MARTINIA
© 2014, World of Researches Publication
ISSN:
Ac.
J. Psy.0297-0902
Stud.
Academic Journal of
Psychological Studies
www.worldofresearches.com
Vol. 3, Issue 1, 80-86, 2014
VOL.6
NO.2 Page: 68-84
http://martinia.com
Impossible of Macroevolution of New Species via Changing of Chromosome
Number Mutation and Structural Mutation (Invalid chromosomal speciation
Theory): Darwin’s Theory and Neo- Darwinian Theory Oppose it
Muhmmad Abdul Ahad and A.S.M. Anas Ferdous
Faculty of Agriculture, Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science & Technology University, Dinajpur-5200, Bangladesh
*Corresponding Author: Abdul A.
Abstract
One half of all known plant genera contain polyploidy species and about two-thirds of all grasses
are polyploids. So, biologists assume that the existing numerous polyploid had macroevolved via
the route of changing of chromosome number and structure (chromosomal speciation) and it is
still occurring. However, macroevolution/ polyploidization/ chromosomal speciation/
chromosomal aberration/ chromosomal mutations are completed smoothly through hybridization.
But diverse literatures demonstrate that hybridization between two plants genus/ species or two
animal genus/species is not possible; if imposed the fertilization fails, if the fertilization is
successful, the embryo may abort, or the young may suffers various abnormalities and at last it
may die, if survives, suffer from various abnormalities, dangerous diseases and must be sterile. If
the offspring is fertile, do not produce species but produce races /varieties. So, breeders have
developed some plants and animals varieties through hybridization between two varieties. For
instance, through hybridization between two rice varieties, breeders have developed some rice
varieties such as IR-8, IR-28 etc. But acquiring of these races or varieties to a species is not
possible due to segregation and failed to gain reproductive isolation. In addition, due to
chromosomal structural change; living organisms suffer various abnormalities, even those die.
There is no known example of macroevolution of a new plant or an animal species that produce
either artificially or spontaneously via those processes in the present world. Consequently,
Impossible of macroevolution of new species via changing of chromosome number mutation and
structural mutation (invalid chromosomal speciation Theory), Darwin’s Theory and neoDarwinian Theory oppose it.
Key words: large Change, Speciation, Chromosomal Mutations, Abnormal Syndrome
1. INTRODUCTION
Of all the theories of biology, the theory of evolution is most important. It is so fundamental of
biology that the biological science cannot be understood without it. Nearly all scientists support
it. All living organisms have evolved from simpler organisms over the vast period of time. Human
May, 2015
68
Impossible of Macroevolution of New Species via Changing …
beings, like all other plants and animals, have evolved from simpler organisms through evolution.
It is declared that life arose by a natural process from non-living originators and achieved its
present diversity including man (1), (2), (3). However, Darwin defines evolution as descent with
modification through natural selection from a few common ancestors (4). The evolutionary
flowchart is as follows: Organic matter → unicellular organism (5) → invertebrate→ lung fish→
amphibian→ reptile→ placental mammal→ higher mammal→ human (3), (6).
Chromosomal mutations play a vital role in macroevolution (7). Macroevolution occurs through
changes of chromosomal number and structure (8). The rearrangements (such as inversions,
fusions, and fissions) of chromosome may play significant roles in the speciation between
parapatric (contiguous) or partly sympatric (geographically overlapping) populations (9). So, both
chromosomal number and chromosomal structural changes play significant roles in the speciation.
When an organism possessed more than two sets of chromosome, is called polyploid (10). It is
confirmed that one half of all known plant genera contain polyploidy species and about two-thirds
of all grasses are polyploids (11). It is drew attention that polyploidy refers collectively to all
natural and induced change in chromosome numbers (12), (13). Major routes of polyploid
formation are a meiotic failure of separation of sister chromosome and doubling of entire set of
chromosomes (14). So, polyploidy/macroevolution developed through chromosomal mutations
(15), (16). Polyploidy play a significant role in evolution especially evolution of all vascular plant
both for wild and cultivate plants or angiosperms (12), (17), (18). Additionally, Polyploidization
is now believed to have occurred at least once during the evolutionary history of all angiosperms
(19). So, polyploidization is a major driving force of plant evolution (17), (20). Macroevolutionary
studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with
microevolution. The process of speciation may fall within the purview of either, depending on the
forces thought to drive it. Paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, comparative
genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy (Genomic phylostratigraphy is a statistical approach for
reconstruction of macroevolutionary trends based on the principle of founder gene formation and
punctuated emergence of protein families. The method allows the point of origin for any existing
gene to be determined by tracing the last common ancestor in which this gene existed. Based on
this information, it is then possible to determine the minimal age for any given gene) contribute
most of the evidence for the patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution. An
example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from
theropod dinosaurs. The evolutionary course of Equidae (wide family including all horses and
related animals) is often viewed as a typical example of macroevolution (21). Other examples of
69
Abdul and Ferdous , 2015
this would be fish descending from an invertebrate animal, or whales descending from a land
mammal. The evolutionary concept demands these bizarre changes (22).
