[orionblamblam]

It's not really a "challenge" to Darwinism, and certainly not to evolution. Just pointing out that sometimes things change rapidly.

[GLDNGUN]

LOL So, it really is just a "theory". Huh. How about that.

[wallcrawlr]

ping

Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info

[Right Wing Professor]

“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.

The guy's a numbskull. Willingly? Where'd he learn about evolution, a cereal box?

[Snowbelt Man]

"Modern cell biology doesn't support Darwinism."

Say it ain't so. Evolution is settled, pure science and anyone who says otherwise can't possibly be a scientist. If the above statement is not a challenge to Darwinism, then what is it?

[js1138]

What a stupidly written article. Darwin knew nothing about cell biology, mutation, inheritance, and the like. Biochemistry is an invention of the last fifty years.

This article is discussing details of the process, not whether evolution proceeds along Darwinian lines.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

“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.”

Which leads me to wonder how scientists think we got this far on a theory that never put them in charge before. I mean, if survival depends on their own great wisdom and knowledge, how the heck can they buy a theory that brought us where we are today? Aren't they inserting the necessity of a sort of "intelligent design" into our very survival?

[FormerLib]

This sounds curiously similar to Stephen J. Gould's "Punctuated Equilibria." Perhaps the difference is in the details.

[VOA]

bump

[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.

[Old Seadog]

It seems as if Darwin's theory of evolution is, in itself, evolving

[Dead Dog]

How dare this fool disparage the name of Darwin, Glory Be To Him. This isn't science, it is faith baised speculation! Behead the non-believers!

[DeweyCA]

This sounds like the "punctuated equilibrium" that Stephen J. Gould promulgated, because he too saw the many gaps in the fossil record. Gould, the Harvard paleontologist who was the USA'a #1 promoter of evolution, also said that the neo-Darwinian idea of gradual evolution leading to new species is a myth.

[adorno]

“It’s not like fish developed bony teeth one piece at a time. It happened suddenly.”

Hmmm???

Suddenly?

Could it be instantly???

Like in 'intelligently designed" and introduced into a species, instantly?

How about an instant new species?

[connectthedots]

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.

[Doc Savage]

Nice drivel. I believe Gould already dreamed this one up!

[From many - one.]

Check back to see how thread evolves.

[JCEccles]

One of the rare and very brave Darwinists willing to admit openly that the theory has serious problems. He is banging the "punctuated equilibrium" drum and suggesting a novel solution. Whether he is right or wrong, he is challenging Darwin's mystical magical mullahs of materialism, and he deserves applause for trying to pry open the medieval "spontaneous generation" mind crypts perched atop their necks.

My prediction is, they'll tar and feather him as a witch and run him out of academia on a rail.

[LiteKeeper]

YEC INTREP [yawn]

[TheBrotherhood]

"Modern cell biology doesn’t support Darwinism."

More supporting evidence why evolution is a fake, phony and fraudulent theory.

Pseudo science.