Posted on 02/10/2006 10:13:29 AM PST by SirLinksalot
Professor challenges evolution
By NAN AMA SARFO
Staff Writer
February 09, 2006
A Pitt professor challenged a part of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution in an article published in the scientific magazine The New Anatomist last week. Jeffrey Schwartz — a Pitt professor in the department of anthropology and the department of history and philosophy of science — collaborated with Bruno Maresca, a professor of biochemistry at Italy’s University of Salerno, for the article, which refutes Darwin’s Theory of Evolution using modern knowledge about cell biology.
The two decided to collaborate after Maresca contacted Schwartz after reading his book, “Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species,” in which Schwartz first explained his theory of evolution.
Schwartz refuted Darwin’s theory of gradual evolution in organisms with one that states that evolution occurs quickly and suddenly as the result of cell mutations.
“Darwinism’s presence in science is so overwhelming,” Schwartz said. “For the longest time, there was no room for alternative thinking among the scientific community.”
This has led Schwartz — who believes that this indoctrination has resulted in scientists who don’t know enough about the history of the theories they learned — to teach all different aspects of evolution to his students.
It was through exposure to influential scientists and their questioning views of Darwinism as a Columbia grad student that Schwartz became interested in exploring the issue.
Darwin’s theory, a staple in science curriculums, states that evolution in organisms occurs gradually over time. His theory also states that gaps in the fossil record, in which there are missing links between the different phases of evolution in organisms are temporary because the linking fossils haven’t been found yet.
Schwartz, through research of the fossil record and use of Maresca’s findings about cell structure, believes otherwise.
“If you look at the fossil record, organisms didn’t gain new items like teeth and jaws gradually,” Schwartz said. “It’s not like fish developed bony teeth one piece at a time. It happened suddenly.”
Schwartz believes that stressors such as extreme heat and cold precipitate changes in evolution.
“Cells don’t like change. They have many different proteins that protect them from extreme changes,” Schwartz said. “With all these different mechanisms that they have, it’s unlikely that they change willingly over time, as Darwin’s theory says. Modern cell biology doesn’t support Darwinism.”
These extreme changes, says Schwartz, quickly overwhelm the stress proteins in a cell and cause mutations. Most of the time, cell changes kill the organism. Other changes are beneficial.
However, it takes years for these changes to appear in organisms, since, according to Schwartz, mutations occur recessively and are passed unknowingly until the mutation saturates the population. Then, when members of the population receive two copies of the mutation, the trait appears suddenly.
According to Schwartz, time will tell if and when the scientific community will begin to move away from Darwin’s theories and adopt others, such as his own. But he sees the most urgent application of his theory toward the protection of animals and endangered species in general.
“We don’t know what the stressors are that cause extinction in animals,” Schwartz said. “So we need to be much more sensitive about the environment and be aware of local and global events. It’s all a domino effect. One small change affects everyone else.”
Stick to science. You obviously know more about it than history. I say the last 400 years because prior to that time, the common man had very little access to the Scriptures. The rewriting of American history by the secularists to try to make people think that our founders were deists, freethinkers, or "deviant Christians" is another great fruit of our government run schools. Go read their original writings.
We don't. You do, however, as shown by your next desperate tactic:
Christians? According to what definition?
The standard one -- people who believe in the divinity of Christ. *You're* the one who wants to redefine the term such that anyone who happens to accept modern biology isn't a "real" Christian...
Look, if you want to believe in evolution, that's your business.
Why thank you.
Just don't redefine 2,000 years of Christian Orthodoxy so that you can have it both ways.
I'm not. You are. Meanwhile, let's hear you tell us that *these* people aren't Christians either:
The "Clergy Letter Project": An Open Letter Concerning Religion and ScienceBut hey, I guess *you* know better than 10,000+ Christian clergy, eh?
"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.
[As of 29 January 2006, there are 10,230 signatures collected to date]
Click the links that follow to see the alphabetical lists of clergy members who have endorsed this letter
A to E - F to J - K to O - P to S - T to Z
Listing by States
Your arrogance is astounding. And don't try to accuse *us* of trying to "redefine" the meaning of Christian when *you're* the one denying the Christianity of countless followers of Christ just because you're rabidly against the findings of biology.
Moderator please remove post 160. I forgot to put in all recipients. Thank you.