In opposition, there has been a long-standing debate over the evolutionary
implications of chromosomal mutations or genome doubling (17), (23), which span the spectrum
from polyploidy being an evolutionary dead end (24). It is informed that macroevolution through
chromosomal mutations remains unproved because no one has observed it (25). In fact,
macroevolution is a principle only but unobservable and consequently non-scientific. It has also
been reported that there is no evidence for macroevolution (26). In addition, macromutations
normally do not contribute any evolution (27). Macroevolution is not possible. So, it is not took
place (28).
Nonetheless, these disagreements are scattered; not so organized, less evidences and do not serve
the actual purpose. So, it is necessary to aggregate as well as organized those disagreements and
necessary to add new information. Moreover, review of literature reveals that there is no research
article like
“impossible of macroevolution of new species (polyploidy) via changing of
chromosome number (chromosomal aberration) and structure and Darwinian theory and neoDarwinian theory of gradual evolution oppose it”.So, to work on the above objectives are essential
for the benefit of modern biology. This paper would be helpful to the geneticists, breeders,
botanists, zoologists, anthropologists and who think about evolution.
2. Impossibility of macroevolution of new species via natural mutations (natural
hybridization)
Most often a polyploid (allopolyploids) species arises from hybridization between two species
through doubling of diploid chromosomes (29). Additionally, a rapid emergence of a new species
can be brought about by a change in chromosome numbers/ chromosomal aberration and
polyploidy (30), (31), (32).
However, macroevolution is not possible through natural and induced change in chromosome
numbers / hybridization and it is described here in different headingi)
Impossibility of macroevolution of plants via natural mutations
By observing numerous natural polyploid plants biologists assume that animals and plants have
evolved through chromosomal mutations via hybridization. However, if existing plants and
animals or some of them have evolved spontaneously through chromosomal mutations via
hybridization or other process, then newer species of plants and animal could be found now and
then. Nonetheless, only de Varies observed such type of spontaneously arising of new species
through chromosomal mutations (in 1905) in Oenothera and formulated his mutation theory. But
B.A. Davis, Jeffreys and Gates proved that the mutations which observed by de Vries in
Oenothera as a new species, actually it was a hybrid of old species and it could be produced by
crossing between two American wild species (33).
May, 2015
70
Impossible of Macroevolution of New Species via Changing …
ii) Impossibility of macroevolution of animals via natural mutations
There are about 1.2 million animal species in the biological World (34). One may assume these
existing 1.2 million animal species may evolve through natural and spontaneous chromosome
number mutations (natural macroevolution). But it is pointed out that polyploidy animals are very
few(8), (16) such as brine shrimp Artemia salina (Fig.), Jefferson salamander Amsystoma
jeffersonianum (Fig.), (16), European Hamstar Cricetus cricetus (Fig.) and Chinese Hamstar
Cricetulus griseus (Fig.) (35). So, it is declared that individuals with altered numbers of
chromosomes may be unviable or sterile (36).
European hamstar
Chinese hamstar
Jefferson salamander
Brine shrimp
iii) Impossibility of macroevolution of new species through aneuploidy
Aneuploidy (segmental allopolyploids) is undoubtedly very important in the evolution of new
species (37). Nonetheless, aneuploidy has no important in the evolution of new species; instead
aneoploids organisms suffer from various diseases and a specific genetics imbalance.
Consequently, it has been drew attention that the most commonly observed anomaly of genome
mutation in higher animals is aneuploidy. But recent investigation of chromosome number
(karyotype) in somatic cells of pigs and dogs revealed that anomalies are generally represented
by monosomy (2n-1) or trisomy (2n+1), and both types of mutations are decidedly harmful to the
organisms (35). Moreover, most of the heteroploid of birds (or poultries) are lethal during their
early embryonic development and cause early abortion. However, in mice, a variety of
chromosomal aberrant survives at embryonic stage, resulting in abnormal individual or individual
with reduced fertility (38). It has been reported that in human most chromosomal aberration are
frequent in spontaneous abortion (39). Although, a minority aneuploidy survives up to birth but
affected patients suffer from severe malformations (40). In addition, human pregnancies are selfterminated during the first 2 months largely because of such trisomics and monosomics. Trisomics
with respect to chromosomes 4, 13, or 18-all lead to death before the age of 1 year. Recent data
indicate that about 50% of all spontaneous abortions occur in human within 3 months of
pregnancy bear identifiable chromosomal defects due to euploid only in the United States (16).
