1. Cover Letter

The Editor of Science                                                

Dear Sir,

I think Science should be responsible for propagating the following contradictory thought and anti-scientific content and apologize for these mistakes to readers around the world:

To say that ¡°the USA produced an atomic bomb¡± means ¡°this atomic bomb was produced by the USA¡±. If it was produced by the UK instead, we should say: ¡°the UK produced an atomic bomb¡±. However, there is no such logic in Science (USA) where ¡°a man-made DNA produced a synthetic cell¡± means indeed ¡°non-DNA produced this cell¡± [D.G. Gibson et al: Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome, Science, 329, 52 (2010)]. As DNA cannot build peptide bonds or 3¡¯,5¡¯-phosphodiester bonds, DNA cannot produce cells. In other words, ¡°DNA produced this cell¡± means ¡°non-DNA produced this cell¡±. Namely, DNA=non-DNA. This is contradictory. Science cannot be so.

Moreover, a cell is a product with lower entropy than its raw materials. If DNA produced a cell, DNA consuming no energy and doing no work then would have to be a kind of perpetual motion machine. This is anti-scientific. It is contrary to the law of conservation of energy.

If I am wrong, and if Science can prove that I am wrong, I would apologize to Science for my mistake and pay $15,000 (more information in next letter ¡°Letter to life scientists¡±).

Here I will list the key points in this letter as the following:

1) Science (USA) told us: a man-made ¡°DNA produced a ¡®synthetic¡¯ cell¡±. 

2) In fact, all cells are produced by non-DNA as DNA is unable to build peptide bonds (or 3¡¯,5¡¯-phosphodiester bonds).

3) Therefore, Science is propagating the thought that DNA=non-DNA or DNA produced a cell=non-DNA produced a cell.

4) Science told the world that without consuming any energy, and without doing any work, DNA produced a cell. That is to say, DNA is a kind of perpetual motion machine.

 

Yours faithfully,

¡¡

Muying Zhou, 9 Oct. 2012

 

 

 

 

Muying Zhou

Central Hospital of

Shandong Feicheng Coal-Mining Group Corporation

Feicheng, Shandong 271608, China

E-mail: fckzmy@yahoo.com.cn   Personal Web Site: www.science-china.com

2. Letter to life scientists

The theory of the gene is a wrong theory (germplasm¡ÙDNA)

 

Dear Sir,

 

In response to C. Venter¡¯s so-called ¡°synthetic cell¡± some leading life scientists expressed ambiguous and equivocal opinions. They did not say ¡°yes, that is a synthetic cell" and also did not say ¡°no, this synthetic cell is a fake¡±.

This suggests that life scientists are currently in a dilemma. If they believe that ¡°the germplasm is DNA¡± [as stated by the online version of Encyclopaedia Britannica (www. britannica.com/ January, 2012)], which is the thought behind the theory of the gene, they have no reason to accuse Venter¡¯s man-made DNA of relying on an enucleated cell to live just like people never accuse an oosperm of relying on a woman with a uterus to live. However, if they respect the fact that DNA did not produce anything for this ¡°synthetic cell¡±, they ought to say ¡°no, this synthetic cell is a fake¡±.

 

Although production of a baby relies on a woman with a uterus, every piece of the baby is produced by the oosperm; conversely, in Venter¡¯s so-called ¡°synthetic cell¡± nothing is produced by DNA

 

That an oosperm can produce a baby means this baby should be produced by this oosperm. That a seed can produce a plant means this plant should be produced by this seed. However, that DNA (including Venter¡¯s man-made DNA) can produce a cell doesn¡¯t mean this cell is produced by DNA. In fact, DNA cannot produce anything as DNA can¡¯t build peptide bonds or 3¡¯,5¡¯-phosphodiester bonds. Therefore, DNA can produce cells means indeed non-DNA can produces cells. This is contradictory; science cannot be so.

 

A pea can produce peas, a melon can produce melons, and these are living beings. The fact that a pea can produce peas means that the pea contains two elements: 1) a producer (without it what could be produced?) and 2) DNA (the pea¡¯s genome), which instructs the producer to produce nothing other than a pea (without it how could the product be a pea?). That is to say, it is determined by the nature of living beings that germplasm must contain 1) a producer and 2) DNA (a genome).

