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.”
The fossil record does not support evolution so let's change the definition of the word. Almost like you do with the word liar. Maybe some fish were "created" with bony teeth. Now there's a novel idea.
> If the above statement is not a challenge to Darwinism, then what is it?
Not a challenge to Darwinism. For somethign to challenge some settled aspect of science, and not just flap about, it has to:
A) Show that it is so
B) Show that it actually trounces that aspect of science it's "challenging."
The putative "challenge" here fails utterly on point 2.
That's a good one.
Darwin obviously lacked much information that is currently available
Biochemistry is an invention of the last fifty years.
It has been discovered; not invested. it's been there all along until the means to discover it were created/invented by man.
This article is discussing details of the process, not whether evolution proceeds along Darwinian lines.
If Darwin did not know what we know now; and that information contradicts his guesses, it most certainly does question his thoughts about evolution. In fact, it totally refutes them.
So now the word "challenge" means "actually trounces." I love the way that you guys change the definition of words. It seems to be the only thing that is consistent in evolution.
>> The fossil record does not support evolution so let's change the definition of the word.
> Why doesn't it?
Because he said so. Silly little man... you probably also believe that cause precedes effect. Don;t you know that causality is Just A Theory?
I don't claim to agree with the guy. In fact, I think he's a self-promoting turkey. I'm just pointing out he isn't anti-evolution.
It seems that those evoloutionists who thought the Dover trial would spell the end of ID/creation are wrong. There seem to be more and more articles coming out that are posing serious threats to the bogus theory of evoloution. The tide is turning, and it is gaining momentunm.
> So now the word "challenge" means "actually trounces."
More accurately, "stands a good chance of trouncing." Excuse me if quickly dashed-off postings are not as fully fleshed out as those by such Creationist heroes as Hillary Clinton.
> I love the way that you guys change the definition of words.
What, you mean "not at all?"
Or do you mean the way the idiotarians have changed the meaning of "theory" to mean "just a guess?"
My point is that trying to discredit a scientific idea by saying it's "just a theory" is fundamentally dishonest.
Based on your statements, evoution is a mere hypothesis. because there is no mountain of evidence. The only 'evidence' of evolution is that a large number of people believe it is true.
When you have evolutionists admitting that the lack of a fossil record is because there are none, it's pretty hard to maintain that the fossil record suports evolution.
I will also point out:
"With all these different mechanisms that they have, it’s unlikely that they change willingly over time, as Darwin’s theory says."
For a new idea to challenge an old one... the presenter of the new idea woudl have to understand the old one. Darwinian evolutionary processes do not put forth the idea that genes or organisms change "willingly," anymore than mountains erode "willingly." This statement implies that he's challenging Darwinian evolution in the same way that a guy making a baseball bat with a slightly new shape is challenging the rules of poker.
Are you sure that "idiotarian" is a word? I was about to thank you for adding such a great sounding word to my vocabulary but then when I went to dictionary.com, I couldn't find the word. Please tell me that it's a real word and that I am free to use it. Even if isn't a real word, I like it so much, I think that I'll use it anyway. Thanks orionblamblam.
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.