In addition, irregularities in number of human chromosomes such as a loss of one or the gain of
one or more chromosomes have been associated with abnormal syndrome, which have no medical
treatment. Among the irregularities are: Cri-du-chat (Cat cry, Fig. 1), Down syndrome (severe
mental retardation and severe heart defects, Fig. 2), Turner syndrome (45,X, sterile female, Fig.
71
Abdul and Ferdous , 2015
3), Klinefelter syndrome (sterile male and mentally retarded), Patau syndrome (Trisomy-13,
mental deficiency and deafness), Trisomy X and Trisomic No.18 (48, XXX,+18, Fig. 4), Edward
syndrome (multiple congenital malformation,), Trisomy (47, XX, Fig. 5), Triplex female (substerile and mentally retarded), chromosome 3 duplication deletion syndrome (Fig. 6), XYY
condition (mild mental retardation) (16), (41). It has been declared that chromosome number
cannot be changed without producing any harmful effect (34), (37), (34). It has also been affirmed
that aneoploid organisms suffers from a specific genetics imbalance (42), even are sterile (12).
Fig 1. Cri-du-chat
Syndrome
Fig2.Down’s Syndrome
Fig 6. Chromosome 3
Fig 5. Trisomy (47, XY?)
Fig 4. Trisomy X and
duplication deletion
syndrome
trisomic No. 48,
XXX,+1818(48,XX?18
Fig 1, 3 and 6 adapted from Gardner et al., 2001; Fig 2, 4 and 5 adapted from
)
Gardner, 1972
3. Impossibility of macroevolution of new animal and plant species via artificial mutations
Fig 3. Tuner
Syndrome
(45,X)
a) Impossibility of macroevolution of new animal species
(artificial hybridization)
Most often a polyploid (allopolyploids) species arises from hybridization between two species
through doubling of diploid chromosomes (29). However, macroevolution of new animal species
is not possible of through artificial chromosomal mutations (hybridization):
May, 2015
72
Impossible of Macroevolution of New Species via Changing …
Hybridization between two animal genera is quite impossible. Even, hybridization between two
species is also impossible, if possible do not form zygote, if form zygote dies before birth, if live,
the hybrid suffers various abnormalities and are essentially sterile, if fertile, fail to gain
reproduction isolation; even it loses its originality due to segregation and back to original parental
type. Hence, and Ritchie and Carola (32) drew attention that structural changes of two different
animal species may make copulation physically impossible. In many cases, gametes may be
incapable of fusion, or the female reproductive tract may not allow survival of sperm cells. Even
successful fertilization of an egg does not ensure successful reproduction. The embryo may abort,
or the young animal may be ill suited to the environment. Finally, even if the hybrid survives to
maturity, it may not produce viable gametes. Starr and Taggart (44) forward about similar opinion
and reported that if hybrids that do live at first are commonly weak in structure, physiology or in
behavior and their chances of surviving are not good and unable to reproduce; the offspring are
typically not vigorous and susceptible to diseases. Moreover, Ward and Hetzel (45) declared that
the eggs of many species produce chemical substances which attract or direct the swimming
movements of sperm to eggs. The substances helping in fertilization are species–specific and the
sperm of one species are not attracted to the egg cells of different species and thus isolating
mechanism the origin of new species is nearly impossible. It is pointed out that when two different
species are crossed, the F1 offspring are usually sterile. Because, the unlike chromosome
(nonhomologous chromosome) cannot pair properly (cannot undergo synapses) during meiosis
(10), (46). So, macroevolution of new animal species through induced hybridization is not
possible.
Fertile Hybrids of Different Animal Species Produce Variety Only
Sometimes, crossing between two animal species produced fertile offspring but do not produce
new species. Some examples are shown herei) The red wolf Canis rufus Coyote C. latrans hybrids (fertile) are common in nature (47).
ii) The gray wolf C. lupus  Coyote C. latrans  hybrids (fertile) are common in nature (47).
ii) Mallard duck Anas platyrynchos  Pain tail duck A. acuta (in custody)  fertile (48).
iii) Polar bear Thalarctos sp.  Kodiak bear Ursus sp.  fertile (34).
iv) The black moth Biston carbonaria  White moth B. betularia  fertile, but not new species
yet variety (49),(43)
v) American bison Bison bison  beef cattle Bos indicus male sterile. Backcross hybrids are
fertile and produce variety ‘beefloes’ (45), (50).
73
Abdul and Ferdous , 2015
vi) American bison Bison bison  European cattle Bos taurus sterile male. Backcross hybrids
are fertile and produce a variety named ‘beefloes’ (45), (50).
vii) European cattle Bos taurrus  American bison Bison bison  sterile males and fertile
females. By backcrossing the female bison and cattle attempts are being made to form a new
variety of cattle called ‘cattalo’ (50).
b) Impossibility of macroevolution of new plants species
Like animal, hybridization between two plant genuses is quite impossible. Even, hybridization
between two species is also impossible, if possible the hybrid suffers various abnormalities and
are essentially sterile, if fertile, fail to gain reproduction isolation; even it loses its originality due
to segregation and back to original parental type. For example, there are no new plant species in
the present world that evolve through induced chromosomal mutations/hybridization. There are
two man-made plant hybrids (alloploid) such as Rabbage Raphanobrassica and Triticale wheat.
Some scientists claimed that these two plant hybrids are new species. But these two hybrids have
felt acquiring the status of species due to not gaining of reproductive isolation, which described
here. Karpechenko (1928), a Russian cytologist is able to cross between radish (Brassica sativus)
and Cabbage (Brassica oleracea). But the hybrid Rabbage (Raphanobrassica) is completely
sterile. Nevertheless, various shock and severe treatment with colchicines, it became to the semifertile allotetraploid Raphanobrassica. But unfortunately it had roots like of cabbage and leaves
like radish! Though Raphanobrassica is produced with a view to combine the root of radish and
the leaf of cabbage with the hybrid Rabbage but not so happen. Yet, it is not species, as it breeds
with their parents-radish and cabbage (31). What’s more, Triticale is the only successful
allopolyploid, which arise through hybridization between wheat (Triticum turgidium) and rye
(Secale cereale). Howevever, the F1 hybrid was highly sterile but using colchicine it becomes
fertile and Tirticale is synthesized. It can be cited that about 50 years of intensive research works
improved the characteristics of Triticale considerably and is cultivated (36), (51). It could be
recognized that the backcross of Triticale is possible with both its parents Triticum turgidium and
Scale cereale. So, Triticale is not a reproductively isolated. Therefore, it is not a species. As a
result, Raven et al. (10) declared that Triticale is not a species; it is a variety only.
Fertile Hybrids of Different Species of Plant Produce Variety Only
Rarely crossing between two plant species produce fertile offspring but do not produce new
species but instead produce new varieties. A number of examples are shown here according to
May, 2015
74
Impossible of Macroevolution of New Species via Changing …
Singh (52).
i) Avena sativa  Avena byzantina  Clinton oat varieties,
ii) Oryza indica  wild rice, Oryza perenensis  CO31 rice varieties,
iii) Saccharum officinarum  wild sugarcane, S. spontaneum  Sugarcane variety,
iv) S. officinarum  S. barbari  Sugarcane variety,
v) American cotton, G. hirsutumx G. barbadense  Vara lakshmi variety,
vi) Indian lemon grass, Cymbopogon khansianus  C. pendulus  CKP-25 variety,
viii) C. confertiflorus  C. jwarancusa  Jamrosa/RRL-82 variety,
Oryza japonica  O. indica  Adt. 27 variety
It can be acknowledged that hybridization is quite impossible in any asexual propagated
organisms. So, it is confirmed that numerous asexual organisms have not been evolved through
selection.
c) Animals and plants those produce fertile offspring will belong to same species
It is noteworthy that the most modern and universally accepted definition of species is that a
group of individual or natural population actually interbreeds among themselves and produces
fertile offspring or at least produce sterile or partially sterile offspring when crossed to other such
group (43), (53). As a result, coyote Canis latrans  Alaskan husky dog Canis familaris produce
fertile offspring (Pawnee). Since coyote and dog interbreed, even while differing greatly in
behaviour and appearance. Therefore, scientists treated them as single species (46).
Consequently, in this way those animals and plants that produce fertile offspring; would belong
to the same species.