 

Moreover, in 1944, O.T. Avery proved that the gene is DNA and, at the same time, he pointed out that ¡°DNA is capable of stimulating unencapsulated R variants of Pneumococcus type II to produce a capsular polysaccharide¡± (1). Namely, he proved that to produce a character we need 1) a producer and 2) an appropriate DNA. As all characteristics of a cell (or an individual) are prescribed by no other than the DNA (genome) contained by this cell (or individual), naturally, to produce a cell (or an individual) we also need 1) a producer and 2) an appropriate DNA (genome).

 

However, why did T.H. Morgan think the gene is the exclusive element of heredity and build the theory of the gene based on the gene only as the foundation? There are two reasons (or mistakes).

First, A mistake in the understanding of G. Mendel¡¯s work. Gregor Mendel¡¯s work was performed to answer questions such as: all these peas are offspring from the same parents; why are some of them tall and others short? The answer is: the characteristics of the pea are referable to the gene; the tall pea has a tall gene, while the short pea has a short gene (2). We might just as well ask: those are all planes from the same factory; why are some of them Boeing 727s and others Boeing 757s? The answer would be: the specification or the characteristics of the plane is or are referable to the blueprint. A plane produced based on a Boeing 727 blueprint would be a Boeing 727 plane; one produced based on a Boeing 757 blueprint would be a Boeing 757 plane. T.H. Morgan did not understand that the only thing addressed by this type of question is what element prescribes to the producer the specification (or characteristics) of its product (e.g. pea, plane). These questions never address what (element) is actually able to give rise to the product (tall or short peas, Boeing 727 or Boeing 757 planes).

Second, A mistake in logic. There can be no doubt that Mendel found an element of heredity, namely, the gene. However, no one had ever shown heredity to consist of only one element. Also there is no reason to believe that the hereditary material contains only one element. Do we affirm that the woman alone can produce babies because we witnessed that a baby was born from a woman¡¯s body? Why would we be incorrect to suppose so? In terms of logic, finding an element does not mean that you have found all the elements. Necessary (cause) does not always equal sufficient (cause). In a word, one element of heredity was found by Mendel does not equal all elements of heredity had been found.

 

Now it is clear: the theory of the gene is incorrect.

 

However, it is hard to tell the world this fact.

1£©  The long rule of the theory of the gene has made people numb. The thinking ability of the current life scientific community is terrible. They have no concept of production. Unexpectedly, they didn't understand: ¡°a factory can produce aircrafts¡± means that the factory must have the producer of aircrafts; ¡°a seed can produce a plant¡± means that the seed must have the producer of this plant; also ¡°a germplasm can produce an individual (or a cell)¡± means that the germplasm must have the producer of this individual (or cell). And they did not understand also: a cell (or an individual) is a product with lower entropy than its raw materials, therefore, to produce it the producer must do work and consume energy. So, they confuse active with passive. E.g. they call DNA the replicate material although DNA cannot build 3¡¯,5¡¯-phosphodiester bonds and needs DNA replicase to produce new DNA. They call protein the product of DNA although DNA cannot produce RNA or build peptide bonds. They do not know if DNA produced a cell, DNA would have to become a kind of perpetual motion machine as DNA consumed no energy and did no work but still produced a product (cell) with lower entropy than its raw materials.

2) The current life community does not believe that history could repeat itself: a new Mendel could come from today¡¯s monastery. They blindly worship the theory of the gene. They do not care where the life sciences go to: the South Pole or North Pole. Against this background, opinions criticizing the theory of the gene are not welcome: no one is willing to listen to them, let alone believe them. People reject such opinions without any valid reason. A leading scientific magazine rejected me using such a reason: "We were unable to confirm your affiliation or previous publications". Along such lines, Mendel¡¯s paper could not have been published.

 

Now I seek the support of scientists through private communications. I beg you to read, comment on and question my article. As a show of good faith, I will give a bonus to the person providing sufficient evidence to prove that what I have said is wrong. Specific details are as follows:

1)      Germplasm can produce a cell means germplasm must contain an element: a producer. So, I say: it is determined by the concept of germplasm itself that a germplasm must contain an element that is a producer (without a producer nothing could be produced). (For this item the bonus is $2500.)

