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.”
And it is.
And you "learned" this non-fact where, exactly? And no, the voices in your head don't count.
I mean, not that cut-and-paste makes you a bad person. I was just surprised at the fast response considering the amount of text. That's all!
Be good. God loves you too.
So, sociobiology is a scientific ‘theory’ and explains morality within current science void of design?
>An extremely invalid and incorrect analogy. Care to try again?
Law: from precedent case (ie, prior natural observations). From God.
Theory: from predecessor case (ie, prior faulty, human speculations). From humans.
It's the best I can retrieve from my accumulated knowledge without further inquiry.
Again, look in the mirror. If you are an exact clone of all your ancestors and there is not the slightest difference then no change or evolution has occurred. However if there is any change, no matter how small evolution has occurred. Evolution is a fact and a occurring fact and is proved by the observation that no two of the 6.7 billion people that exist on earth are a exact duplicate. The theory of evolution is explanation of a fact (evolution) and not a argument that evolution exists. To deny evolution (change) would deny your own existence. Your evolution occurred by reproduction.
>Your evolution occurred by reproduction.
That sounds more like revolution than evolution.
Do you think the first definition was better? I think it was. The second one, upon re-rading it, don't make no sense to me.
I can always come up with a better formal definition, but I'm no scientist. I wager you that even among scientists they disagree on a definition of law and theory.
yes and this latest junk science is recyled punctuated equilibria.......this has as many scientific problems as Darwin's explanation
Thanks for the constructive criticism.
I guess there is always something new to learn.
If you guys have a definition of theory and law that I can use, please do post it. I hate to look like a fool.
If you are going make a logical argument you should review the definitions that define the terms of argument. Proof is of philosophy and requires no fact or evidence and is but by argument. Laws are of mathematics and physics and are the determined rules that must be observed. Theories are of science and are the explanation of observed fact, evidence, and empirical evidence for the fact. Scientific theories are of a higher order than fact.
.
Thanks.
I'll try to remember the distinctions.
If you mean does it explain all morality, no, because some morality is based not on our biological imperatives, but are the result of culture and/or human thought. But yes, some of our instincts and drives due to our biology shape our notions of morality.
I understand your feeling but have patience or we will lose the opposition of debate and argument. Logic would dictate that their opinion is of their education however insufficient.
No, scientific laws do not come from God, they come from the realization of regularities in the behavior of nature.
Theory: from predecessor case (ie, prior faulty, human speculations). From humans.
Wrong again, scientific theories are derived from collections of explanations which are found to provide workable predictions.
It's the best I can retrieve from my accumulated knowledge without further inquiry.
Well, it's time for that "further inquiry" thing then.
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.