold that makes the head of the product arrow-shaped, but also contains a mold that makes the head spherical¡±; and ¡°The decoration company contains design schemes that make the house European or Island style¡±.
The facilitator is not equal to the producer, but it is a participant in the production. Its function is to provide product specification-related information and guide the producing operator to produce products in accordance with the specifications it controls. Thus it is an element that control product specifications. Consequently, the producer consists of two elements (producing operator and specification controller). The product is made by the producing operator following the specifications defined by the specification controller. Just as Dr. Joyce stated, ¡°The second bacteria (as a producing operator) made all the proteins and organelles (products) in the so-called ¡®synthetic cell¡¯ by following the specifications implicit in the structure of the inserted DNA (as a specification controller)¡±. In the above example of 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 tools are its producing operators, and the mold is its specification controller; in the decoration company, the designers and their tools are the producing operators, and the design scheme is its specification controller.
In Dr. Joyce's words, the functions of genes (DNA) is exactly the same as original meaning defined by Mendel, and genes are the facilitator of the individual; thus he is telling the truth. In Dr. Venter's words, the functions of genes (DNA) is consistent with the basic consensus of "modern genetics", and genes are the producer of individuals; thus he is telling the falsehood.
This is what happens when the meaning of genes is tampered with by "modern genetics".
3.2 Verification from the Avery experiment
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. The product here (a capsular polysaccharide, a trait) is produced by a producing operator coming from RII pneumococcus in collaboration with a gene (DNA). The Avery experiment confirmed the objective existence of the gene as defined by Mendel, while genes that have been defined by ¡°modern genetics¡± as the hereditary material or the producer of the individual do not exist.
3.3 Verification from scientific (biochemistry or molecular biology) truth
Current biochemistry (or molecular biology) textbooks and related encyclopedias could tell us the scientific truth: Genes (DNA) are involved in only two of the biological producing processes known in the world: the processes of producing RNA and of replicating DNA. In both, DNA is responsible for the template function of the product. The product RNA is produced by transcriptase (system) following the specifications implicit in the DNA (as template); the DNA product is replicated by DNA-replicase (system) also following the specifications implicit in the DNA (as template). Therefore, the operator of producing RNA is the transcriptase system, while the operator of replicating DNA is the DNA-replicase system. In these processes DNA consumes no energy, does no work and don¡¯t build 3', 5'-phosphodiester bonds; nothing can be produced by it alone.
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.
4. How was the error formed?
A mistaken man usually does not realize how he can make an error; otherwise, he would not make the error. Nevertheless, fait accompli will leave a trail of errors and provide us with conclusive evidence of the errors.
4.1 Ignoring the basic assumptions of Mendel (gene)
This is still a common phenomenon in today's "modern genetics" textbooks (or encyclopedias). Most of them do not even include Mendel's specific words on the gene hypothesis.
Relatively speaking, Morgan's The theory of the gene is acceptable regarding this point. It introduced the gene from the beginning, as follows: "the student of heredity appeals to invisible elements called genes". [6] Mendel's hypothesis of genes is also provided: ¡°if the tall variety contains in its germ cells something that makes the plants tall, and if the short variety carries something in its germ cells that makes the plants short¡±.
However, in the end, when Morgan asserts: "The theory states that the characters of the individual are referable to ...... elements (genes)". [7] Such interpretation is completely different from the original meaning of genes as established by Mendel and this indicates Morgan¡¯s disregard for the original meaning of ¡°genes¡±.
The Preformation theory states the following: ¡°the characters of the individual are referable to the miniature¡±. Darwin¡¯s Pangenesis states the following: ¡°the characters of the individual are referable to the gemmules¡± and the Germ-plasm theory states that ¡°the characters of the individual are referable to Germ-plasm¡±. Therefore, the essential meaning of ¡°the characters of the individual are referable to ...... genes¡± is to treat genes as the hereditary material, which is consistent with the basic consensus of ¡°modern genetics¡±: germplasm = the hereditary material = genes. In another paragraph, Morgan states the following: ¡°So long as a complete set of units (genes) is present, the power to produce a new whole (individual) is potentially given¡± [8], which is also proof of this consensus.
