Evolutionary Theory: Verified or Vilified?

Creation-Evolution Headlines ^ | 1/26/2006 | Creation-Evolution Headlines Staff

[bondserv]

Evolutionary Theory: Verified or Vilified?   01/26/2006    
Jeffrey Schwartz has reason to be happy that his particular theory of evolution received some support recently, according to a press release from University of Pittsburgh.  But look at the pedestal he is standing on: the ruins of classical Darwinism and neo-Darwinism.  In supporting his own theory, he kicked out the props from under standard evolutionary theory (emphasis added in all quotes):

• Fossils:  The missing links Darwin expected to find “have not been found because they don’t exist,” he claims.  The gradualistic theory “glosses over gaps in the fossil record,” he accuses.
• Gradualism:  Gradual change does not occur: “evolution is not necessarily gradual but often sudden, dramatic expressions of change.”
• Resistance to change:  “Why don’t cells subtly and constantly change in small ways over time, as Darwin suggests?  Cell biologists know the answer: Cells don’t like to change and don’t do so easily.”
• Quality Control:  “Cells in their ordinary states have suites of molecules—various kinds of proteins—whose jobs are to eliminate error that might get introduced and derail the functioning of their cell.  For instance, some proteins work to keep the cell membrane intact.  Other proteins act as chaperones, bringing molecules to their proper locations in the cell, and so on.  In short, with that kind of protection from change, it is very difficult for mutations, of whatever kind, to gain a foothold.”
• Improbability:  Mutations “may be significant and beneficial (like teeth or limbs) or, more likely, kill the organism.”
• Disequilibrium:  “This revelation has enormous implications for the notion that organisms routinely change to adapt to the environment.  Actually, Schwartz argues, it is the environment that knocks them off their equilibrium and as likely ultimately kills them as changes them.  And so they are being rocked by the environment, not adapting to it.”

With statements like this, that seem to echo those of creationists, what is Schwartz proposing in the place of standard neo-Darwinism?  It’s called the “Sudden Origins Theory.”  That sounds like creationism, too.  It’s not.  It is repackaged evolutionary theory, just as unguided and naturalistic as the old, but now it puts more emphasis on the environment as the instigator of adaptive change.  Aided by colleague Ian Tattersall, Schwarz wrote a book on this six years ago, Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species (John Wiley & Sons, 2000), that the press release summarizes:

The mechanism, the authors explain, is this: Environmental upheaval causes genes to mutate, and those altered genes remain in a recessive state, spreading silently through the population until offspring appear with two copies of the new mutation and change suddenly, seemingly appearing out of thin air.

Because cells resist change and correct their errors, defeating gradualism, Schwarz and Tattersall looked for other ways to make mutations stick.  The environment became the stressor to knock organisms out of kilter and plant the germs of creative change into their genes, in a recessive state.  There, the ones that don’t kill the organism await the next opportunity to bloom.  These recessive mutations amount to a sort of toolkit for evolution to tinker with, not knowing what they are good for until a need arises in the environment.
    Why is this six-year-old proposal getting press now?  Schwarz just co-authored a paper with Bruno Maresca, appearing in the Jan. 30 New Anatomist Journal, that they claim supports the new theory, based on some “emerging understanding of cell structure” that was left unspecified in the press release.
    One implication of Schwarz’s theory is that today’s organisms are loaded with mutations from previous environmental stresses.  It is too late, therefore, to try to make a quick fix to the environment.  “The Sudden Origins theory, buttressed by modern cell biology,” he said, “underscores the need to preserve the environment—not only to enhance life today, but to protect life generations from now.”

So he ends with a flourish, giving a little politically correct environmentalist spin to help legitimize his rhetoric and distract attention from his crazy idea.  This is rich.  Schwartz and Tattersall have just corroborated all the criticisms creationists bring against neo-Darwinism: mutations are generally harmful, cells are intricately designed to resist change, and the fossil record, riddled with real gaps, debunks gradualism.  Thank you, Dr. Schwarz, for helping shovel standard evolutionary theory into the dustbin of history.
    But is his replacement any better?  All he has done is transfer the creative power of evolution from one undirected, natural cause (gradual natural selection) to another undirected, natural cause (the environment and sudden natural selection).  Has he shown that the pool of recessive mutated genes has any more creative power to generate wings and eyes than the old gradualism?  Has he explained how fully-formed, functioning complex organs, like teeth or limbs, could burst on the scene, as if from nowhere?  This is not science, this is magic.  The new evolutionists have become illusionists, producing rabbits out of thin air.
    With friends like these, Charlie doesn’t need enemies.  This press release announces open season for creationists and intelligent design people and all the critics of evolutionary theory to brush past the fluff of “Sudden Origins” evolution and to say, “We told you so!”

[bondserv]

Comments in green fonts provided by Creation-Evolution Headlines.

[bondserv]

Ping!

