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.”
Check back to see how thread evolves.
My prediction is, they'll tar and feather him as a witch and run him out of academia on a rail.
{{{:-)>
(The above is a smiley of Mohammed. That oughta be good for another six weeks of rioting)
I take note, in your post #168, that you claim Jude, as the brother of Jesus...do you mean a biological brother, or do you mean 'brother' in the sense of all men being brothers...because if you mean in the biological sense, then you are at odds with the Catholic Church...they maintain that Mary remained a perpetual virgin, and that she never, ever had any children other than Jesus...
Now, I am not a Catholic, just know a very basic thing about how Catholics regard Mary...so if you are saying that Jude was the biological brother of Jesus(in that they both resided in Marys womb), then you, yourself, are doing the very thing you accuse others of...You have picked and chosen what part of the Bible you will believe, according to your own personal interpretation...Catholics would believe that you have ignored what the Bible said, and have chosen to substitute a belief of mans making, not of Gods making...you are doing, what you accuse others of doing...
Its not for you to define what constitutes a Christian person...If someone tells me they are a Christian, they believe in God, they believe in Christ, and they also support the theory of evolution, you may not like that, but you go too far, when you claim they dont fit the definition of 'Christian'....it may not fit your definition of Christian, but since when are you the final authority of who is and who is not a Christian?....you are not the one who judges, nor does your judgement carry any weight with anyone other than yourself... your own personal interpretion of the Bible, is certainly not final word...it is nothing but your own subjective interpretation...nothing more...
And for the record, I vote with the rest who find it wrong of you to try to include Schwartz in you list...Schwartz, does not in any way, deny evolution occurs...he just says it may have happened much faster, in some cases, that it was believed before ...anyone reading the article could fathom that...you appear to read into articles, those things which you wish would be there...so if you list Schwartz, it would be, as has been told to you already, a lie...
"Life forms evolve, it seems, in a kind of punctuated equilibrium."
When I read this article my first thought was this was just another form of "punctuated equilibrium." Therefore, it doesn't challenge the supposed "phenomena" of evolution, just Darwin's views on how it occurred.
I'm unapologetically a YEC. However, I can understand your irritation that this article is posted in such a way to imply the TOE is being challenged, not just Darwin's ideas.
An easy mistake for a not as educated in current "science" YEC to make. The poster meant well and I commend their enthusiasm). I personally have learned to live with the fact that the scientific community at large will not ever accept YEC, and strive to avoid a needless arguement that will change no minds. All this article shows is that there is disagreement amoung "naturalistics" about how evolution occurred, not that it occurred.
It will take some pretty remarkable findings to change the minds of those that hold evolution as a settled fact.
Nonsense. Christians are people who believe in the divinity of Christ. *You're* the one who is trying to redefine that to include the clause, "and who also reject the findings of science".
The Bible is the document which governs the definition of what a Christian is.
Then let's check it, shall we?
Romans 10:9 -- If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.10:9Yup, that sounds like the same definition I'm using. And contrary to your hallucinations, I see nothing in there about "...but only as long as you don't accept evolutionary biology."1 John 4:1 -- Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God.
1 John 5:1 -- Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.
Did Jesus believe in evolution? Not according to the only words of His that we have recorded.
Nothing in Jesus's words mention evolution either for or against, nice try.
Did Jesus believe the Scripture (the Old Testament) to be true? Yes He did - at least according to the only words of His that we have recorded.
Ditto for the Old Testament not mentioning evolution either way.
But since you brought it up, perhaps you'd care to comment on this bit of Old Testament biology: Is the coat pattern of a flock's offspring affected by what the gravid animals see? (Genesis 30:37-43). That's some funny genetics, eh? Do you find it interesting that this describes some ancient albeit naive (and dead wrong) superstitions about how what a mother sees or experiences can imprint itself physically on her offspring? Doesn't that sound more like something written by ancient but fallible man, and not dictated infallibly from God? Do you think Jesus endorsed this nonsense about visual influences imprinting itself on the coats of the offspring of the flock?
Do you still think that Genesis should be read literally as a biology textbook?
How about:
Job 38:22-23 - Have you entered the [place] where the snow is stored? Or have you seen the storehouses of hail, which I hold in reserve for times of trouble, for the day of warfare and battle?Is hail kept in "storehouses", to be shipped to where it will fall? Is snow "stored" until delivery?
