Theorist: Darwin Had it Wrong

Theorist: Darwin had it wrong S.C. professor says life forms arose without common origin

The way biochemist Christian Schwabe saw it, Darwinian evolution should have given closely related animals similar sets of proteins.

It was a simple idea, just a way to prove the cellular legacy of millions of years of common ancestry. Only it didn’t work.

The mismatched proteins were just a stray thread in the grand tapestry of life, yet the flaw gnawed at the back of the professor’s mind – until one day at Harvard University in 1970, when a new idea struck him in the middle of a lecture.

"That’s not going to work that way," Dr. Schwabe said aloud, and his students watched in bewilderment as their instructor spent the rest of the class working out the first bits of his idea on the blackboard.

What Dr. Schwabe began that day would become, by 1984, something he called the "genomic potential hypothesis:" the idea that life on Earth arose not from a single, random-chance event, but from multiple, predictable, chemical processes.

As bold as that idea seemed, it was tame compared with the second part of his theory: that evolution by natural selection – a cornerstone of Darwinian thought – was a 19th-century illusion.

Rather than a world of diversely adapted species with one common origin, Dr. Schwabe saw each modern species as the ultimate expression of its own independent origin.

Evolution wasn’t about adaptation, Dr. Schwabe said, but the perfection of each species’ original "genomic potential."

He and a colleague published the first paper on the idea in 1984, and the German-born professor settled in to await the inevitable critical response. It never came.

More articles in small academic journals followed in 1985 and 1990, but they, too, failed to provoke debate.

Today, Dr. Schwabe is a professor of biochemistry at the Medical University of South Carolina, a federally funded investigator who has accounted for more than $4 million in research funding, much of it related to drugs that regulate blood flow.

He has published more than 100 scholarly works and received five patents for his discoveries.

Yet when it comes to his most provocative idea, Dr. Schwabe is practically an invisible man. His articles on genomic potential hypothesis – GPH – typically are returned without meaningful comment by editors, most recently by the prestigious journal Science, and sometimes it seems as if the only people paying attention to his work are Internet fringe-dwellers.

"I think one of the most brilliant and bravest thinkers in America lives in Charleston, S.C.," said Ron Landes, a scientific publisher from Texas, "and nobody knows about him."

"If they don’t like it, they should tell me factually what is wrong," he said. "If they think it’s no good, they have the obligation to disprove it."

That’s the ideal of science we all learned in grade school. But as Dr. Schwabe continues to demonstrate, the practice of science is a bit more complex.

It takes an educated specialist to evaluate scientific claims; new discoveries are practically meaningless until they are published in major journals.

Publication signifies that the science behind an article is solid and that the idea, right or wrong, is worthy of study. This system of establishing credibility, called peer review, is essential to the scientific process, yet not every idea is worthy of serious, high-level peer review.

But the critical question in Dr. Schwabe’s case isn’t whether peer review works – rather, it’s, "Can unorthodox but potentially significant ideas get access to legitimate peer review?"

Though peer review remains essential to the scientific method, "It is not a requirement that anyone else pay attention to you," said Jerry Hilbish, professor of biological sciences at the University of South Carolina.

Yet the big journals also have a lot to lose by missing out on a big breakthrough, he said.

"It is normal in science for new ideas that contradict old ones to be resisted or ignored for a while," Dr. Bauer said. "Many people in that situation are stunned that they’re not being listened to, because science is supposed to be so open to new ideas. But the reality is that (science) is open to new things, but just not things that are too new."

Sorry qam1.

Sorry about what? I answered all your questions/points.

You went on a whole tirade about how there is always a "Loss" of information and some nonsense about there couldn't be enough time for evolution to occur and with the Goldfish you were shown to be wrong. Instead of acknowledging your error or refuting the charges you instead employ the typical creationist tactic change the subject and move the goalpost.

But anyhow.

Here is what an aquarium's site says about the goldfish-carp link....

"Goldfish are the domesticated Asiatic subspecies of Carassius auratus, the gibel carp, a species that naturally shows a wide range of morphological variation when raised in different environments. In its native China it inhabits rivers, streams, ponds, lakes and ditches, living in running, still and even stagnant water from 10°C to 32°C, growing to about 30 cm in length and 2.5 kg in weight within 2-3 years and living for about 10 years. It is a delicious food fish! It crosses readily with any ornamental goldfish, producing viable offspring."