4. Literatures those advocate breeders are still unable to produce a new species
There are a large number of literature literatures, which strongly support that no new species
start via artificial and sexual selection but a few writing mentioned at this juncturei) Gerking (54) stated that occasionally natural hybrid is found in nature. This hybrid
represents a breakdown of the isolating barriers but usually temporary, and does not alter the
taxonomic status of the two groups of organisms.
ii) Ranganathan (55) reported that due to breeding there is plenty evidences of changes within
kinds such as the various races of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc., whereas there has never been
observed any changes across kinds. All the different races of dogs are simply variations and
changes within the genetic limits of the dog kind. Through breeding, a dog is not becoming a
75
Abdul and Ferdous , 2015
cat, or a horse is not becoming a cow; such changes are not possible, as a dog lacks the
information in its genes to become a cat.
iii) Morris (56) acknowledged that by hybridization though a number of new varieties that may
be established from an original kind. But it is not speciation and has no true evolutionary
significance, as it backs to the parental form within a short span of time.
iv) Rastogi(33) noticed that Darwin proposed ‘artificial selection’ for improving race of
domestic plants and animals but these could never lead to permanent specific variations.
v) Singh (52) noticed that distant hybridization has been employed for the development of new
varieties, but such examples are limited to a few crop species. The most distant hybrids are of no
agricultural value. They suffer from high sterility; poor seed set and produced a wide range of
segregate. The segregate plants are much weaker and less adapted than the parent crop.
vii) Moreover, polyploids come from hybridization of two species or genera. But polyploid in
animals are rare as well as sterile (12), (16), (41). These literatures support the above discussion.
5. Impossibility o f evolution of new species through mutation in chromosome structure
The changes in the arrangement of chromosome structure such as inversion, translocation,
deletion and duplication are known as chromosomal structural mutations (8), (35),(15). The
chromosomal rearrangements play a vital role in speciation. Chromosomal rearrangements
include the genome duplication (e.g. polyploidy), unequal crossing over, inversions,
translocations, chromosome duplications and chromosome deletions (57). Recently, large
amounts of data have become available and new theoretical models have been developed
explaining how rearrangements facilitate speciation in the face of gene flow (58). The human and
chimpanzee karyotypes are distinguishable in terms of nine pericentric inversions. According to the
recombination suppression model of speciation, these inversions could have promoted the process
of parapatric (contagious) speciation between hominoid populations ancestral to chimpanzees and
humans (59). So, chromosomal structural mutations are very importance for evolution of new
species.
In opposition, like chromosomal number mutations, chromosomal structural mutations are
always very harmful to living organisms. It is declared that individuals heterozygous for
chromosome with different structure often have lowered fertility and when deletion are
May, 2015
76
Impossible of Macroevolution of New Species via Changing …
homozygous, they are often lethal, because essential genes are missing even when heterozygous,
lethal can cause abnormal development (36). In this respect some evidences are given belowi) Harmful effect of chromosomal structural mutations on humanIn human the chromosomal deficiencies known so far usually have identifiable and have
deleterious effect (16). It is pointed out that translocation cause several human diseases (36).
Nonetheless, chromosomal duplication and deletion in the heterozygote might cause an
imbalanced condition of man but homozygous situation for a deletion usually results the death of
human (15). A few specific changes in chromosomal structure have been found to be linked to
certain type of cancer such as a translocation to chromosome 9 related to the cancer chronic
myeloid leukemia. Hereditary renal cell carcinoma involves a translocation between
chromosomes 3 and 8. Brukitt lymphoma is associated with a translocation of chromosome 8 and
14. A deletion in chromosome 11 is related to the development of Wilm’s tumer. Retinoblastoma
is another form of cancer linked to a deletion in chromosome 13 (60). It is also reported that most
cancers are associated with structural chromosome mutations. Furthermore, inversion rarely
suppresses crossing over and reciprocal translocation result semi-sterility (31).
ii) Harmful effect of chromosomal structural mutations on other animals
In animals when translocation occurs in gametes, they are non-viable and the organisms with
heterozygous translocation become semi-sterile. Viability in Drosophila may be as low as 15%
with very weakness and abnormal in appearance of the surviving flies (13). It is also pointed out
that in animals chromosome deletion has a marked effect on development as duplication reduces
the viability of an organism, inversion produces abnormal and nonviable gametes, translocation
produces both balanced and unbalanced gamete; if this unbalance gamete fertilized a balanced
gamete the fertilized egg is also non-viable (8). Furthermore, deletion has also been recorded in
Waltzing mice in the region of gene “v” inducing neuron abnormalities. Duplication in the region
of x-chromosome of Drosophila produces bar eye (narrow eye) and duplication in the
chromosome- 4 causes an eyeless dominant condition (38).
iii) Harmful effect of chromosomal structural mutations on plant
Chromosomal deficiencies have been observed in corn and other seed plants, and causes pollen
sterility (16). It is also noted that plants with chromosomal translocation and inversion
(heterozygous) also suffer from pollen and ovule sterility (38). In addition, as a general rule in
most plants; pollen grains containing deficiencies or duplication are nonviable and aborted.
