Genesis Ch. 1
11) And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12) And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
21) And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
24) And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Amazing discoveries.
"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."
The Professor's puzzlement is itself hard to understand. The key comes early in this article.
The way biochemist Christian Schwabe saw it, Darwinian evolution should have given closely related animals similar sets of proteins.Yes, exactly. Common descent predicts that.
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.Here's the rub. From the Convergence of Independent Phylogenies:
Well-determined phylogenetic trees inferred from the independent evidence of morphology and molecular sequences match with an extremely high degree of statistical significance...So the problem is that protein trees do match other trees superbly. The professor has run off to solve a problem which didn't need solving. Maybe that wasn't so clear in the 1970s but it has become abundantly clear since then. The professor has come up with an answer (published 20 years ago in 1984) which was not needed then and is very far from needed now. No one is paying much attention to this little personal drama of the professor's since it isn't necessary....[T]he standard phylogenetic tree is known to 38 decimal places, which is a much greater precision than that of even the most well-determined physical constants. For comparison, the charge of the electron is known to only seven decimal places, the Planck constant is known to only eight decimal places, the mass of the neutron, proton, and electron are all known to only nine decimal places, and the universal gravitational constant has been determined to only three decimal places.
Consider a small organisim, say, a guppy. Presumably, this species has a single "genomic potential". So, I get a few dozen of these little guys and I set up shop.
I do some selective breeding of these fish, which is just another way of saying that I impose an arbitrary means of selecting the ones which will be allowed to survive and breed. The ones in the first tank will face an arbitrary selective pressure for big, colorful tails. The fish in the second tank will face a selective pressure for normal tails, but large size.
Eventually I get a strain of this fish with a big, colorful tail, and a second strain that that is larger than before. Which of these strains represents the true "genomic potential" of this species?
Obviously, each fish is well-adapted to the particular selective pressures in its particular tank. The "ultimate expression" of this evolutionary path depends both upon the fish, and on the environment in which the fish lives.
This guy seems to suggest that there is some latent form that each species is destined to evolve into, regardless of the environment - that selective pressures do not drive evolution. That's a really hard argument to take seriously.
When I worked at a university research institute, one of the offices had a sign on the wall that read something like "If you're doing something really new, you don't have any peers."
I found that out the hard way when the National Science Foundation rejected one of my proposals for three years in a row, even though I modified it each time to respond to the objections of the "peer" reviewers. I finally gave up on the idea. Later, when personal computers came out, I realized I no longer needed a grant to solve the problem. I could do it at home on my own PC. I completed the research and got two conference papers and two journal articles out of it. The results of the research were valid, as shown by acceptance by the journal reviewers, but the research proposal itself couldn't get through the "starting gate" of peer review.
I never again submitted a proposal to the NSF. Why fight the problem of incompetent "peers?"
I'm currently Associate Editor of a scientific journal. When a paper comes in, I make a point of selecting the reviewers carefully, to assure that the paper gets a fair review and isn't tossed off because it doesn't fit the current research paradigm.
He has published more than 100 scholarly works and received five patents for his discoveries.
But wait: that can't be!
Scientific heretics are supposed to have their careers destroyed, their homes sacked and burned, and their names effaced from the public record unto the seventh generation. What happened to the Code of Suppression that all scientists agree to implement when they are granted their Science Licenses?
Based on this article, it seems they were wrong.
And from the link you provided: "Schwabe claims that life arose directly from pools of chemicals in a natural way. He points out that the Miller-Urey experiment produced amino acids in exactly the same proportions as found in the Murchison meteorite. This means that truly universal laws of chemistry are at work. Those laws are favourable for the origin of life."
The Miller-Urey experiment. (From What biology textbooks never told you about evolution by Royal Truman)
"With the most astute intelligent guidance, such an experimental set-up, which generates a multitude of interfering organic acids and bases (plus racemic and biologically useless amino acids) cannot produce a single biologically relevant protein strand.
"Oxygen, deliberately removed from Miller’s apparatus, destroys amino acids. But geological evidence indicates oxygen was always present on earth. It is produced by photolysis of water vapour in the atmosphere, where hydrogen escapes gravitation and oxygen thereby increases in concentration.
"Currently, the most probable early atmosphere is deemed by evolutionists to have consisted of water, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and hydrogen, a very different composition than used by Miller. Hydrogen would have been present in small concentrations at most, because it could escape Earth’s gravity; ammonia and methane would have been destroyed by ultraviolet light. In 1983, Miller reported that if carbon monoxide is added to the more realistic mixture, plus a large proportion of free hydrogen, then only glycine, the simplest amino acid, could be produced, and in trace amounts only."
Favourable? Whereas Darwin relies only upon a single "little" abiogensis miracle, Schwab relies upon many "whoppers".