A theory is above fact. A theory of science by definition is study and observation of a material thing that exist by fact, evidence, empirical evidence, and a logically deducted explanation of the facts, evidence, and empirical evidence. Evolution by definition is change and is a fact. That evolution exists as fact is easily proved and to deny evolution would deny one's own existence and reality. First, evolution can be observed by simply looking in a mirror an determining that by reproduction change has occurred. You are different from your father, mother, or any of your ancestors and evolution and change has occurred. If no changes were occurring you would be a clone of all before you. Second the evidence is that if examined by thousands all would agree that you are not exactly the same as those before you even though you may possess similar traits. Third is the empirical evidence that change or evolution always occurs with reproduction in all species. A simple test is that out of 6.7 billion humans on earth today no two are exactly the same. The theory of evolution is accepted because it is observed, fact, there is evidence, the evidence is tested and the logical explanation is reproduction. Origin of the Species is another theory and attempts to explain origin by evolution as the fact. It is simply that over a period of time a species by reproduction and the forces of nature change or evolute to such a difference that it is not of the small changes and differences of the original species and that the difference is so great and the traits so few that a new species exists by evolution. The theory for the Origin of the Species is supported by first, observation of evolution, second, evolution is a fact, third, there is evidence that severe changes occur and forth, the evidence has been studied and tested and the logical deduction is that species evolve by change or evolution over a period and are by reproduction and forces of nature. The theory exists and continues to exist by evidence but experiences different explanations as there is more evidence, or the evidence is refuted. However there is no evidence to refute the theory itself by scientific method but only by one's philosophy. It is illogical and without any scientific support to suppose that each species that ever existed, exists, or will ever exist and that all the changes that occur in such species or origin exist as a separate change for each by a new creation or ID
...except as the recipient of the tender mercies of the Inquisitors, the theocracies, the priesthoods, and so on...
"Please explain how Darwin naturally "fits" with tyranny. Be specific."
This guy is piling himself up a lot of homework--that list of at least 2,000 scientists who believe evolution is a religion, explaining how Darwin naturally "fits" with tyranny . . . wonder if he'll ever cough up answers?
That's exactly what you've done. The Bible is the document which governs the definition of what a Christian is. It's a matter of definition - not theology. Did Jesus believe in evolution? Not according to the only words of His that we have recorded. Did Jesus believe the Scripture (the Old Testament) to be true? Yes He did - at least according to the only words of His that we have recorded.
You can have a billion people sign a document that says that Jonah couldn't have spent three days in the belly of a fish but, according to Jesus, he did. It's a matter of definition. If you want to be a Marxist, you have to believe what Marx believed. If you want to be a Christian, you have to believe what Christ believed. It's purely a matter of words having meaning. It's 2,000 years of Orthodox Christianity. It's only been in about the last 100 or so years that people wanted to have it both ways: pick and choose what portions of the Scripture that they want to believe and then define themselves as Christians. They then accuse those who hold to the 2,000 year definition of Christianity to be bigots, arrogant, etc. It is identical to the issues of what is marriage, homosexuals in the priesthood or pastorate, etc. You can make up any rules that you want to and you can call yourself a Christian. That doesn't make it so. No matter how many people sign a document saying that it is.
For as in Adam, all died, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. No Adam - no need for Christ - according to the Bible - which is the basis for Christianity. The geneology of Jesus Himself is traced to Adam by Luke.
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. Adam was a type of Him who was to come - Jesus. This is basic Christianity.
Timothy tells us that Adam was formed first - then Eve. This is basic Christianity. 2,000 years of orthodoxy. 2,000 years of believing the Scripture. Don't tell me your not redefining anything. You can't have it both ways.
Jude, the brother of Jesus, tells us that Enoch was the seventh generation from Adam. Basic, Orthodox Christianity for 2,000 years until those that want to have their cake and eat it too began the redefining of Christianity to exclude the parts of Scripture that they don't like.
According to Jesus, according to Paul, according to Luke, according to Timothy, according to Jude, according to Moses, according to Christians for 2,000 years, Adam was made in the image of God by God from the dust of the earth. You don't have to agree. Just don't redefine what a Christian is. It's definitional - not theological.
If you don't mind, I have another question. I'm guessing that you'd still characterize yourself as religious. Do you perceive any tension (and if so, how do you reconcile it) between your religious beliefs and the methodological naturalism you will practice as a scientist?
"If you want to be a Christian, you have to believe what Christ believed."
OK. Do you believe in observing Jewish dietary laws? Jesus did.
Bearing false witness against thy neighbor, all for the greater glory of God, who commanded us to not bear false witness against thy neighbor . . .
OK, this is making my head hurt.
Yes, how we yearn for the good ole days of the 20th Century where Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao put the evil Christians in the back of the bus and practiced their brand of anti-theism. No misery, no barbarism, just peace on Earth and good will toward men. Those were the days.
Nice drivel. I believe Gould already dreamed this one up!
Tell the Czar.
Seriously, the words probably "had meaning" to Charlemagne, Ivan the Terrible, and Suleiman the Magnificent, but they weren't implemented until people revolted against their "anointed king", their ruler "by the grace of God".
A very good explanation but is probably wasted effort. Those of higher and lower IQ have little in common, thought, or understanding.