That seemed a reasonable assumption for men to make a few thousand years ago, since snow and hail seem to be dumped from unknown sources, but now we know that snow and hail are formed from the moisture of clouds moments before they fall, they aren't "stored" somewhere until they're "delivered".
Is it "wholly true and accurate" that snow/hail are kept in storehouses until they fall?
Psalm 135:7 - He causes the clouds to rise from the ends of the earth. He makes lightning for the rain and brings the wind from His storehouses.Do clouds "rise from the ends of the Earth"? Does the Earth even *have* "ends"? Does wind come from "storehouses" like the hail and snow?
Job 38:24 - What road leads to [the place] where light is dispersed? [Where is the source of] the east wind that spreads across the earth?Do east winds originate from a "where", from whence it "spreads across the Earth?
The meteorology, biology, and cosmology of the Bible are in line with ancient man's misconceptions and presumptions about how things worked. I leave it to you to decide for yourself if they are "wholly true and accurate" in the way they would be if they had been authored in their entirety by an omniscient being.
And if you say, "oh wait, those were only allegorical or figures of speech" (despite the fact that the passage about the flock was clearly meant to describe what the author believed actually occurred), then what makes you so sure that the Adam and Eve portion should be taken completely literally in every single respect?
You can have a billion people sign a document that says that Jonah couldn't have spent three days in the belly of a fish but, according to Jesus, he did.
See above.
It's a matter of definition. If you want to be a Marxist, you have to believe what Marx believed. If you want to be a Christian, you have to believe what Christ believed.
Oh, so do you pray in your closet, as he believed you should? Do you handle snakes and resist their poison? Do you believe that a child that curses its parents should be killed?
Before you trust too unquestionably in the perfect accuracy of the New Testament, you should look into how poorly the modern New Testament matches the oldest available texts due to human error and "editting". And even the oldest available texts are not the originals, there's no telling how much even they were altered from the original documents. For a good introduction to this subject, start here.
For example, one of the most famous stories in the Gospels, that of the adulterous woman saved from stoning by Jesus with the admonition about he who is without sin should cast the first stone, appears nowhere in the oldest versions of the Gospels. It was added later, and has every indication of being a fictional addition. Ever wonder what else just got tossed in?
It's purely a matter of words having meaning.
Indeed, and I'm using the standard meaning, you're using the one which redefines "Christian" so that only people who agree with *your* version get to qualify as "Christians", while "excommunicating" anyone who reads the Bible differently from your own particular manner.
It's 2,000 years of Orthodox Christianity. It's only been in about the last 100 or so years that people wanted to have it both ways: pick and choose what portions of the Scripture that they want to believe and then define themselves as Christians.
ROFL!!! Yeah, right, there was only one version of Christianity until 1900, no one before then ever disagreed about which portions of the Bible were to be given primacy and which were to be read allegorically... Pull the other leg now.
They then accuse those who hold to the 2,000 year definition of Christianity to be bigots, arrogant, etc.
Obviously you hear that a lot. Ever ask yourself why? Psst: Because it's obviously the case. And if you think that your version is identical to the one that was practiced over a thousand years ago, you're quite naive and very mistaken.
You can make up any rules that you want to and you can call yourself a Christian. That doesn't make it so. No matter how many people sign a document saying that it is.
Not even when 10,000+ Christian clergy tell you otherwise, because *your* view is the only correct one on this subject, and you know far better than they do, right? Enjoy your arrogance.
For as in Adam, all died, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. No Adam - no need for Christ - according to the Bible - which is the basis for Christianity.
So there was a man named Adam. So?
The geneology of Jesus Himself is traced to Adam by Luke.
Actually, no, it wasn't. *JOSEPH'S* geneology was traced to Adam by Luke. Jesus, however, was not Joseph's son, as the Bible takes pains to point out in a number of places. This is not actually Jesus's geneology. Are you sure you've actually read the Bible?
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. Adam was a type of Him who was to come - Jesus. This is basic Christianity.
That's nice, but it has nothing to do with evolutionary biology, or your quaint habit of bigotry towards other Christians.
Timothy tells us that Adam was formed first - then Eve. This is basic Christianity. 2,000 years of orthodoxy. 2,000 years of believing the Scripture. Don't tell me your not redefining anything. You can't have it both ways.
Where do you hallucinate that I'm "redefining" any of that? I'm just pointing out that you're redefining Christianity from the Biblical description when you attempt to deny the Christianity of anyone who believes in the divinity of Jesus as well as modern biology.