2)      As ¡°DNA can produce a cell¡± means in fact ¡°non-DNA produces this cell¡±; therefore, I say: ¡°the theory of the gene, namely, that ¡®DNA can produce a cell¡¯, is contradictory in logic¡±. ($2500)

3)      ¡°DNA produced a cell¡± means DNA would have to be a kind of perpetual motion machine. Therefore, I say: ¡°the thought behind the theory of the gene, namely, that ¡®DNA can produce a cell¡¯, is anti-scientific. It is against the law of conservation of energy¡±. ($2500)

4)      O.T. Avery¡¯s experiment (1944) proved that ¡°DNA is capable of stimulating unencapsulated R variants of Pneumococcus type II to produce a capsular polysaccharide¡±. That is, to produce a character, two elements are needed: a producer and a template (i.e. DNA). Therefore, I say ¡°to produce a cell (=all characters of a cell) two elements are also needed: a producer and DNA. In other words, the germplasm contains two elements: a producer and DNA¡±. ($2500)

5)      The only thing addressed by Mendel¡¯s question (all these peas are offspring from same parents; why are some of them tall and others short?) is what element prescribes to the parents the specification (or characteristics) of their offspring rather than what gives rise to their offspring. Of course, Mendel¡¯s find was just the blueprint (or template), i.e. the gene (DNA), rather than the germplasm. Therefore, I say ¡°the conclusion that ¡®germplasm is DNA¡¯ is beyond the scope of Mendel¡¯s experiment. The thought behind the theory of the gene is wrong¡±. ($2500)

6) In terms of logic, finding an element does not mean that you have found all elements. Necessary (cause) does not always equal sufficient (cause). We cannot affirm that a woman alone can produce babies even if we witnessed that a baby was born from a woman¡¯s body. Similarly, we cannot affirm that the hereditary material contains only the gene. Therefore, I say: ¡°considering that the ¡®germplasm is the gene (DNA)¡¯ is a mistake of logic¡±. ($2500)

 

 

I look forward to your feedback.

I also beg you to send my letter and papers to your comrades.


Thanks.

Yours faithfully,
Muying Zhou, 9 Oct. 2012

 

References:

1.      O.T. Avery, C.M. MacLeod, M. McCarty, J.Exp.Med. 79, 137 (1944).

2.      G. Mendel, Verb. Naturforsch. Ver. Br¨¹nn, 4, 3 (1865).

 

Muying Zhou

Central Hospital of

Shandong Feicheng Coal-Mining Group Corporation

Feicheng, Shandong 271608, China

E-mail: fckzmy@yahoo.com.cn

Personal Web Site: www.science-china.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. (Manuscript: letter to the editor  2012.10.09.)

¡°Synthetic cell¡± exposed the absurdity of the theory of the gene

__DNA¡ÙGermplasm

 

Using a man-made genome C. Venter declared he had created a ¡°synthetic cell¡±. However, as DNA is unable to build peptide (or 3¡¯,5¡¯-phosphodiester) bonds it is untrue to state that ¡°DNA produced this cell¡±; in fact, ¡°this cell was produced by non-DNA¡±. Moreover, consuming no energy (also doing no work) to state that ¡°DNA produced this cell¡± means that DNA would have to be a kind of perpetual motion machine.

 

Obviously, Venter¡¯s declaration is based on the following two points: 1) a germplasm can produce a new individual and 2) the theory of the gene. This theory that claims genes are the (only) hereditary material. Therefore, a germplasm contains genes only, consistent with the statement in the Encyclopaedia Britannica that ¡°germplasm is the hereditary material of the germ cells: genes (DNA)¡± (www. britannica.com/ January, 2012).

 

However, the theory of the gene is incorrect. That a germplasm can produce a new cell (of Mycoplasma, for example) means this cell should be produced by this germplasm. In other words, a germplasm must contain an element that is a producer (without producer nothing could be produced). Namely, this is determined by the concept of germplasm itself. However, DNA is never a producer. Therefore, DNA (genes) cannot solely be the germplasm.

 

This judgment (DNA¡Ùgermplasm) was confirmed as early as 1944 in O.T. Avery¡¯s experiment. In his experiment Avery not only proved that the gene is DNA but also pointed out that: ¡°DNA is capable of stimulating unencapsulated R variants of Pneumococcus Type II to produce a capsular polysaccharide¡± (1). That is to say, to give rise to a character here, a producer as well as DNA was needed. So, to give rise to an individual (including a great deal of characters) we also need a producer and DNA. In other words, germplasm consists of a producer and DNA rather than DNA only.