Under conditions of domestication it is possible to obtain hybrids between equid species. There are records of onager/ass, onager/horse and zebra/horse (zebroids) crosses, but the cross that has been most significant in human history is one between horses and donkeys. Breeding a male donkey to a female horse results in a mule; breeding a male horse to a female donkey produces a hinny. Offspring from either cross, although fully developed as males or females, are almost always sterile. Hence, a line of horses and a line of domestic asses must be maintained to perpetuate mule or hinny production.
Too long, you commie atheist intellectual bully.
Someone on a previous thread suggested that we need a source of definitions especially for those of us not schooled in the ToE, and I agree. I am still trying to get a handle on some of this. In my dictionary, "science" seems to have it's genesis from the latin "scientia" meaning knowledge. But it does not seem to be used that way among the evo group around here. So, is there a straightforward definition that can be provided that will define what you mean when you use the word? And, is there a concensus among the group or is there some disagreement? Also, in the old school, the scientific method used to be that in order for it to be science it had to be observable, demostrable in the laboratory, and falsifiable. It seems this is no longer the case as well, so I would appreciate your definition of the scientific method. Finally, as I understand it in the ToE it is all chemical, so at the risk of repeating myself, how do you think the concept of a creator ever evolved in the brains of so many people all over the world?
Dr.DIM: But then, I've come to expect nothing but pure lies from creationists around here. Honesty seems to be the exception amongst them.
Dr.DIM: Either you're too arrogant to even consider that the "disproof" you've posted might possibly be in error, or you're too much of a coward to investigage angles that might prove you wrong.
Dr.DIM: And are you so dense as to believe that this is the only possible result of genetic change?
Dr.DIM: Creationist dishonesty knows no bounds or shame.Dr.DIM: Let me know when you're ready to stop running from refutations of your "moon" claims like a coward.
Dr.DIM: But, since you're a liar, you'll just ignore facts that are inconvenient to you.
RWP: I don't claim to agree with the guy. In fact, I think he's a self-promoting turkey.
Dr.DIM: So when you said that you didn't predict a verdict in the Dover trial, what did you really mean?
OBB: Or do you mean the way the idiotarians have changed the meaning of "theory" to mean "just a guess?"
Dr.DIM: I might take your comments seriously if they came from someone who wasn't a known liar.
CGM: Your actions. Creationist/ID'er: same thing, different package.
OBB: Since anti-evolutionists and other anti-science types are working, knowingly or unknowingly, in the service of the political Left... idiotarian is a good descriptor.
OBB: Evolution happens. The Earth is round. The sun will come up tomorrow. Denial of these basic facts, IMO, marks one as ignorant or a Leftist operative.
Dr.DIM: Please demonstrate that you have a sufficient level of understanding of the theory to establish credibility in speaking of its faults.
RWP: And this one seems more than ordinarily clueless.
As it happens, I think Schwartz is a bozo. He's done some nice work in the past cataloguing human evolution, but here he's trying to repackage a couple of very old ideas, in a controversial form, to get some notoreity.
BAPH: When did "ignorance" suddenly become "an intellectually legitimate point of view?"
BAPH: Being called "ignorant" is only an insult if it is untrue. You admitted to it--why do you find people taking you at your word to be an insult?
OBB: Evolution happens. If you deny evolution, you deny the real world in favor of shadows on a cave wall.
IMON: Hey, here's something that probably never occurred to you -- why don't you actually learn something about biology before you attempt to pontificate about it?
IMON: Little do you know how little you know. But don't make the mistake of presuming that the same is true of everyone, especially people who spend their entire lives studying specific topics.
IMON: Dead wrong. Where did you gain your "education" on this matter, a creationist pamphlet?
IMON: Please do not feed the troll.
Dr.DIM: I suspect that the evidence can be found at the same place as the evidence for your claim that "thousands" of scientists consider evolution to be "religious dogma".
IMON: Oh, wait, you *don't* realize that, do you?
IMON: So... what was your point again? Presuming you had one?
OBB: This is why I refer to you as an "idiotarian." You *LIE* to make whatever point it is. Nobody here suggests or wants laws passed against people challenging a scientific theory.
You serve the Left with that rubbish
IMON: Let me guess -- you're one of those "idiotarians" who think that belief in evolution equals atheism, right?
IMON: You're kidding, right? Are you really this ignorant of history?
IMON: which is the case for the vast majority of anti-evolution creationists.
IMON: People often argue against even the most undeniable of facts, because people are not always motivated by rational considerations -- they're frequently motivated by emotional factors, a desire to believe something more comforting than reality, etc. etc.
Dr.DIM: I don't see why he couldn't apply the same principle of "making crap up without concern for validity" to any claim that he makes.
There that's just a sampling of a few I noted... I was wondering if you could apply your logical expertise to this list and provide me with the commonly used name or just a brief description of the fallacy would suffice...
Thank you and I apologize in advance for any mistakes in attribution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.