Well even though you didn't provide the link I know you got it from which is where I also originally got it from @ http://www.bristol-aquarists.org.uk/goldfish/info/info.htm

Well it's wrong.

Goldfish aren't derived from the Gibel carp but instead they are derived from the Crucian Carp (Carassius carassius) and yes they are two different species.

"There can be little doubt that it is very closely related to the crucian carp, Carassius carassius, but the question remains whether it is actually a direct descendant or just a close relative. It is certainly true that if allowed to reproduce in the wild, without the intervention of man, the goldfish will, over a few generations, revert to something very closely resembling the crucian carp. The question is, is the resulting fish the wild form of C. auratus or is it a reversion to C. carassius? According to the FBAS fish guide, booklet number 3, Dr Yoshiichi Matsui, aquatic author and Professor of Fish Culture at Kinki University in Japan, believes that the former is true and that the crucian carp is the ancestor of the goldfish. This publication also quotes Dr Otto Schindler’s opinion that while the two species are closely related, there is a dark blotch present on the caudal peduncle of the crucian carp that does not appear on the reverted form of the goldfish.

Other differences exist between the two species. The dorsal spine in the goldfish is coarsely serrated but not so in the crucian carp; the edge of the dorsal fin of the Common Goldfish is concave whereas that of the crucian carp is convex; the body of the Common Goldfish is thought by some to be more elongate than that of the crucian carp and the scale count along the lateral line is reported to be 25 to 30 in the Common Goldfish but 28 to 35 in the crucian carp, indicating a larger scale size in the Common Goldfish".

And to be sure I didn't make another mistake about which carp the goldfish came from I double checked and triple checked to be sure and yes it is the Crucian carp they came from and which they arose as tetraploid derivatives.

As for the Gibel carp, The Goldfish isn't a sub-species of the gibel carp but the gibel carp maybe a sub-species of it!

From the Molecular Ecology and Fisheries Genetics Laboratory

"Of particular note is the species in Europe commonly known as the gibel or prussian carp. It has long been discussed but is still not known whether this is a species in its own right (C. gibelio; Kottelat 1997), a subspecies of the goldfish (C. auratus gibelio; Bloch 1783) or whether it is a hybrid between the crucian carp and other related species".

So not only do you have one new species arising from the crucian carp in the goldfish you may have two with the Gibel carp.

The fact that goldfish and the Crucian carp can interbreed doesn't not make them different species, Many different species of organisms can make hybrids with each other and many other carp species can do this with other members of their family because they have high chromosome numbers thus redundancy in their genes allows them to produce hybrids among each other with varying success.

These things are the same species and it is a species that has always displayed lots of morphological differences.

Then please

1) Show me a carp with bubble eyes, lionheads, pearlscales, Matt scales, double tails, egg shaped bodies or any of the numerous features found in the wide variety of goldfish breeds.

2) Explain why even though the Crucian carp ranges from China to Europe Goldfish only evolved in China.

3) Explain how traits stayed hidden in billions of fish for thousands of generations. For example the bubble eye was first observed in 1908, So how come bubble eyes didn't appear earlier if the trait was already there?

4) If they are the same species why then is the British environmental agency concerned about escaped goldfish forming hybrids with the native Crucian carp? How can a species form a hybrid with itself?

He's just reaching for any handful of dung he can find to fling...

Unfortunately for you, the scientific community "dungs" on itself with a frequency that belies universal cluelessness.

He has nothing that could replace what he despises.

We have no need to replace the "truth", which has been demonstrably revealed by the Ultimate in reliable sources. The "Logos".

Naturally I must add the disclaimer; this is not an indication that we believe God has created us without a brain, however the evidence easily supports an intellectually honest assessment of Gods revelation, and continuously contradicts the worldly assessment of the evidence, as our friend at Creation-Evolution Headlines so masterfully asserts.

The moral of the story is to not place your faith in a rickety idea that has holes wide enough for a "planetary asteroids" to pass through. Rather, trust in a source that has demonstrated His superior take on a Universe and it's inhabitants, than any other mortally limited group of scientists.

It is about Character, not knowledge!

Science is entertaining, and sometimes helpful.

We are in agreement about a lot. Your post makes a lot of my points, I think. You and I were quoting from the same source, and you had a picture of the gibel carp up there with the goldfish, so there is no "gotcha" for either of us, and that is not usually the best way to discover truth at any rate. I thank you for doing the extra research and making that point clear.

The main source of disagreement is whether the orginal school of carp, of whatever kind, already had the genetic potential to speciate or whether that capacity was gained through the introduction of new genetic information not actually or potentially present in the original group.

When I say "potentially" I mean that only so much gene change can occur without killing the organism. For example, let's assume there was a gene in the original group that caused a slight bulge under the eyes. There may have been another gene that controlled the extent to which that gene was expressed. In such a case, duplications in those existing genes may have occurred, manifesting in noticiable bubbles, but the potential was there from the beginning.

Even for new genes that arise from mutations not present in the original population, it seems there are limits. For example all of those experiments bombarding fruit flies with radiation. They never got a beagle from that, nor even a beetle, nor even a horse fly. All they got were mutated fruit flies.

What's more, the mutations were not novel. The same mutations kept cropping up generation after generation. It seems there are only so many ways one can shuffle fruit fly genes and get a viable, even if less fit, organism. I suspect it is true in this case also. I doubt that the bubble eye found in 1908 was the very first one ever, even if it arose by mutation to create a new gene rather than hyper expression of genes already present.

I agree with the evidence you presented that this group of fish appears to have split into more than one species. We need to agree on a definition of species though. I will stick with the classic definition (for organisms that reproduce sexually): A group of organsims able to produce fertile offspring.

With that definition, many of the things commonly thought of as species are really just varieties within a species- goldfish to a crucian carp being an example. Still, I think there was at least one example on one of your links where it said the hybrids were sterile. That is a breal point, but there is no proof the point was obtained via the ADDITION of new info rather than the loss of it. Indeed, the fact that the goldfish and the carp so readily produce fertile offspring argues against the idea that those changes are the result of any significant amounts of new info.

Even though it has not been observed, I accept that (sterile hybrids) as a speciation event. Some genetic info that the splinter group needed to mate with the original group has been lost. That does not prove macroevolution. It does not prove that bony fish evolved from anything else, or that they evolved into amphibians. That would be an unsound extrapolation of data.

The reason you don't see many of those features you listed for exotic goldfish in wild carp is that those adaptations are strongly selected against in the wild. They make the creatures less fit in any environment but that of a fishbowl. Even in a fishbowl it makes them less fit, but in modern times humans protect such misfits for their own amusemnt. It is my guess that one could take wild carp and recreate a variety like the bubble eye. It is just that no one has bothered because it has already been done.

We Humans can KEEP the populations separate: Just how would Nature make a big fishbowl or corral??

You don't really need to physically isolate individual animals, although that does happen. Darwin was inspired in part by finches, which had been isolated on a remote island. The entire continent of Australia is another example; it has been geographically isolated for many millions of years, and is now home to animals that are quite different from those found anywhere else on earth.

To understand how selective pressures apply even in the absence of strict isolation, consider a reef, where a single species of fishes make their home. There are small crevasses in the reef where small fish might find food and shelter, medium-sized crevasses suitable for medium-sized fish, and so on. Let's assume that there are only medium-sized fish living at this reef.

This population of fish will naturally vary is size a bit, and the smallest ones have a real advantage over the others - when food is scarce or when there are not enough medium-sized hiding spaces to go around, the smallest fish are more likely to survive and reproduce. Being small is a real advantage, and after many years, you'll find plenty of these smaller fish around. They will still be the same species as the medium-sized fish, but each group will tend to cluster in the parts of the reef where the surroundings are most favorable to them. Of course, the medium-sized fish will not disappear, as there is still good habitat for them, too.

Some of these smaller fish will still breed with the larger ones; others, by some small quirk in their inherited dispositions, will choose to breed only with the smaller ones. The smaller fish that tend to mate with other small fish will see that more of their children inherit the advantage of smallness, and these fish will tend to dominate that part of the reef. In this case, the isolation comes not from a physical barrier, but by a quirk in mate selection that happens to be advantageous.

The medium-sized fish will start to change as well. Those that are naturally aggressive towards smaller fish, and who are particularly good at driving the small ones away from their homes, will tend to do better than the medium fish who tolerate competiton from the small ones.

Over time - lots and lots of time! - you'll see two distinct strains of fish emerge, that interbreed less and less, and diverge more and more. Eventually, they will be so different as to count as different species.

Of course, you may choose to believe this, or not; I have no opinion about that. I'm just trying to illustrate how the theory of natural selection explains the origin of the species; in this case, even animals that live side-by-side can diverge to occupy different portions of the habitat.

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.