77
Abdul and Ferdous , 2015
Embryo sacs with deficiencies and duplication may also abort (39). It can be acknowledged that
chromosomal mutations are quite impossible in any asexual propagated organisms.
The above statement make clear that chromosomal structural mutations have no
importance for evolution of new species; instead living organism suffer various abnormality even
those may die.
6. DISCUSSION
It has been noticed that chromosome number cannot be changed without producing any harmful
effects (25),(37). As a result, Ritchie and Carola (32) drew attention that when a new organism
arises as the result of polyploidy of any kind, no new genetic material has been added as there are
no mutations, no new nucleotide, rather there is only a recombination of preexisting genes.
Even it is reported that synthetic varieties of different crops lost their qualities over time span.
As a result, seed of hybrid of rice, hybrid corn, hybrid seedless water melon etc. are supplied in
every crop season to the farmers. Consequently, Darwin, pointed out that “the fourth difficulty on
the theory of descend with modification (natural selection), how can we account for species, when
crossed, being sterile and produced sterile offspring, whereas when varieties are crossed, their
fertility is unimpaired” (4). It has been confirmed that all the natural polyploid plants and animals
are sterile (12),(54). Even autopolyploids are sterile (41). Hence, evolution of new species through
interspecies crossing is merely a dream. Moreover, hybridization and artificial selection was
practiced by human at least during seven thousands years (61). Save for still breeders are unable
to produce any new species; they produce some varieties only. So, Sinnott and Wilson (43)
testimonies that objection however have been persistently raised against evolution that why
breeders are unable to produce a group of individuals by artificial selection, which could clearly
be regarded as a new species. New and distinct races of corn, apple or other plants, which have
been developed by breeders, are not regarded as new species. Ranganathan (55) reported that due
to hybridization or breeding there is plenty evidence of changes within kinds such as the various
races of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc., there has never been observed any changes across kinds.
All the different races of dogs are simply variations and changes within the genetic limits of the
dog kind. Through this process a dog is not becoming a cat, or a horse is not becoming a cow;
such changes are not possible, as a dog has not the information in its genes to become a cat.
May, 2015
78
Impossible of Macroevolution of New Species via Changing …
Observing numerous natural polyploid plants, biologists assume that animals and plants have
evolved through chromosomal mutations, but this is not so correct. Evolutionary change through
chromosome mutations is impossible (if it is either naturally or artificially); but possible within
the species and may form race or variety. But acquiring status of this species to a race is not
possible due to segregation and failure of acquired reproduction isolation. It is declared that
despite its widespread occurrence, the direct effect of polyploidy on evolutionary success of a
species is still largely unknown (18). Polyploidy occurs frequently and accidentally but does not
generally lead to further speciation events after polyploidization. The extinction of recently
formed species occurs more frequently in polyploids than in diploid relatives (24). Polyploidy
interferes the sex-determination mechanism (11). Castro and Hubner (62) confirmed that any
theory might overturn at any time by new evidence.
7. Darwin theory oppose any macroevolution concept and still biologists are accepted
Darwin’s theory blindly
As no new species arise via the route of chromosomal speciation/ polyploidization / hybridization
/chromosomal. Consequently, Darwin himself and most of his followers believed that evolution
proceeded in a more gradual evolution and preservative fashions over millions of years than
macroevolution in large sudden steps. In Darwin’s word: natural selection acts solely by
accumulating slight, successive favorable variation; it can produce no great or sudden
modification (4). Consequently, it is declare that Darwin’s theory of natural selection still stands
as a good expression of evolution (63). it provides the best and satisfactory explanation for the
evolution of plants and animals; this is the belief of most biologists (43). Many biologists accepted
the Darwinian theory of natural selection without any thinking (64). The same statement is used
by Ahad (3). Moreover, Darwinian Theory of natural selection is the main base of modern
Synthetic theory (Neo-Darwinism) and sociobiology theory. Consequently, neo-Darwinists and
sociobiologies also oppose macroevolution of living organism through chromosomal speciation
via changing of chromosome number (chromosomal aberration) and structure.