[VadeRetro]

Anticipated it here. But don't get your hopes up.

[xzins]

Hey...anyone know anything about this?

[bondserv]

Anticipated it here. But don't get your hopes up.

Actually Creation Scientists were way ahead of the curve on this one. These conclusions look more like pre-designed characteristics that only express when the environment dictates.

A. E. Wilder-Smith did some extensive research in this area. He got the idea when thinking about callouses. A recessive trait that is coded to only express when the environment dictates. He did some other experiments along these lines.

One included a male frog species that had a rubbery pad on it's front feet. The pad enabled the frog to grasp the slimy female in order to reproduce. When he forced the environment to be dryer the pads no longer expressed for the males.

He decided to experiment with other species who lived in dryer climates. The male frogs, when forced into a swampy environment expressed the same rubbery pads on their front feet.

His conclusion is that scientists don't know enough about genetics to make competent claims. It all makes more sense from a design perspective and with the current momentum will be viewed in that light by more scientists as time progresses.

[LiteKeeper]

YEC SPOTREP

[Creationist]

The Theory of evolution is a religion. There Bible continually changes scripture to meet the need of rejection by science. Oh wait a minute I forgot science is self correcting. It just take 100 or more years to tell the rest of the world that most of their evidence has been disproved within years of its so called discoveries. That is why most of their trash lies are still in tax paid for text books, they want it that way so they can raise up our children to be ungodly.

Time is the evolutionary talisman. And the stars are their redoubt.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the pings! I'm not familiar with the new theory mentioned above, but I'll try to come up to speed.

[connectthedots]

What happened to the other thread that was in the smokey back room? I didn't see anything that warranted it being pulled?

[Fester Chugabrew]

Their Bible continually changes scripture . . . .

When one's only guide is internal, the propensity for ad hoc modifications is increased. The biblical texts make a reasonable starting point and a fine anchor. The best science takes place when order and design are assumed from the get go. The biblical texts do not originate within the observer but come from the outside, stating in general terms where this creation came from and why. Positive statements, wherever they originate, are not neutral. They are objects for human intellect to apprehend, evaluate, and then either accept or reject.

Lo and behold, not only do we have a text from the outside that positively asserts intelligent design, but we also have data to fit the scientific model of intelligent design very well, for science must deal with intelligible phenomena. Only some kind of internal darkness would attempt to explain intelligent design away. That idea is not at all supported from the outside, except perhaps in some remote corner of the universe where there is no intelligible matter or process.

The only answer proponents of non-intelligent non-design can proffer against a reliance upon the external biblical texts is scorn and ridicule, as often demonstrated in these threads. "What do the words of a bunch of goat herders have to do with science?" In truth, the scientific model (or shaping principle) of intelligent design is not only plausible but also perfectly legal in any academic context, even if it results in religious implications.

Materialistic naturalism has little or nothing to offer empirically or philosophically, especially in view of all its ad hoc modifications. It is a pottage best left for those who are full of themselves.

[VadeRetro]

The usual gang of suspects probably wanted it pulled and got it done. Can't tell now. Funny people can exercise censorship just by using their own bad behavior.

[VadeRetro]

He got the idea when thinking about callouses. A recessive trait that is coded to only express when the environment dictates.

That is the worst description of calluses I have ever seen. I think it's just flat wrong.

[bondserv]

That is the worst description of calluses I have ever seen. I think it's just flat wrong.

That was a fast and loose summary by me. He described the process using all of the technical terms. You will have to hear his explanation to properly comment.

He differentiated the callus and the frog pad. Calluses are coded to express and recess during the lifetime. If I remember correctly the Frog pad was more like Finch beaks in that new generations expressed the latent genetic information. Just like the Finch beaks the Frog pads fluctuated on and off depending on environment.

His main point is scientists are properly clueless considering the wealth of information they have not considered. And that what we do know contradicts all conventional theories in one way or another.

IMO this is where the new blood of Creation Science will come in. :-)

[VadeRetro]

A callus is a pad of dead cells, nature's own cushion. You grow one where you need one. It forms as a response to repetitive abrasive injuries, part of the wound healing process. Everyone has the genes to do this.

[VadeRetro]

His main point is scientists are properly clueless considering the wealth of information they have not considered. And that what we do know contradicts all conventional theories in one way or another.

The guy's just baffling you with BS and he's working too hard.

[connectthedots]

I didn't think anyone was using bad behavior; certainly not bad enough to have it pulled.

If people can't handle the passionate arguments of others, they need to go somewhere else.

I was also surprised that the posts on my 'ping' list were deleted. First time that has happened when a thread was pulled.

[bobdsmith]

ludicrous

[101st-Eagle]

I AM GOD!

[VadeRetro]

I wasn't watching that particular thread when it popped. Probably past my bedtime. But it usually happens when the creos starting pooping on the rug.

[bvw]

Please see Andrew C's post, and my follow up on that thread. Post 138