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 is proved by the observation that no two of the 6.7 billion people that exist on earth are a exact duplicate"
Offering facts not in evidence. You have no way of determining that this is the case; it is merely an idea. There is no way to test or falsify the statement you made.
Its possible that many may not exist. If one engages in interbreeding or incest and the offspring arrives with six fingers there is no missing link between offspring and parent but the change is evident.
I know. The evos love to say how "solid" a scientific "theory" really is and us do-dos just don't understand. Comparing the "theory" of gravity to evolution is ludicrous. Drop an apple and you'll see gravity in action. Gravity itself is not a theory but an observable reality. Exactly how gravity works is open to theory. Evolution, on the other hand, specifically MACRO-evolution IS a theory. We can not observe this type in action, as we can gravity. Of course, the evos demand evolution is fact and that there are few unanswered questions. This article proves otherwise. It shows that while the evos firmly believe in evolution, HOW we got from point A to point B is NOT firm.
Ultimately, they are open to just about any theory that shows we got from point A to point B, as long as God or intelligent design is not involved. Of course, the problem there is, that if God/Intelligent Design IS involved, they are purposefully avoiding the truth.
It's like the guy who walked out of a bar and observed some smokers hanging around the entrance, puffing away. Across the street he saw a friend on all fours looking around for something. He went over to his friend to see what was going on. His friend explained he dropped his wallet when he walked out of the bar and someone bumped into him, and now he was trying to find it. So the guy says to him "if you dropped your wallet walking out of the bar, why are you on the other side of the street looking for it?" His friend replied, "well, I don't like to be around all those smokers".
Another way of looking at it, would be to come up on a log cabin in the woods and devising the most plausible explanation for the cabin's existence WITHOUT taking intelligent design and construction into consideration. After all, you didn't observe it being built, so it must have been the result of "chance and time" interacting with falling trees. You know, like the idiot who said given enough time, a monkey hammering away at a typewriter would eventually type the 23rd Psalm perfectly. Uh-huh.
Law: well established regularity in nature
Theory: well established fundamental explanation for said regularity.
Now go forth and sin no more.
There are two possible explanations (1) somebody made a mistake (2) some truly bizarre incestuous relationships. Only an a priori assumption of infallibility precludes one from choosing the simple and obvious explanation (1).
Evolution is but change. Incest is prohibited because observably changes can occur. Engaging in interbreeding or incest and having the offspring arrive with six fingers is a observable reality.
Well, I suppose one can consider that situation as equivalent to a thalidomide baby. The offspring is not a new species. I think "missing link" is meant in that context.
..another clueless evolution advocate who can't understand a simple argument. What else is new.
Most would ascribe to missing link as that evidence that is missing or not found between species or large change in a species while ignoring small change that occur frequently. As late as the 1700's and 1800's the Catholic church had yet to recognize some Indians of Mexico as human and they were designated animals. When recognized human was there a significant change or was their denial simply thought because they noticed differences.
>If one lacks logic or reasoning their opinion can be anything except logic or reasoning.
If one is set in their own agenda, like the darwinists, don't expect others to agree and conform to it.
Simple argument is for those of simple thought. Furthermore argument is of philosophy and would seek to prove or disprove (faith, belief, or the unknown) without evidence, empirical evidence or material fact but by argument, debate, and deduction. Evolution is of science which is composed of facts and evidence. It is a sad day when one would argue his philosophy without knowledge of the differences in philosophy, science and mathematics for only agenda. It is a detriment to self and reveals deficiencies.
I don't know of what you write. The Catholic church, at present is not in the field of species definition. And, in any case, I find it intriguing that the church back then would define a target of its proselytization as such. Someone may wish to define a chihuahua and a great dane as different species, but I believe that they would be wrong in the eyes of most people.
"If one is set in their own agenda" is a preposition of agenda not defined other than the agenda of science which is the explanation of fact and existence of a material thing. In other words knowledge by the scientific method. The denial of scientific agenda is philosophical agenda supported by faith, belief and ones own thought. They would deny any knowledge that would change their thought whether logical or not logical.
Did you post this to the wrong person? You quoted something I didn't say or mention.
It doesn't even touch the history of natural selection. If you think it does, pleas be specific.
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.