REFERENCES
1. Ahad, M. A. (2014). Darwin’s theory is the mixture of Malthus’s theory and Lyell’s theory
and Darwin use wrong Lamarck’s theory as well as believe as a mechanism of evolution.
Am. J. Life Sci., 2(3): 128-137.doi: 10.11648/j.ajls.20140203.12
79
Abdul and Ferdous , 2015
2. Ahad, M. A. (2014a). Sociobiology is Not a Theory of Evolution but a Branch of
Entomology, which Deals with Social Insects. Ac. J. Psy. Stud., 3 (7): 380-393
3. Ahad, M.A.2015. The direct evidences (paleontology/ fossils) of evolution opposite to
Darwin’s theory and even opposite to human evolution (descent of man) from the lower
animal like chimpanzee. Am. J. L.Res.Sci, 3(1):56-76
5. Oparin, A. I.1924. Proiskhozhozhdenie Zhizny, Moscow (Translated by Ann Synge in
Bernal (1967). The Origin of Life. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
5. Darwin, C. (1859). The Origin of Species. Oxford University Press, London.
6. Darwin, C. R. 1882. The Descent of Man, And Selection in Relation to Sex ,2nd edn. John
Murray, London.
7. Sinha, U. and Sinha, S. (1997) Cytogenetics, Plant Breeding and Evolution. Vikas
Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
8. Smith, R. L. (1990). Ecology and Field Biology, 4th edn. Harper Collins Publishers, New
York.
9. Ayala,F. et al.2005. Chromosome speciation: Humans, Drosophila, and mosquitoes.
www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/chrom.spec.html). . Last visited 10.04.15.
10. Raven, P.H., Evert, R.F. and Curt, H. (1980) Biology of Plants, 2nd edn. Worth Publishers
Inc., New York.
11. Snustad, D.P. and Simons, M.J. (2000). Principles of Genetics, 2nd edn. John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., New York, p.801.
12. Brewbaker, J. L. (1964). Agricultural Genetics. Prentice-Hall Foundations of Modern
Science, Englewood, Cliffs, New Jersey.
13. Khanna, S. S. (1989) .Genetics and Evolution, 4th edn. Central Book Depot, Allahabad,
India.
14.Levin, D. (2002). The Role of Chromosomal Change in Plant Evolution. Oxford University
May, 2015
80
Impossible of Macroevolution of New Species via Changing …
Press: New York.
15. Brewer, G. J. and. Sing C. F. (1983). Genetics. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., London.
16. Strickberger, W.M. (1996). Genetics, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi
17. Soltis, D.E, Buggs, R.J.A., Doyle, J.J., Soltis, P.S. (2010). What we still don’t know about
polyploidy. Taxon, 59: 1387–1403.
18. Madlung, A. (2012). Polyploidy and its effect on evolutionary success: old questions
revisited with new tools. Heredity 110: 99–104).
19. Jiao, Y, Wickett, N.J., Ayyampalayam, S., Chanderbali, A.S., Landherr, L., Ralph, P.E. (2011]
Ancestral polyploidy in seed plants and angiosperms. Nature 473: 97)–100.
20. Blanc, G., Wolfe, K.H. (2004). Widespread paleo-polyploidy in model plant species
inferred from age distributions of duplicate genes. Plant Cell 16: 1667–1678.
22. Morris, J.D. (2014). What is the difference between macroevolution and microevolution?
www.icr.org/.../what-difference-between-macroevolution-microevolution. Last visited
10.04.15.
23. Ohno, S. (1970). Evolution by Gene Duplication. Springer Verlag: New York.
24. Arrigo, N, Barker, M.S. (2012). Rarely successful polyploids and their legacy in plant
genomes. Curr Opin Plant Biol 15: 140–146.
25.Vuletic, M.I. (2003). Frequently encountered criticisms in evolution vs. creation. (www.
vuletic. com/hume/cefec/).
26. Denton, M. (1985). Evolution: A theory Crisis. Bethestda: Adler & Adler.
[www.talkorigin.org/faqs/denton.html]. Last visited 10.04.15.
27. Gould, S. J. (2002). The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. The Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press.
28. Isaak, M. (2003). The talk origin archives, Index to creationist claim.
[www.talkorigin.org/faq-misconception].Last visited18.04.14.
29. Mader, S. (2003). Biology, 3rd edn. McGrow-Hill Higher Education, New York.
81
Abdul and Ferdous , 2015
30. Kimball, J. W. (1965). Biology. Addition Wesley Publishing Company Massachusetts,
p.739.
