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]

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.

Honest scientists are humble enough to admit a lack of certainty based on the impossibility to know what science, in it's primitive state, can't know.

[VadeRetro]

I see.

[Virginia-American]

Reminds mew of the midwife toad

[Elsie]

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.

And, they've been proven to be such an advantage, that the God-of-E will incorporate them in the next homid release. Date and Version # yet to be determined.

[editor-surveyor]

This isn't really new. It's just some new terminology wrapped around what Stephen Gould was saying over 15 years ago.

[fizziwig]

Yes it appears to be similar to Gould's idea of Punctuated Equilibrium.

[caffe]

yES, it is totally recycled punctuated equlibrium. Since more and more evolutionists now recognize that the fossil record is significantly complete and cannot be brushed aside, they came up with lame excuses like this punctuationist.
One should ask this guy about the inability of multicellular animals to efficiently digest cellulose which obviously helps make the system of life ecologically stable.

Again, the punctuationists illusion is only another exercise in evolutionary junk science.
This guy has absolutely nothing new to say about evolution except change terminology.
It's like Howard Dean redefining "faith and values"

[xzins]

That's what I was thinking.

[countorlock]

The Theory of evolution is a religion.

Yes it is and more specifically it is called idolatry in the bible.

[frgoff]

It's a rework of Punctuated Equilibrium. The only difference is, this guy proposes a mechanism: Catastrophism.