According to Jesus, according to Paul, according to Luke, according to Timothy, according to Jude, according to Moses, according to Christians for 2,000 years, Adam was made in the image of God by God from the dust of the earth.
But it doesn't say by what *process*, yet you foolishly and rashly conclude that *you* know how God actually did so. Arrogant much?
Just don't redefine what a Christian is. It's definitional
I wouldn't dream of doing such a thing, because if I had I'd be making the same mistake you're making.
You *really* need to work on your reading comprehension.
This is incorrect. Science still requires observation, demonstration, and falsifiability.
*HOWEVER*, nonscientists frequently misunderstand what kinds of things are meant by these. For example, they often think that "observation" means that the process being studied has to be actually directly observed in action from start to finish. This is not the case, and in fact if it *could* be there would be little need for scientific investigation. Instead, *consequences* of the process need to be observable, sufficient to reconstruct the "big picture" of the process. Similarly, demonstrations hardly have the requirement of being done "in a laboratory", etc.
YEC INTREP [yawn]
You clearly suffered a great deal. Try to get over it.
Can there be any connection into the ‘real world’ with 'any' intelligent design in physical science -including/extending into biology? (excluding human interaction)
science's methodology depends upon repeatability, observation, prediction, testing, and refinement based upon new data.And before someone gets the wrong idea as usual, I'll point out that contrary to common misconceptions:
1. The "repeatability" in science is *NOT* a requirement that the actual process being studied can be "repeated". A scientist is not required to actually reproduce the formation of the Hawaiian Islands in order to scientifically investigate how they formed. Instead, the repeatability requirement in science means that the *tests*, the *experiments*, and the *observations* need to be repeatable. It has to be possible for other people to verify your findings by repeating your procedures and/or re-examining your evidence.
2. Likewise, the "observation" requirement is *NOT* a requirement that someone has to actually watch the process being studied. No one has to be able to watch the Hawaiian Islands originally form. Instead, science requires that there has to be observable *evidence*, observable *tests*, observable findings. In short, you have to be able to do a "reality-check" and *look* at the real world in order to compare it against your belief/hypothesis/explanation.
3. The "prediction" part doesn't mean that you're required to be able to predict the future of the process being examined (e.g. what's going to happen to the Hawaiian Islands next, geologically), it means that your theory has to be able to predict what the specific results will be if you perform various kinds of tests or experiments, or if you go looking for specific kinds of evidence. In the example I've been using, a plate-tectonic theory of the formation of the Hawaiian Islands would predict that if you look at certain places in, under, and around the Hawaiian Islands, you should find certain kinds of rocks with certain kinds of properties, since plate-tectonic processes would have necessarily caused such results, and so on. Then you go and *look* (observation again) to see whether the rocks actually *fit* the predictions of the theory. If so, it's confirming evidence for the theory. If not, it's evidence of falsification of the theory, and you go back to the drawing board.
So contray to common creationist misconceptions, evolutionary biology is not "unscientific" if a) no one observed life evolving 100 million years ago, b) no one can repeat the re-evolution of dinosaurs, and c) no one can predict exactly where evolution will go in the future. Those *aren't* the kinds of observation, repeatability, and prediction required by the scientific method. What *is* required, and what *has* been done countless times over the past 150 years, is observation of the evidence and processes of evolution, repeatability of the tests and data analyses confirming evolution, and predictions about what we should find (in DNA, in biochemistry, in the patterns of living things, etc.) if life has progressed via evolutionary processes. And so far, evolutionary biology has passed countless such validation tests with flying colors, and survived countless falsification tests.
Oh yeah, and the common man was behind the Enlightenment, because he'd read the Bible. Voltaire, John Locke, David Hume, Thomas Jefferson, all common men,
Wrap your head in tinfoil, take two aspirin, and go to bed. Check that. Take two risperidone.
Go read their original writings.
Better yet, you have some one read them to you. Or check out Thomas Jefferson's revised version of the Gospels.
"Modern cell biology doesn’t support Darwinism."
More supporting evidence why evolution is a fake, phony and fraudulent theory.
Pseudo science.
I'm not clear on what exactly you're asking here -- could you clarify it for me please?
Even better. You see the island chain, older in the west, younger in the east. You look on the seafloor to the southeast of the Big Island. Gosh, what's that? An undersea eruption. How did we know that would be there?
The gravity constant is determined by mathematics, not science. The two are not the same but different. There is philosophy, mathematics, and science. Each has a different method of determination.
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.