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.”
Actually, when you called Schwartz a numbskull, you were quoting Schwartz.
> why is it still being discussed and challenged?
For the same reason history is. We know, say, that Napoleon stormed around Europe. But the details on why or how such-and-such event occured can remain under debate.
> Ha anybody actually observed a species, like a large animal, evolve into something which might rightfully be called something else?
If by "something else" you mean a separate species, then, yes. Observed instances of speciation are many.
What happened? I am interested because I think it's likely most anti-Es are simply ignorant of evolution and science generally.
"Oh, I don't know. I seem to recall that there is something called the 'Law of Gravity". Did that start out as a theory?"
The correct name is the "THEORY of Gravitation." It's still a theory.
No, I was quoting the reporter quoting Schwartz.
I hvae enough experience with reporters for student papers to know what she wrote, and what Schwartz said, may be entirely different. 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.
"Like I said, I neither an 'evolutionist' or 'creationist'. I'm no expert in any of them. But, evolution cannot explain the complexity of DNA and the many differences you see of it in nature."
OK, let's look at this statement logically. You state that you are not an expert on this subject--but then proceed to make a statement that requires a very high level of expertise in this subject.
When did "ignorance" suddenly become "an intellectually legitimate point of view?"
I wonder if that's the best way to look at it. Maybe the difference more quantitative than qualitative. That is, they are both explanations of phenomena but the reach of a theory is much greater than a law. For example, Ohm's Law explains just a little bit but Maxwell's Theory of Electromagnetism explains a huge amount.
"So, do you subscribe to the 'theory' that he who makes the first insult is the winner of the argument?"
It's not an insult--it's a statement of FACT. You stated that you are ignorant of the field in question--and then proceed to make a sweeping statement about that field from that position of ignorance.
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?
You may be a scientist but your conclusions show that you are ignorant when it comes to history, which happens to be a specialty of mine. Beleive me, Lenin was not using Christians as "useful idiots." In fact, all of the murderous regimes of the 20th century and now the 21st century strictly prohibit the God of the Bible, and especially Jesus, from being preached. Why could that possibly be? What motive would some tyrant have which would cause him to prohibit people from becoming the "useful idiots" that you seem to think Christianity produces? Because history shows that the exact opposite is true.
In most of these nations, you can lose your life if you talk about Jesus and there are literally hundreds of thousands in prison as a result of just sharing a very simple message: Man is sinful by nature. God provided His own sacrifice for that sin in the form of His only son, Jesus. You can know God and escape the consequences of sin by repenting and believing that message. For this, they go to prison.
When Europe became a post Christian society, it's downfall was only a matter of time. As America embraces the religion of secular humanism, the philosophical beliefs that have made us the most politically and economically free nation in the history of the human race are being lost(that is - the past 6,000 years - since those who lived prior to that time didn't see fit to leave us much of a record).
Anyone who embraces the concept that man is a random creation resulting from a series of coincidental events as opposed to a God created individual with value and accountability to his Creator always ends up where Lenin took Russia, where Europe is headed and where America seems to be pointed (trailing Europe by about 50 years.)
My friend, the exact opposite of your postulate is true. Just look who votes for whom in this nation. Who's for abortion? Who's for higher taxes and bigger government? Who's for supporting public education with more and more tax dollars? Who's for appeasing the Islamofascists? I guarantee you that it's not Bible believing Christians.
Why are the Democrats and the European left so afraid of Bible believing Christians? Why are pastors in the European socialist countries tried and sent to jail for suggesting that homosexuality is sin? Why is trying to convert someone to Christianity on its way to becoming hate speech in Europe and America? Because we're anti-science? No, because we're anti-tyrant!
Without the evangelical Christian base, the Republican party would be in deep doo doo and America would be even farther along the road to European style socialism. You may call it refusing to leave the Dark Ages, but history has proven over and over again that those who reject the God of the Bible usually end up committing acts of darkness beyond what most of us can imagine.
By the way, I've been to Kolyma, one of Stalin's most infamous labor camps located in northeast Siberia. I was one of the first westerners to visit formerly closed cities in northeast Siberia. Many were in these camps because they believed the simple message about Jesus stated above. If you want to talk about real darkness, I've seen it and I know people who've experienced it. Let me just tell you one thing. It wasn't the Bible believing Christians producing it. It was people who believed that human being have no inherent value because they are random accidents created by random scientific occurrences with no accountability or responsibility to a Creator.
One last point - just because someone refuses to believe that man randomly came into being over (pick the number of years) doesn't make him anti-science. In fact, that's what this whole debate is about. I could care less whether so called intelligent design or creationism is given equal time with evolution in a science classroom. What irks me is the absolute refusal of the evolutionists to even allow the discussion of scientific facts which would tend to challenge (maybe not absolutely demolish) some of its basic tenets. For example, I doubt that many high school biology students are going to learn that the fossil record seems to indicate that fish with bony teeth appeared "suddenly." Why? What are you guys so afraid of?
That's what causes me to say that evolution is a religious dogma. Religious dogma is always afraid to be challenged - even if it's disguised by the name Christian. Anyone who wants to challenge my belief in the Bible - I say bring it on. I haven't found any other system of belief that even comes close to explaining the history and current condition of mankind - especially not Darwinism!
I was raised in a church that taught YE creationism and wanted to believe it, but saw problems in the evidence in the physical world. I went to a Christian college that is officially YE and hoped that they would help clarify things, but all they offered was criticism of various points of evolution with no coherent YE explanation given for all of the data. I'm now in grad school (in the sciences) and in my personal studying on the topic I've decided the young earth/anti-evolutionist position is untenable considering the facts. My reading regarding this has been pretty comprehensive--I've hit biology, genetics, chemistry, geology, and cosmology. I just finished a book on theories of the origin of the solar system (although I admit I skimmed over the calculus!), which is why the previous poster's response to the article irked me so much.
I am a Bible believing Christian. The Bible says nothing about the age of the earth. Many Bible scholars do not believe the so called young earth theory. If you need more information, I would be glad to discuss it with you.
"By the way, I've been to Kolyma, one of Stalin's most infamous labor camps located in northeast Siberia...Many were in these camps because they believed the simple message about Jesus stated above."
Some were probably there for advocating natural selection and Mendelian genetics, both of which were forbidden by the USSR. :)
> of the murderous regimes of the 20th century and now the 21st century strictly prohibit the God of the Bible, and especially Jesus, from being preached. Why could that possibly be?
Totalitarian theocracies (such as the State worshipping commies and Volk-worshipping Nazis) tend to not like competition. Jews, Buddhists, heathens, pagans, Falon Gong, Muslims, Hindus and anyone else with differing theologies tended to not do any better in these regimes. It's quite simple, really, and pretty understandable.
The rest of your post seemed pretty irrelevant. Didn't get all the way through it.
Evolution happens. If you deny evolution, you deny the real world in favor of shadows on a cave wall.
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.