Professor challenges evolution (Pittsburgh Professor's article in The New Anatomist)

Pittnews.com ^ | 02/09/2006 | NAN AMA SARFO

[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.”

[AGreatPer]

Just reading the headline I guessed it would be that wack job Dr. Sternglass that wrote it. Wow, there are some real nutty professors at Pitt.

[Dimensio]

It's based on unprovable theories for which no science exists to be able to prove.

Nothing in science ever has been or ever will be proven. You are only demonstrating that you are fundamentally ignorant of how science operates.

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?

You made this claim before. It was answered multiple times. Why are you dishonestly ignoring the fact that you are making a debunked claim? Why are you lying to support your claims?

[Dimensio]

Explain what causes gravity.

Gravitational force is represented by the equation F = G x m1m2/r^2

You are aware that this is not universally true, right?

[GLDNGUN]

Did you have an actual point?

"Modern cell biology doesn’t support Darwinism" sums it up pretty well.

[Bigh4u2]

I thought the moon was in an eliptical orbit around the earth, similar to what the earth is around the sun.

If it's true the moon drifts 3cm a year at it's furthest point wouldn't it also move 3cm closer on it's nearest point?

Isn't the effect of gravity 'constant'?

[tallhappy]

You are aware that this is not universally true, right?

Aware, yes.

Doesn't change the point. There is nothing near the understanding of evolution as there is gravity.

Gravity is a physical force.

Explaining what causes gravity has bearing in what way?

[Dimensio]

"Modern cell biology doesn’t support Darwinism" sums it up pretty well.

So you don't actually have a point. Did you even read the article? There's no claim that common descent is false in it.

[Snowbelt Man]

"Modern cell biology doesn’t support Darwinism."

"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."

Another stupid strawman attack.

I think that I'll contact Professor Schwartz to see if he'll be one of my 2,000. Heck, it looks like he might know some people at Columbia who would sign on also.

I'm sorry that you're so offended by the inability of some of us to believe the incredulous man from single cell amoeba "theory" concerning the origin of the species. When you prove it, I'll believe it. Until then, I'm adding Professor Schwartz to my list.

[Dimensio]

Explaining what causes gravity has bearing in what way?

Well, that would be the "theory". Theories explain why events occur. You can describe an event that has regularity simply by observing it, but that doesn't mean that you have an understanding of it. To understand it means that you can explain why the event occurs with such regularity.

[RobbyS]

It is different from Darwin's notion of evolution , more like Lamarck's, and different from either. (Did either man know anything about cell theory?) Why should we stick with a theoty that is one hundred and fifty years old if it doesn't fit the data as well as a newer one? Anyway, is this radically different fom Gould's notion of punctuated change?

[Nathan Zachary]

You are ignoring the effect off the sun, or earth or whatever body is closest to two smaller bodies which may be in space, looking to colide with each other, each with their own properties. each would have to be traveling at the same speed in the same direction, and come together so lightly, the the calculation would take weeks to give you the number so low.
The next particle to come along and collide with those two would knock them apart. They would eventually find their way to the nearest body having th most infulence of them.

And no, my statement has never been PROPERLY answered by any of you, because their is no answer to the lunar problem as of yet, except for one theory which has the greater benefit of observation and science behind it. That theory also explains WHY all major impacts on the moon are facing the earth.

[tallhappy]

Theories explain why events occur.

Not necessarily, no.

Gravity is a perfect case in point. The theory was there is a force that is consistent and constant to explain natural phenonema. It was measurable and quantifiable.

The why of it moves away from sicence in to some other subjective realm.

Science is the study of nature not the why of why nature exists or has the properties it has.

[Dimensio]

You said "Evolution is settled, pure science and anyone who says otherwise can't possibly be a scientist." Please explain where anyone here has ever said that anyone who disagrees with evolution "can't possibly be a scientist". I won't hold my breath.

If the above statement is not a challenge to Darwinism, then what is it?"

It's a challenge to some currently held views on how evolution has occured, with a counter-proposal that evolution has occured through slightly different processes. If you'd actually read the article and understood it, you would know that the professor is not saying that evolution does not occur.

I think that I'll contact Professor Schwartz to see if he'll be one of my 2,000. Heck, it looks like he might know some people at Columbia who would sign on also.

Somehow, I doubt that he'd agree that evolution is "religious dogma". But thanks for admitting that you were lying when you claimed that "thousands" of scientists would agree with you.

I'm sorry that you're so offended by the inability of some of us to believe the incredulous man from single cell amoeba "theory" concerning the origin of the species.

So you appeal to incredulity, a logical fallacy. And yet Professor Schwartz doesn't seem to agree with you. But, then, you didn't bother to comprehend the article, so I understand why you wouldn't know that.

When you prove it, I'll believe it. Until then, I'm adding Professor Schwartz to my list.

How utterly dishonest of you, as Schwartz has not expressed any disagreement with common descent, and he certainly did not call evolution "religious dogma". But then, I've come to expect nothing but pure lies from creationists around here. Honesty seems to be the exception amongst them.

[Dimensio]

You are ignoring the effect off the sun, or earth or whatever body is closest to two smaller bodies which may be in space, looking to colide with each other, each with their own properties. each would have to be traveling at the same speed in the same direction, and come together so lightly, the the calculation would take weeks to give you the number so low.

You'll have to explain how this relates to your original claim.

And no, my statement has never been PROPERLY answered by any of you,

In other words, deny that any explanation that gives you an answer that you don't like is not "PROPER".

because their is no answer to the lunar problem as of yet, except for one theory which has the greater benefit of observation and science behind it.

What observation and science is behind the "theory" to which you refer? Be specific.

[tallhappy]

To understand it means that you can explain why the event occurs with such regularity.

Yes, and the theory of gravity explained events that occurred with regularity.

The theory was never about why gravity exists. It was about why do objects fall to the earth, what determines the earth's orbit around the sun etc...Gravity explained it.

Your asking about what is gravity or why is there gravity is either metaphysical or advanced physics. The physics may explain it well in time.

[Snowbelt Man]

It took you two posts to call me a liar. I was going to wonder out loud in my first post how long it would take. Then I thought better of it because it might have caused to delay your name calling. I must say that I wasn't disappointed. I also must say that I find your predictability to be very amusing.

[Dimensio]

Not necessarily, no.

Yes, necessarily. Theories explain why events occur. That's the purpose of a theory in science.

Gravity is a perfect case in point.

Gravity is a perfect case in point of an event that is known to occur with predictable regularity even though the actual explanation -- the theory -- is still vague and not well understood.

The theory was there is a force that is consistent and constant to explain natural phenonema.

No, the observation was that there is a force consistent and constant within the universe. There's no "explanation" behind it, only definition which, as it turns out, isn't even that accurate, meaning that the "law of gravity" is wrong.

It was measurable and quantifiable.

That doesn't make it a theory.

Science is the study of nature not the why of why nature exists or has the properties it has.

Science as a whole is the study of the natural universe. Theories are a part of science that attempt to explain why events in the natural universe occur.

[Dimensio]

It took you two posts to call me a liar.

You did claim that Proffesor Schwartz would agree with you that evolution is "religious dogma". That claim is a lie. You are wrong. Schwartz does not claim that evolution is "religious dogma" and in fact believes that it did occur, and anyone who actually read the article would see that.

When you make a claim that is so clearly demonstratably false, what else should I call you?

[tallhappy]

See 35.