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.”
I believe it was coined by Little Green Footballs. Michael Moore is the archetype. See also the Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto.
> Are you sure that "idiotarian" is a word?
Insofar as it is used with some regularity, yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiotarian
"The term idiotarian was coined by Charles Johnson (webmaster of the Little Green Footballs warblog) on January 5, 2002, in response to a comment on the weblog Instapundit.[1] It is an apparent hybrid of 'idiot' and the '-tarian' ending common to words denoting political ideologies such as libertarian or communitarian."
"The term was initially directed against "idiotic" behavior by figures on both the political left and right,[2] however, it has come to be associated much more strongly with its use by warbloggers, right-leaning, and libertarian bloggers in criticism of the political left. It is sometimes employed in the service of ad hominem rhetorical attacks, but may also be used as a pejorative political slogan or label, and the meaning and usage of the term itself is a subject of politicized debate."
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.
> I went to dictionary.com, I couldn't find the word.
They don't have "Islamofascist," either. The English language evolves rapidly, as do many organisms. Sometimes change is so fast that good records are often not kept. Such is life.
If I were still a young earth creationist, I would be shoving you into a closet saying, "Get off my side, you're making it look stupid."
Since I'm no longer a young earth creationists I'll just bang my head on the wall and then laugh.
> Evolution has been a 'theory' for what... more than 150 years?
So? Aerodynamic theory has been around for more than a century, and the fact remains that planes stay airborne.
Evolution is a theory. "Life evolves" is a fact.
Relativity is a theory. "Atom bombs go BLAM" is a fact.
I love the word. I just totally disagree with your conclusion regarding who is in cahoots with the political left. I'd love to see an honest exit poll of Bush vs. Kerry voters and what percentage of each believe in evolution. I'm sure that we would find that a much greater percentage of idiotarians believe in evolution. C'mon now. You know that this is true. And please don't call me a liar because I won't actually go out and do the poll.
> I just totally disagree with your conclusion regarding who is in cahoots with the political left.
That's why I said "knowingly or unknowingly." Lenin, I believe, coined the term "useful idiots" to describe those who aided his cause without necessarily knowing it or wanting to do so. We're seeign the result of this in Europe with respect to the Islamofascists... and we're seeing it in the US with respect to the anti-science types. By casting Republicans as the party that refuses to leave the Dark Ages, they aid the cause of the Left.
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.
I did predict a narrow verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.
I also said on a number of occasions that one can never be sure how a trial will end because a judge can choose to ignore the law.
If you insist I never made such comments; you are the one who is a liar.
"Beyond theory there might be a 'law' of nature."
There might be, but there isn't.
A 'politician'?
A 'journalist'?
A 'lawyer'?
Just kidding...
Exactly.
If a theory stands a chance of being proved wrong, then it merits to be called a 'speculation' rather than a theory.
Utterly and completely wrong. By that standard there is nothing in science that isn't "speculation".
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.