The Mendel's fault
Group Corporation, Feicheng, Shandong 271608 , China
In the Mendel's paper I found a mistake that the gene should be only a part of the hereditary material but regarded as all wrongly. This fault has been consolidated in the theory of the genewhich affirms the character is caused by the gene only. In fact the character is made by the transcriptase with the gene.
The Mendel's work can be sketched as follows: (1) Think there must be an origin or material making the character as its product, we might as well call Responsiblon for a name, abbreviated as Ron. (2) According to the (character appears) result of hybridization experiment of the pea put forward two hereditary laws, i.e. the Mendel’s laws. (3) The establishment of the laws depends on there in the reproduction cell is a kind of factor (gene) demonstrating the behaviour of conforming with Mendel's laws and determining whether the character appears (and found later that the chromosome is the gene carrier, prove finally that DNA is the gene, in a word the gene really exists). (4) Think that gene is Ron, namely Ron =Gene. The first three jobs are logical, the gene is verified by the fact too. But the 4th job is illogical, can hide mistake. The gene had not been separated out alone in Mendel's experiment, there was no operation performance making the character by the gene even more. In Mendel's experiment the gene was located in the big black box——oosperm, nobody knew whether was there any else factor making the character together with the gene. In a word, Mendel's experiment had not proved yet that the gene is not only one component part but also whole of Ron. And Mendel could get the result of his experiment so long as the gene is a necessary component of Ron. That is to say, in logic the factor (gene) demonstrating the behavior of conforming with Mendel's laws and determining whether the character appears and the origin making the character (Ron) isn’t the same thing,
Ron≠Gene. So Mendel could only get such conclusion: the gene must be an essential component of hereditary material, i.e. Ron=Gene×X×Y×Z, as for besides the gene whether there really are these other components (X, Y, Z) of hereditary material, then let the fact in the future to prove.
It is perhaps easier to prove with an instance. There are neonates in the first ten days of every October to appear in a big black house. Observers produced four conclusions to this: (1) There must be an origin or material making the neonates as its product , we might as well call Parents for a name. (2) According to the (neonates appear) result of the observation put forward a neonates yearly appearing law. (3) The establishment of the law depends on there is a kind of factor (Man) demonstrating the behaviour of conforming with the neonates yearly appearing law and determining whether the neonates appear (and found later that the Man is a kind of neonate-like body having more than 20 times weight of neonate, the Man enters the big black house in first half of the month of every January, leaves this house in other days of every year, in a word the Man really exists). (4) Think that the Man is Parents, namely Parents =Man. The first three jobs are logical, the Man is verified by the fact too. But the 4th job is illogical, can hide mistake. The Man had not been separated out alone in this study, there was no operation performance making the neonates by the Man even more. In this study the Man is located in the big black house, nobody knew whether was there any else factor making the neonates together with the Man. In a word, this study had not proved yet that Man is not only one component part but also whole of Parents. And the observers could get their result of the observation so long as the Man is a necessary component of Parents. That is to say, in logic the factor (Man) demonstrating the behaviour of conforming with the neonates yearly appearing law and determining whether the neonates appear and the origin making the neonates (Parents) isn’t the same thing, Parents≠Man. So the observers could only get such conclusion: the Man must be an essential component of Parents, Parents=Man×X×Y×Z, as for besides Man whether really there are these other components (X, Y, Z) of Parents, then let the fact in the future to prove. Unfortunately, the mistake made by these observers is one not only in logic but also in fact, for the neonate is made by Woman together with Man really, i.e. Parents=Man×Woman.
To day we have known that the gene can not make protein (character) alone. DNA isn’t able to set up peptide bond, so it is impossible to make proteins directly; and DNA isn’t able to set up 3',5' phosphodiester bond, so it also is impossible to make RNA and indirectly to make proteins by RNA[3~8]( including mRNA, rRNAs, tRNAs, ribozymes, etc.). The fact is: DNA must unite with transcriptase to make RNA and then indirectly to make proteins by RNA( including mRNA, rRNAs, tRNAs, ribozymes,etc.). In a word, the character is made by transcriptase with the gene, i.e. Ron=Gene×transcriptase. Unfortunately too, Mendel's mistake also is one in fact.
Mendel, G. Versuche über Pflanzenhybriden. Verh.Naturforsch.Ver. Brünn, 4,3(1866).
Morgan,T.H. The theory of the gene. Charpter 1 (Yale University Press. New Haven 1928).
Noller, H.F., Hoffarth, V.& Zimniak, L. Unusual resistance of peptidyl transferase to protein extraction procedures. Science 256,1416~1419(1992).
Piccirilli, J.A., McConnell, T.S., Zaug, A.J., Noller, H.F.& Cech, T.R. Aminoacyl esterase activity of the Tetrahymena ribozyme. Science 256,1420~1423(1992).
Ban, N., Nissen, P., Hansen, J., Moore, P.B.& Steitz, T.A. The complete atomic structure of the large ribosomal subunit at 2.4Å resolution. Science 289,905~920(2000).
Cech, T.R. The ribosome is a ribozyme. Science 289,878~879(2000).
Moore, P.B.& Steits,T.A. The involvement of RNA in ribosome function. Nature 418,229~235(2002).
Steits, T.A. & Moore, P.B. RNA, the first macromolecular catalyst: the ribosome is a ribozyme. Trends biochem. Sci. 28,411~418(2003).
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to Muying Zhou (e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org)
[the original in Chinese 英汉对照] 孟德尔的失误 2004.10.10.
用实例来说明或许更容易些。一幢黑房子里每年10月上旬会有新生儿出现。研究人员有4点认识：1.新生儿一定有产出根源或物质，我们不妨取名为Parents；2.根据观察（新生儿出现）结果提出了年度周期性婴儿出现定律；3.定律的成立依赖于黑房子内有年度周期性出现的能决定新生儿出现的因子（取名为Man）存在（后来证实Man是一种比新生儿重20余倍的新生儿样活体，Man每年1月上半月进入黑房子，一年的其他日子里就离开，总之Man是确实存在的）；4.Man就是Parents，即：Parents=Man。很明显，前3项认识是合逻辑的，Man也被事实所证实。但第4项认识是不合逻辑的，可以隐藏有错误。在观察中研究人员并没有把Man分离出来，更没有观察Man制造新生儿的操作事实；在黑房子里除Man外有否其它因子与Man合作制造新生儿并未探明。总之，没有证明过Man不仅是Parents的一种成分而且是Parents 的全部，而逻辑上年度周期性婴儿出现定律只须Man是组成Parents的一个必要成分就会成立。所以只能结论：与年度婴儿出现定律相一致的因子（Man）必定是Parents的一个必要成分，即：Parents=Man×X×Y×Z ，至于X、Y、Z是否真实存在只能今后由事实来确定。总之，新生儿产出根源与Man并不是一会事，Parents≠Man。不幸地，上述研究人员犯下的不仅是逻辑错误而且是事实错误，因为婴儿实际上是由男人与女人（Woman）合作制造的，即：Parents=Man×Woman。