31. Tamarin, R. (2002).Principle of Genetics, 7th edn. Wm. C. Brown Publishers, Oxford.
32. Ritche, D. D. and Carol, R. G. (1983). Biology. Addison-Wiley Publishing Co., Inc.,
Califonia.
33.Rastogi,V. B. (1994). Organic Evolution. Kedernath Ramnath, India.
34. Case, J. F. (1979). Biology, 2nd edn. Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York and Collier
Macmillan Publishers, London.
35. Maciejouski, J. and Zieba J. (1982). Genetics and Improvement, Part B. Stock
Improvement Methods. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., Oxford, New York.
36. Weaver, R. F. and Hedrick, P. W. (1997), Genetics, 3rd edn. Wm. C. Brown Publishers,
England.
37. Altenburg, E. 1970. Genetics, Indian edn. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co.,
New Delhi.
38. Crawford R.D. (1990). Poultry Breeding and Genetics. Elsivier Science Publishers B.V.,
Asterderm.
39. Hartl, D. L. and Jones, E. W. (1998). Genetics, 4th edn. Jones and Bartlett Publishers,
Boston, London.
40. Reddi, O. S. (1992, Understanding Genetics. Allied Publishers Limited, New Delhi.
41. Gardner, E. J. Simons M. J. and Snustad, D. P. (1991). Principles of Genetics, 8th edn.
John & Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
42. Snustad, D. P. Simmons, M.J. and Jenkins, J. B. (1997). Principles of Genetics. John Wiley
and Sons Inc., New York.
43. Mayer, E. (1963). Animal Species and Evolution. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
Mass.
May, 2015
82
Impossible of Macroevolution of New Species via Changing …
44. Starr, C. and Taggart, R. (1989). Biology, the Unity and Diversity of Life, 5th edn.
Wardsworth Publishing Co. Belmont, California.
45. Ward, J. A. and Hetzel, H. W. (1980). Biology Today and Tomorrow. West Publishing Co.,
New York.
46. Wallace, R. A. (1990). Biology, the World of Life, 5th edn. Harper Collins Publishers, New
York.
47. Enger, E. D., and F. C. Ross. 1997. Concept in Biology, 8th edn. McGraw
Hill, New York.
48. Gupta, P. K. (1997). Cytology, Genetics and Evolution, 5th edn. Rastogi Publications,
Meerut, India.
49. Mackean, D. G. 1976. Introduction to Biology, new trop. edn. John Murray,
London.
50. Banerjee, G. C. 2003. A Text Book of Animal Husbandry, 8th edn. Oxford & IBH
Publishing Co., New Delhi.
51. Zillinnsky, J. (1974) The development of Triticale. Adv. Agron. 26: 315-348.
52. Singh, B. D. (2000. Plant Breeding, 6th edn. Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi.
54.Gerking, S.D. (1974). Biological Systems,2nd edn. W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia.
55. Ranganathan, B. G. (1988). Origins? The Banner of Truth Trust. Carlisle, PA.
56. Morris, H. M. 1988. Evolution and the Modern Christians. Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Co., Phillipsburg, New Jersey.
57. Futuyma, D. (1998). Evolutionary Biology. Third edition. Sunderland, MA, Sinauer
Associates. pp. 267-271, 283-294
58. Faria, R., and Navarro, A. (2010). Chromosomal speciation revisited: rearranging theory
with pieces of evidence. (Chromosomal speciation revisited: rearranging
theory...Cell,www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution..)
59. Zamalek, J.M. S. et al. 2007. Chromosomal speciation of humans and chimpanzees
83
Abdul and Ferdous , 2015
revisited: studies of DNA divergence within inverted region, (by J.M.S. Zamalek, et al, in
Cytogenetic and Genome Research, 2007)
60. Pai, A. C. (1986). Foundation of Genetics, Int. edn. McGraw Hill Co., New York.
(61). Lull, 1976). Lull, R. S. 1976. Orgnanic Evolution, Indian edn. Seema
Publications, New Delhi.
(62). Castro, P., and M. E. Hubner. 1997. Marine Biology, 2nd edn. WCB/ McGraw-Hill, New
York.
63. Purves, W.K. and Orians, G. H. (1987). The Science of Biology, 2nd edn. Sinauer
Associates Inc. Publishers, Snderland, Massachuetts.
64. Bateson, P. (1985). Sociobiology and human politics. In: S. Rose and L.appignanest (eds)
Science and beyond. Blackwell, Oxford, pp.79-99
May, 2015
84