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.”
Only on the issue of where the "edges" lie (i.e., how to dinstinguish borderline cases). The basic meaning of "law" and "theory" are pretty well agreed upon, though.
Theory: a newly born baby is evolution by reproduction.
If one lacks logic or reasoning their opinion can be anything except logic or reasoning.
There is no such thing as perfect replication via sexual reproduction, since male and female are categorically dissimilar. There can never be an instance in which any given offspring can represent both at the same time.
Imperfect replication, in and of itself, does not infer evolution...unless you're willing to state that sexual reproduction is incompatible with every other theory out there, including, and not the least of which, creationism.
"Moon off by one day" placemark
Sigh....
We've been here before, but ok: http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-genealogy.html
(If lurkers REALLY want to know, they can Google away, just like I did.)
And wesse be gonna VOTE; too!
So your problem is that you steadfastly refuse to learn anything. Thanks for the admission.
UHhhh...
How do you get this from that?
(Thought you might like to see this.)
Ping to the article.
Yeah. Right.
EG, Boyles' Law and Charles' Law are explained by the Kinetic Theory of Gases.
The Law of Faunal Succession and the (anonymous) Law of the Distribution of Island Species are explained by the Theory of Evolution.
Theories are also used to predict new phenomena:
EG, kinetic theory of gases predicted the existence of an absolute zero, ToE predicted the distribution of ERVs across species.
Laws can only predict the results of a specific observation.
Thanks for the ping!
All illogical thoughts aside, does the baby represent change or is he a clone?
That'll be "add to the list" as in "form the only name so far on the list" then will it?
You mean do I find it inconsistent to believe in the existence of the supernatural while typically assuming that only natural mechanisms are involved in an event? No. The supernatural is outside the realm of science--it can not be proven or disproven by science. While miraculous intervention may occur, these interventions in the Bible were generally rare and usually specific to an individual or a small area (I don't believe in a literal global Flood, for instance) and not resulting in a lasting change in the natural realm. There's no reason to think that miracles are so common as to make scientific inquiry pointless. Additionally, God often achieves his ends through natural means.
In spite of the efforts of young earth creationists to convince me I must believe God does not exist if I think evolution occurs, my switch to theistic evolution didn't really have any impact on my belief in God. However, lately for a variety of personal reasons unrelated to science I am not so sure of the existence of God.
Well, you seem a sensible sort to me but if you hang around here for a couple of threads you'll be informed that you're just fooling yourself, you're actually an atheist because only atheists accept evolution.
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.