 

There is an indisputable example in real life to prove that germplasm=producer+genome. Regarding minus strand RNA viruses, people thought that the virus¡¯s genome could produce new virions in a host cell but finally found out that this is wrong. The subsequent facts demonstrated that to produce new virions there must be a producer (RNA replicase) as well as genome. If there were no RNA replicase in the hereditary material of this type of virus there would be no viruses of this type in the world.

 In fact, whether considering Venter¡¯s work or I. Wilmut¡¯s work (2) the importance of inserting genome into an enucleated cell was so that it could be combined with a producer (a set of transcription system materials dominated by transcriptase). It is the producer that causes the genome to be transcribed and a cell to go through an automatic, programmed course until new cells are produced. However, people regard the producer as a free lunch.

 ¡°A produces P¡± could means ¡°A needs many other (including raw materials) materials and conditions except the producer to produce P¡±; however, if A needs non-A as producer to produce P, ¡°A produces P¡± becomes ¡°non-A produces P¡±. This is contradictory.               

 

Now, we want know what caused people fall into this wrong theory (the theory of the gene).

1) G. Mendel did not state that genes are the only hereditary element when he found genes. However, just like caveman regarded the woman as the only source of the baby, T.H. Morgan regarded genes as the only material (or element) of heredity. This is an error of logic. In terms of logic, finding an element does not mean that you have found all the elements. Necessary (cause) does not always equal sufficient (cause). In a word, one element of heredity was found by Mendel, but this does not mean that all elements of heredity had been found.  

2£©Gregor Mendel¡¯s work was performed to answer questions such as: all these peas are offspring from the same parents; why are some of them tall and others short? The answer is: the characteristics of the pea are referable to the gene; the tall pea has a tall gene, while the short pea has a short gene (3). We might just as well ask: those are all planes from the same factory; why are some of them Boeing 727s and others Boeing 757s? The answer would be: the specification or the characteristics of the plane is or are referable to the blueprint. A plane produced based on a Boeing 727 blueprint would be a Boeing 727 plane; one produced based on a Boeing 757 blueprint would be a Boeing 757 plane. T.H. Morgan did not understand that the only thing addressed by this type of question is what element prescribes to the producer the specification (or characteristics) of its product (e.g. pea, plane). These questions never address what (element) is actually able to give rise to the product (tall or short peas, Boeing 727 or Boeing 757 planes). Therefore, it is impossible to determine from Mendel¡¯s experiments the true nature of an element such as germplasm, which is able to give rise to an individual. If he had understood the scope of Mendel¡¯s experiments T.H. Morgan could still have come to correct realization, even though he had made a mistake in logic, as described above. Unfortunately, he did not.       

 

Muying Zhou

Central Hospital of

Shandong Feicheng Coal-Mining Group Corporation

Feicheng, Shandong 271608, China

E-mail: fckzmy@yahoo.com.cn

Personal Web Site: www.science-china.com

 

References:

1.      O.T. Avery, C.M. MacLeod, M. McCarty, J.Exp.Med. 79, 137 (1944).

2.  I. Wilmut, A.E. Schnieke, J. McWhir, J. Kind, & K.H.S. Campbell, Nature 385, 810 (1997).

3.      G. Mendel, Verb. Naturforsch. Ver. Br¨¹nn, 4, 3 (1865).

 

Related Resources:

J. Craig Venter et al: Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome, Science, 329, 52 (2010).

[Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1190719]

 

[We know that Science reserves Letters for discussions that are of general interest to the scientific community and which focus primarily on material published in the past 3 months in Science. The article about the ¡°synthetic cell¡± was published in 2010 in Science; however, the concept of the ¡°synthetic cell¡± exposes the absurdity of the theory of the gene (Given the urgent need for corrections at any time, of course, there should be no time limit). Indeed, Science magazine propagated contradictory thought (DNA=non-DNA) and anti-scientific content; thus, this matter is of paramount importance and must be of general interest. Therefore, my manuscript should be a ¡°Letter to Science¡±.]