Why a large number of geneticists, including William Bateson and T. H. Morgan, do not perform a final verification of Mendel¡¯s words ¡°something that makes the plants tall¡± when they state that the basic idea of ¡°modern genetics¡± is that germplasm = the hereditary material = genes? This is very puzzling.
4.2 Deeper reason: Lack of understanding to the genetics' "second question" attribute of the Mendel experiment
There are two basic questions in genetics [9]. Preformation, Darwin¡¯s Pangenesis, and Weisman¡¯s Germ-plasm theories all address the ¡°first question¡±, which inquires about the producer of the individual¡ªthe hereditary material of the germ cells. It asks "Who (or what material) produces the individual?¡± The answer from Preformation is the miniature; the answer from Darwin is the gemmules; and the answer from Weisman is Germ-plasm. These are the hereditary material that they assumed respectively. Thus, their respective basic ideas are: germplasm=the hereditary material=the miniature; germplasm=the hereditary material= gemmules; and germplasm=the hereditary material= Germ-plasm.
However, the "second question" is quite different. In daily life, the "second question" would be to ask, "Why is Tom¡¯s son tall like Tom and daughter short like Tom's wife?" The same question arises in the Mendel experiment: "Why are some F2 offspring tall-plants like their tall variety ancestry and other short-plants like their short variety ancestry?" The "second question" usually arises in sexually reproducing species. Such questions may lead to the following assumptions: "Is there something in Tom's germ cells that makes the child tall, and something in his wife's germ cells that makes the child short? Whether a child is tall or short in the end depends on which of the two molds is dominant in the fertilized egg forming the individual", and ¡°if the tall variety contains in its germ cells something that makes the plants tall, and if the short variety carries something in its germ cells that makes the plants short¡±. In this way Mendel provided his assumption regarding genes.
Unfortunately, for more than 100 years, people have never grasped the concept of the "second question". People always realize Mendel's work according to the "first question." So, they mistook genes for the hereditary material (namely the producer of the organism), and the rules of genes for the fundamental laws of heredity. Thus, the misconceptions of ¡°modern genetics¡± were created. That is why Morgan said, "We owe to Gregor Mendel the discovery of two of the fundamental laws of heredity on which the modern theory of heredity is based"[10]. This recognition is still stated in today's "modern genetics" textbook (and encyclopedia).
Because the ¡°second question¡± in genetics is generally not understood, people wrongly regard the answer to the ¡°first question¡± as the answer to the ¡°second question¡±. This has resulted in a huge mistake arise: people regarding a blueprint as a factory, or regarding a template as a living cell. This has harmed the creators of "modern genetics", Mendel and the world. The value of Mendel¡¯s work and achievements has been distorted and misunderstood. The illusory aura of "the father of genetics" will not add any glory to Mendel, because truth is always the foundation of glory. People today will be shocked when they read Mendel's assumption and will ask "Why did we never think of reading this passage, and why did it take us 150 years to recognize it?"
Acknowledgements
We thank Lesley Benyon, PhD, from Liwen Bianji, Edanz Group China
(http://www.liwenbianji.cn/ac), for editing the English text of a draft of this manuscript.
References:
[1] Gibson DG, Grass JI, Lartigue C, Noskov VN, Chuang RY, Algire MA, et al. (2010) Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome. Science 329, 52-56. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1190719
[2] Germplasm (20 Nov. 2018 cited from Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Encyclopaedia Britannica) www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/germ
[3] Wade N. ¡°Researchers say they created a ¡®Synthetic Cell¡¯¡± (20 May 2010) New York Times.
[4] Morgan, T.H. (1928) The Theory of the Gene. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp2.
[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
[6] Morgan, T.H. (1928) The Theory of the Gene. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp1.
[7] Morgan, T.H. (1928) The Theory of the Gene. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp25.
[8] Morgan, T.H. (1928) The Theory of the Gene. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp28.
[9] 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
[10] Morgan, T.H. (1928) The Theory of the Gene. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp1.
2019/9/1
