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.”
Unless bias creeps in...
Wrong. See for example:
Genetic Variant Showing a Positive Interaction With ß-Blocking Agents With a Beneficial Influence on Lipoprotein Lipase Activity, HDL Cholesterol, and Triglyceride Levels in Coronary Artery Disease PatientsSix novel mutations of the LDL receptor gene in FH kindred of Sicilian and Paraguayan descent
and results in a loss, never a gain,
Wrong again.
Genetic Variant Showing a Positive Interaction With ß-Blocking Agents With a Beneficial Influence on Lipoprotein Lipase Activity, HDL Cholesterol, and Triglyceride Levels in Coronary Artery Disease PatientsSpontaneous mutations in diploid Saccharomyces cerevisiae: more beneficial than expected
Evolution and Information: The Nylon Bug
and never an improvement.
And *this* is wrong as well. See for example:
Complete Rescue of Lipoprotein Lipase–Deficient Mice by Somatic Gene Transfer of the Naturally Occurring LPLS447X Beneficial MutationPunctuated evolution caused by selection of rare beneficial mutations.
PLEIOTROPIC EFFECTS OF BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS IN ESCHERICHIA COLI
The Distribution of Fitness Effects Among Beneficial Mutations
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?
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.
By "evolution happens", if you mean that human beings as we know them today "evolved" over billions of years from single cell life forms, it did not happen, you have no proof that it happened and whenever anyone challenges this theory with scientific evidence, you and others like you seek laws to prohibit it. It doesn't surprise me that you cannot see the relevancy of my prior post as a response to your referrring to Bible believing Christians as idiotarians who are either knowingly or unknowingly supporting the left in this nation because they are comparable to Lenin's "useful idiots." The fact that the history of western civilization since the invention of the printing press, which enabled the Bible to get into the hands of common man, directly contradicts your political assertions about those who refuse to accept Darwinism seems to totally escape the Freeper evolutionists' thought process. There is a political philosophy that flows from a belief in evolution and there is a political philosophy which flows from believing that man has inherent value as a creation of the God of the Bible to whom he is eternally accountable. The history of the last 400 years of western civilization gives us a few clues as to which philosophy produces dark ages and which one produces freedom of thought, freedom of debate, property rights, liberty and wealth creation. I'll give you a hint which one it is - it ain't the man from amoeba crowd.
Dead wrong. Where did you gain your "education" on this matter, a creationist pamphlet?
It's based on unprovable theories for which no science exists to be able to prove.
Uh huh. Sure. This coming from the guy who made three enormously false claims about mutations in a single sentence.
In fact science has disproved many parts of the theory, which is why it keeps having to change and require billions more years. For example, the earth is now 4.3 billion years old. The problem with that statement is if it is, why do we still have a moon, knowing it moves 3cm further from the earth each year? At 1.2 billion years, it would have been so close to earth, the tides would have swept over the mountains, ignoring the fact gravity of the earth would have pulled the moon apart, much like jupiter pulls comets apart when they get to close it's gravitational influence.
Horse manure. Here, try to learn something for a change:
Creationist Claim CE110: Because of tidal friction, the moon is receding, and the earth's rotation is slowing down, at rates too fast for the earth to be billions of years oldThe Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System
Please do not feed the troll.
I love you dimensio. I hope that you're a woman.
You do realize that some theories will forever remain theories because, ultimately, they can't be proven. Sort of like the 'global warming' theory.
You do realize that *no* theory is ever or can ever be "proven", because science does not deal in proof, and in fact "proof" is an impossible standard in this real world -- proofs are only possible in artificial realms like mathematics.... Oh, wait, you *don't* realize that, do you?
Theories are, however, validated and supported to varying degrees, and evolutionary theory has been validated countless times over the past 150 years, by such vast mountains of evidence and research along multiple cross-confirming lines, and has survived so many potential falsification tests, that it is among the most well-established and solid theories in all of science.
So... what was your point again? Presuming you had one?
> if you mean that human beings as we know them today "evolved" over billions of years from single cell life forms, it did not happen
Says the voice of denial.
> you have no proof that it happened
Wrong. Rather a vast mountain of it. But you *choose* not to see it.
> whenever anyone challenges this theory with scientific evidence, you and others like you seek laws to prohibit it.
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.
And since that is where you choose to go with your line of arguement, I choose to read no further in your post.
Strange, then why do enormous mountains of real-world evidence and research indicate that it has? Is God lying to us? Did he plant false evidence of evolution to confuse us?
Or perhaps you're just wrong.
whenever anyone challenges this theory with scientific evidence,
ROFL! Such as? Come on, show us what you've got.
you and others like you seek laws to prohibit it.
Thanks for lying about us. It makes you look like a total loon.
The fact that the history of western civilization since the invention of the printing press, which enabled the Bible to get into the hands of common man, directly contradicts your political assertions about those who refuse to accept Darwinism seems to totally escape the Freeper evolutionists' thought process.
Let me guess -- you're one of those "idiotarians" who think that belief in evolution equals atheism, right?
I hope this doesn't make your head explode, but the *majority* of Americans who accept evolution are *Christians*.
There is a political philosophy that flows from a belief in evolution
No there isn't, but thanks for sharing your confusion with us.
The history of the last 400 years of western civilization gives us a few clues as to which philosophy produces dark ages
You're kidding, right? Are you really this ignorant of history?
It does when they reject the methods, the findings, and the results of science in order to maintain their anti-evolution belief, which is the case for the vast majority of anti-evolution creationists.
I'd like to suggest that you go back and read the article again. Also, you might want to read the related article in post #13. Schwartz is not anti-evolution at all. He just thinks that changes (due to recessive cell mutations) happen significantly and abruptly (relatively speaking) rather than gradually over a long period of time.
Adding Schwartz to your "list" really would be a dishonest representation of his research and his views.
From what I know, Stalin seemed a little more threatened by the Christians than the Medelian geneticists. Long after he was dead, the unregistered churches were still meeting in secret and the KGB was searching everyone's luggage (including mine) to make sure no Bibles were being smuggled in. Heaven forbid that a Russian would have access to a Bible. No one seemed to be too worried about their reading Darwin. No political conflict between Darwin and tyranny - in fact, the two naturally fit together. Big political conflict between Jesus and tyranny.
When all men, including rulers, are accountable to the God of creation, then the following self evident truths have meaning: (1) that all men are created equal, (2) that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights and (3) that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. When man's existence is deemed to be a result of random genetic mutations with the fittest surviving, all bets are off. The above words are meaningless. You usually end up with whoever is willing to kill the most people in the most heinous ways becomes the ruling class. That is where post Christian Europe and America are heading.
Why consider just the last 400. Why not the previous 1000?
I'll tell you why. The West was far more Christian during the Middle Ages than it has been in the last 400 years. And yet the Middle Ages were basically misery spiced with intermittent barbarism.
Many of the major thinkers in the development of Liberalism (note upper case!) were deists, or freethinkers, or deviant Christians.
Why do you guys always want to change the meaning of words. Christians? According to what definition? Look, if you want to believe in evolution, that's your business. Just don't redefine 2,000 years of Christian Orthodoxy so that you can have it both ways.
So, then, it the 'theory of evolution' is proven fact,
That's not what he said. Work on your reading comprehension.
why is it still being discussed and challenged? A fact can't be challenged.
Oh come on, you can't be this naive -- there are *always* people willing to challenge facts, no matter how well established and obvious. Consider liberals, for example.
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.
A plane can fly? Of course.
And organisms can evolve. Of course. We've directly observed it occurring.
Ha anybody actually observed a species, like a large animal, evolve into something which might rightfully be called something else?
Yes. Within human observation the mammal species on the left has split/branched to spin off the mammal species on the right:
Sure, they're both still canids, but the point is that the domestic dog is *not* a gray wolf any longer, they're now "something else".
For other examples, see Observed Instances of Speciation and Some More Observed Speciation Events. If you want something even more drastic, however, you're making an unrealistic request -- the amount of evolutionary change that can be observed over human history (on the order of thousands of years) will be relatively small compared to long-term evolutionary change which requires on the order of millions of years. It's like asking geologists to "directly observe" a full mountain range forming starting from flat terrain, or asking astronomers to "directly observe" the full life cycle of a star.
Nonetheless, there are many ways to confirm the existence and behavior and reality of long-term processes such as these, and the evidence for evolutionary common descent is vast and overwhelming. For a description of how such scenarios are confirmed beyond reasonable doubt, see Explaining the Scientific Method, which discusses scientific validation methods in general, and specifically in the context of evolution.
That there are similarities within the animal kingdom or the plant kingdom, does not mean that one directly evolved from the other.
Of course not, but the evidence for evolutionary common descent is *vastly* more specific and overwhelming than just a simplistic observation of " similarities within the animal kingdom"... See this post for just a tiny sample of the tip of the enormous iceberg.
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
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.