Skip to comments.
Pitt Professor's Theory of Evolution Gets Boost From Cell Research [Sudden Origins]
University of Pittsburgh ^
| 26 January 2006
| Staff
Posted on 01/26/2006 11:47:13 AM PST by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 341-349 next last
To: PatrickHenry; Coyoteman
Certainly, Molecular Biology is a pretty 'hard' science.
21
posted on
01/26/2006 12:26:15 PM PST
by
expatpat
To: jennyp
Wonder how much grant money is involved?
22
posted on
01/26/2006 12:28:27 PM PST
by
mlc9852
To: fireforeffect
Heck, I do well to add and subtract! :)
23
posted on
01/26/2006 12:28:57 PM PST
by
mlc9852
To: jennyp
This guy's going to have a hard time getting his theory accepted if he calls it "sudden origins theory". But it may catch on in creationist circles. Agreed. Alas for Jeffrey H. Schwartz, the creationists and ID-ers have pretty much already reserved that term for the next incarnation of their hocus-pocus. He'd be well advised to call it something like "latent characteristics" or something.
24
posted on
01/26/2006 12:32:01 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: expatpat; PatrickHenry
Certainly, Molecular Biology is a pretty 'hard' science. Hard? You ever see a molecular biologist at work with dirt under his/her fingernails? Worse problem they probably have to cope with is the air conditioning set too high.
25
posted on
01/26/2006 12:38:08 PM PST
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: Coyoteman
I agree. It's not everyone that can dig for coprolites.
26
posted on
01/26/2006 12:40:47 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: PatrickHenry
I agree. It's not everyone that can dig for coprolites. That's right. Some of us really throw ourselves into our work!
27
posted on
01/26/2006 12:42:52 PM PST
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
It's a crappy job, but someone has to do it! :)
28
posted on
01/26/2006 12:45:45 PM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: Coyoteman
If the scientific world should ever disappoint you, you can have a second career running a
poop-scooping service. It's the latest thing in suburbia, and with your experience ... you'd be a natural.
29
posted on
01/26/2006 12:49:02 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: CarolinaGuitarman
That pic goes great with your tagline.
30
posted on
01/26/2006 12:50:21 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: PatrickHenry
You just can't do a quick fix on the environment to prevent extinction because the cause of the mutation occurred some time in the past, and you don't know what the cause of the stress was at that time, Schwartz said. That would seem to open gaps in the Natural Selection areas in evolution, rather than close them. If the changes are due to an ice age, and don't show up for a long time after, then it would have double the trouble of being viable.
The guy made a nice try, but as Casey learned, even a mighty swing can miss the ball.
31
posted on
01/26/2006 12:50:39 PM PST
by
trebb
("I am the way... no one comes to the Father, but by me..." - Jesus in John 14:6 (RSV))
To: CarolinaGuitarman
this thread has gone to sh--
32
posted on
01/26/2006 12:51:38 PM PST
by
wallcrawlr
(http://www.bionicear.com)
To: PatrickHenry
"That pic goes great with your tagline."
I wasn't really thinking of THAT particular view of life (nor was Darwin I should suppose). :)
33
posted on
01/26/2006 12:51:49 PM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: PatrickHenry
Interesting theory. Has nothing to do with Darwin, however.
34
posted on
01/26/2006 12:55:19 PM PST
by
bvw
To: Juan Medén
Maybe I am missing something here, but is this guy suggesting that environmental factors cause not just one gene to alter in the DNA of one cell but the same gene to alter in every cell in an organism at the same time and in the same way to the extent that even new reproductive cells that pass on genetic information to the offspring duplicate the mutation? No, he's not, and yes, you are missing something.
Moreover, is he suggesting that these genetic mutations, which have taken place in every cell of the organism and even in future reproductive cells,
Wrong again.
are duplicated in other similar organism to the extent that when two of these organism that have indipentently undergone the same genetic mutation mate, the genetic mutations are passed on into the genetic pool as viable genetic variants?
That's not how new mutations get spread through the population. The old "a new mutation would need an identical mutation to mate with" canard exists only in creationist pamphlets, and bears no resemblance to how things actually work in biology.
Natural selection I understand.
Somehow I doubt that.
This, on the other hand, is LAUGHABLE!!!!
Not at all, although your misunderstanding of the article, and of biology in general, is rather amusing.
You know that environmental factor? His name is GOD.
No, not unless you call environmental stressors "God". See for example: Bradshaw, A.D. (1965). "Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants," Advances in Genetics vol 13 pp 115-155, [West-Eberhard, M.J. (1986) "Alternative adaptations, speciation, and phylogeny (A Review)," Proceedings National Academy of Science USA vol 83 pp 1388-1392] [Harrison R.G. (1980) "Dispersal polymorphisms in insects," Annual Reviews of Ecological Systems vol 11 pp 152-153.] [Schlichting, C.D. (1986) "The evolution of phenotypic plasticity in plants," Annual Review of Ecological Systems, vol. 17 pp 667-693] [Stearns S.C. (1989) "The evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity" Bioscience vol 39 pp 436-445].
To: Coyoteman
LOL! Dirt under the finger-nails is not the definition of hard science, unless car mechanics are scientists. Scrabbling around in the dirt might be fun, but it ain't Physics.
36
posted on
01/26/2006 12:59:23 PM PST
by
expatpat
To: Ichneumon
You've claimed I am wrong but you have not explained how these things could possibly be true. How could these mutated genes be passed on as recessive genes as the author claims unless they entered the genetic information of reproductive cells? If I am missing something, please, explain it to me.
P.S. Unlike you, I have never read creationist literature. This is pure logical analysis and evolution has never added up in my book.
To: Ichneumon; expatpat
I too could use some explanation of this if you could take the time. Its far outside of my studies (you know how it is, just scrabblin' around in the dirt isn't physics).
38
posted on
01/26/2006 1:10:58 PM PST
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: PatrickHenry
In that book, Schwartz hearkens back to earlier theories that suggest that the Darwinian model of evolution as continual and gradual adaptation to the environment glosses over gaps in the fossil record by assuming the intervening fossils simply have not been found yet. Rather, Schwartz argues, they have not been found because they don't exist, since evolution is not necessarily gradual but often sudden, dramatic expressions of change that began on the cellular level because of radical environmental stressors-like extreme heat, cold, or crowding-years earlier. Of course they don't exist.
How can evolutionists claim their 'theory' is a fact when they can't even decide if change was gradual or sudden?
This article is nothing more than wild speculation presented in an attempt to overcome the obvious weaknesses of the many theories of evolution speculated about by others.
If anything, this article casts further doubt on evolution.
To: PatrickHenry
This theory suggests that evolution requires stress. That would not seem to explain the
Birds of Paradise. The only stress the males would feel would be due to rejection, and the rejected ones would not get to breed.
Perhaps a better explanation of the sudden appearance of changes is that we will never have more than a statistically small sample of fossils from any given era. We might not see an evolutionary change until an environmental change has given it an advantage and the "mutant" population explodes.
40
posted on
01/26/2006 1:14:19 PM PST
by
Ragnar54
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 341-349 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson