Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Theorist: Darwin Had it Wrong
Star News Online ^ | 4-17-04 | Daniel Conover

Posted on 04/22/2004 8:46:34 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo

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

By Daniel Conover, the (Charleston) Post and Courier

CHARLESTON, S.C. - In the beginning, it was just the proteins.

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."

All he wants, Dr. Schwabe says, is a hearing by his peers.

"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."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: creation; crevolist; darwin; evolution; god; godsgravesglyphs; origins
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-195 next last
To: MikeJ
Actually, no.

Try it and get back to me. (I raise fish).

41 posted on 04/22/2004 11:42:07 AM PDT by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
If they think it’s no good, they have the obligation to disprove it."

Let's consult the rule book.

42 posted on 04/22/2004 11:42:07 AM PDT by RightWhale (Theorems link concepts; proofs establish links)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

placemarker
43 posted on 04/22/2004 11:46:54 AM PDT by js1138 (In a minute there is time, for decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. J Forbes Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; jennyp; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Physicist; LogicWings; Doctor Stochastic; ..
PING. [This list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and some other science topics like cosmology. Long-time list members get all pings, but can request evo-only status. New additions will be evo-only, but can request all pings. FReepmail me to be added or dropped. Specify all pings or you'll get evo-pings only.]
44 posted on 04/22/2004 11:47:27 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Hic amor, haec patria est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MikeJ
"If I continue the experiment long enough, and keep selecting for new attributes, eventually they will be so different that they will no longer be able to interbreed at all. At some point they are no longer guppies, but become some new species."

The unscientific prollem I see with that is a conscious being (meaning you) has had controlling input over the selection process to achieve a desired outcome. If not a Creator, then who makes that selection in nature?

Guppy out...

45 posted on 04/22/2004 11:48:20 AM PDT by azhenfud ("He who is always looking up seldom finds others' lost change...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
:-)
46 posted on 04/22/2004 11:51:02 AM PDT by Tribune7 (Vote Toomey -- appeasement doesn't work)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: templar
Try it and get back to me. (I raise fish).

Well, if this were the case, than it should be possible to reverse the selective changes done to any population. I think we both agree that no amount of manipulation is going to get us from a population of sparrows to an archaeopteryx.

I do agree that we would probably see this population of fish revert if (1) they are allowed to interbreed with regular guppies, or (2) if they are put into an environment that favors normal guppies. However, if they are kept distinct and are not at a disadvantage, there is no mechanisim (that I am aware of) which would cause them to revert.

If you disagree, can you explain how this might occur? Do they carry with them all of their old genetic code?

47 posted on 04/22/2004 11:51:15 AM PDT by MikeJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: azhenfud
If not a Creator, then who makes that selection in nature?

Every organisim is in competition with others of its kind. Some are better at surviving than others. This competitive pressure is one form of selection.

Another is environmental change. My back yard, now a lawn, was once a forest; long before that, it was a sea. As the environment changes, animals must adapt to these changes, or perish.

48 posted on 04/22/2004 11:54:59 AM PDT by MikeJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; betty boop
You might like this too.
49 posted on 04/22/2004 11:55:19 AM PDT by Tribune7 (Vote Toomey -- appeasement doesn't work)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Maceman
"..The fact that Darwin's theory may ultimately not prove to be sustainable is still not scientific justification for the theory that God created the world and everything in it in seven days, as Genesis would have it."

Amen. Yet it feels like a 'religious' attack to question Darwin and evolution, even if one is not necessarily supporting creationism.

-- Joe
50 posted on 04/22/2004 11:55:25 AM PDT by Joe Republc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
An Abstract of one of Schwabe's papers. This is what the Creationists are supporting here.

Schwabe C.

Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston 29425, USA. schwabec@musc.edu

The new hypothesis of evolution establishes a contiguity of life sciences with cosmology, physics, and chemistry, and provides a basis for the search for life on other planets. Chemistry is the sole driving force of the assembly of life, under the subtle guidance exerted by bonding orbital geometry. That phenomenon leads to multiple origins that function on the same principles but are different to the extent that their nucleic acid core varies. Thus, thoughts about the origins of life and the development of complexity have been transferred from the chance orientation of the past to the realm of atomic structures, which are subject to the laws of thermodynamics and kinetics. Evolution is a legitimate subject of basic science, and the complexity of life will submit to the laws of chemistry and physics as the problem is viewed from a new perspective. The paradigm connects life to the big events that formed every sphere of our living space and that keeps conditions fine-tuned for life to persist, perhaps a billion years or more. The "genomic potential" hypothesis leads to the prediction that life like ours is likely to exist in galaxies that are as distant from the origin of the universe as the Milky Way, and that the habitable zone of our galaxy harbors other living planets as well.
Copyright 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

51 posted on 04/22/2004 11:58:41 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: MikeJ
I think we both agree that no amount of manipulation is going to get us from a population of sparrows to an archaeopteryx.

Sparrows and archaeopteryx are different species. One cannot become another. This is not what is being discussed.

You are dealing with specific traits that have been emphasized among select populations of the same species, and which will dissapear (return to the original) if not kept selectively enhanced. It's simple to prove this in a tank, try it. Some of each generation will exibit traits of the originating generation and continue interbreeding with the ones that have the emphasized traits till they are all back in the original state (outside influences removed).

This is the reason (specific traits being exhibited among some members of each generation that are not common to the entire generation) that allowed breeding the specific 'big tail' traits to begin with. It's the same with people, look at 'family' traits and how they are carried on or not carried on by subsequent generations according to the mates chosen by each generation. But the're all still human and each has various dominant and subordinate traits (height, color of eyes, skin, hair, etc. that could be selectively bred to make different 'racial' groups over time.

52 posted on 04/22/2004 12:10:38 PM PDT by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: templar
Yes, I agree. I misunderstood you.

So long as we are talking about animals of the same species, unusual traits might well receed into dormancy. However, if we continue our experiment to the point where our two groups are no longer able to interbreed, then this is no longer the case.

53 posted on 04/22/2004 12:24:24 PM PDT by MikeJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: azhenfud
The unscientific prollem I see with that is a conscious being (meaning you) has had controlling input over the selection process to achieve a desired outcome. If not a Creator, then who makes that selection in nature?

Environmental pressures, potential mates.

54 posted on 04/22/2004 12:30:27 PM PDT by Junior (Remember, you are unique, just like everyone else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Not if B was proven wrong even earlier than theory A's downfall, *and* doesn't even rise to the level of a scientific theory in the first place.

You are saying that "Intelligent Design" has already been proven wrong and really isn't even a theory???????

55 posted on 04/22/2004 12:36:19 PM PDT by Onelifetogive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Cicero; PhilDragoo; MeekOneGOP; potlatch; Mia T; Happy2BMe; ntnychik; dixiechick2000; onyx; ...

Un-PC to question why some dawgs sit on thar fat butts and eat and sleep while them thar hounds are out huntin' varmints and the collies are roundin' up the herd at feedin' time.

When did Darwinism suddenly stop and the lazy dawgs fail to completely evolve?

Or is that culturally insensitive to certain breeds of dawgs that are not up to the tests of life cause thar historically oppressed and never git enough Puppy Chow?

Whuts up wid dat?






56 posted on 04/22/2004 12:41:53 PM PDT by devolve (................... ...........................Hello from Sunny South Florida!..................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: devolve
Is that you again, medved?
57 posted on 04/22/2004 12:49:10 PM PDT by balrog666 (A public service post.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive
You are saying that "Intelligent Design" has already been proven wrong and really isn't even a theory???????

Well, you're half right.

58 posted on 04/22/2004 12:54:39 PM PDT by balrog666 (A public service post.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: r9etb; talleyman
LOL
59 posted on 04/22/2004 1:10:18 PM PDT by waverna (I shall do neither. I have killed my captain...and my friend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MikeJ; ml/nj
(I'm guessing, but I'm pretty sure that apes and humans have the same number of chromosomes, yet they are clearly a different species).

Actually, humans have a different number of chromosomes than apes do. But the nature of the difference actually provides unmistakable signs that humans evolved from the apes. See my post, How humans and chimps ended up having different number of chromosomes, and how this supports our common ancestry.

The site I linked an image from seems to be down right now, so here's an alternate view of the same info -- look at chromosome #2, which is the one I discuss in that post.


60 posted on 04/22/2004 1:16:14 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-195 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson