Posted on 01/26/2006 11:47:13 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Jeffrey H. Schwartz's Sudden Origins closed Darwin's gaps; cell biology explains how.
An article by University of Pittsburgh Professor of Anthropology Jeffrey H. Schwartz and University of Salerno Professor of Biochemistry Bruno Maresca, to be published Jan. 30 in the New Anatomist journal, shows that the emerging understanding of cell structure lends strong support to Schwartz's theory of evolution, originally explained in his seminal work, Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species (John Wiley & Sons, 2000).
In that book, Schwartz hearkens back to earlier theories that suggest that the Darwinian model of evolution as continual and gradual adaptation to the environment glosses over gaps in the fossil record by assuming the intervening fossils simply have not been found yet. Rather, Schwartz argues, they have not been found because they don't exist, since evolution is not necessarily gradual but often sudden, dramatic expressions of change that began on the cellular level because of radical environmental stressors-like extreme heat, cold, or crowding-years earlier.
Determining the mechanism that causes those delayed expressions of change is Schwartz's major contribution to the evolution of the theory of evolution. The mechanism, the authors explain, is this: Environmental upheaval causes genes to mutate, and those altered genes remain in a recessive state, spreading silently through the population until offspring appear with two copies of the new mutation and change suddenly, seemingly appearing out of thin air. Those changes may be significant and beneficial (like teeth or limbs) or, more likely, kill the organism.
Why does it take an environmental drama to cause mutations? Why don't cells subtly and constantly change in small ways over time, as Darwin suggests?
Cell biologists know the answer: Cells don't like to change and don't do so easily. As Schwartz and Maresca explain: Cells in their ordinary states have suites of molecules- various kinds of proteins-whose jobs are to eliminate error that might get introduced and derail the functioning of their cell. For instance, some proteins work to keep the cell membrane intact. Other proteins act as chaperones, bringing molecules to their proper locations in the cell, and so on. In short, with that kind of protection from change, it is very difficult for mutations, of whatever kind, to gain a foothold. But extreme stress pushes cells beyond their capacity to produce protective proteins, and then mutation can occur.
This revelation has enormous implications for the notion that organisms routinely change to adapt to the environment. Actually, Schwartz argues, it is the environment that knocks them off their equilibrium and as likely ultimately kills them as changes them. And so they are being rocked by the environment, not adapting to it.
The article's conclusions also have important implications for the notion of “fixing” the environment to protect endangered species. While it is indeed the environment causing the mutation, the resulting organism is in an altogether different environment by the time the novelty finally escapes its recessive state and expresses itself.
“You just can't do a quick fix on the environment to prevent extinction because the cause of the mutation occurred some time in the past, and you don't know what the cause of the stress was at that time,” Schwartz said.
“This new understanding of how organisms change provides us with an opportunity to forestall the damage we might cause by unthinking disruption of the environment,” added Schwartz. “The Sudden Origins theory, buttressed by modern cell biology, underscores the need to preserve the environment-not only to enhance life today, but to protect life generations from now.”
Schwartz, with his colleague Ian Tattersall, curator of anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, also authored the four-volume The Human Fossil Record (Wiley-Liss, 2002-05). Together, the volumes represent the first study of the entire human fossil record. Volume 1 was recognized by the Association of American Publishers with its Professional Scholarly Publishing Award. In 1987, Schwartz's The Red Ape: Orang-utans and Human Origin (Houghton Mifflin Company) was met with critical acclaim.
Schwartz, who also is a Pitt professor of the history and philosophy of science, was named a fellow in Pitt's Center for the Philosophy of Science and a fellow of the prestigious World Academy of Arts and Science.
The journal, The New Anatomist, is an invitation-only supplement to the Anatomical Record.
LOL, you are a devious character allowing somebody else to open the door to your area of expertise. I have no such problems with AOE as a blue collar guy. I wander through any door I please and never let the doorknob hit me on the arse when the experts get grouchy! :-}
Well if histones stayed the same, something else must have enabled me to become a lawyer, and my late departed coyote killed cat, not. What might that be?
So in the end, Hoyle's got a crushing rebuttal to an argument that nobody's really making in the first place. And FWIW, Korthof, dedicated though he may be, does not appear to categorize it as a serious problem for the theory of evolution so much as an area in need of further investigation, which of course it is.
They should listen to expert scientific testimony and rule accordingly, just like in Dover.
You think it is unconstitutional for a school district to suggest on a textbook sticker that evolution is a theory that lacks completeness in all of its aspects, that the origin of life is a riddle wrapped in a mystery within an enigma, and that one should keep an open mind about these complex matters? I think it is a close case myself, very close, since the admonition sticker is selective as to which textbooks it is placed on. And there you have it.
Realistically, if the creationists don't overreach in that case, as they always do, and just put a sticker on all the textbooks that say, in effect, "don't believe everything you hear", then we aren't having this conversation. But of course, that's not the point of the stickers at all - the point was always to pretend that the theory of evolution somehow suffers from some handicap not inflicted upon other scientific theories, when in reality it's as good as any. That maneuver may end up in accord with the law, but the net result will only be another demonstration that the law is a ass. As if we needed more demonstrations of that principle. ;)
Here's another, per Marjorie Lundquist, Ph.D., C.I.H., Bioelectromagnetic Hygienist.
Subject: Evidence and proofI found it, amoung many others via Google and so can anyone, excepting *obviously* pettifoggers, and such
Date: 4 Aug 00 08:59:26 PDTI should like to express the legal distinction in non-legal language, as I think it may help to clarify the matter for people who are neither lawyers nor scientists.
Any information that is pertinent to the question at issue constitutes evidence; evidence may be of variable (good or poor) quality.
Proof refers to the conclusion(s) drawn following review of all the available evidence. If such a review comes to a definite conclusion, the evidence is said to be definitive; and if that conclusion (in the case of health effects possibly caused by exposure to an environmental agent) is that the environmental agent did indeed cause the observed health effects, then there is considered to be proof of a causal relationship.
If the data are scientific data and the procedure of evaluation is a scientific one, then one may say that there is scientific proof.
Some would say that there must be a consensus among scientists, in order to claim that scientific proof exists. Certainly the assertion that there is scientific proof is much stronger when a consensus exists, compared to the situation when only one or a few scientists make such a claim. But before consensus is established, there is always an early period when only a small number of scientists hold a position that later will be held by the majority; so serious attention ought to be paid to a claim of scientific proof, even if it made by only a few scientists, because this could be the early stage of what will later be a consensus position among scientists.
Note how sweet and pleasant her words are -- such could be said of your own words if you would but drop the habit of making the truth small so that fantasic desires may be run large.
You have stated your case well, very well. That is what makes it tough for this "judge."
I do not understand the praise by any of that book by Dawkins, it is excepting the bat chapter, vanity-publishing mediocre and at times awful. The chapter on little evolutionary line drawings is especially sophmoric. IMO, not (in this post, at least) judging the science, just the writing.
More than beds fellows, one assumes. But who knows? Her words themselves speak well for themselves.
30 / 05 / 2004
For Albert Sasson “There is no scientific proof that genetically modified crops are harmful for health”In the series of debates with the public “Transgenic Food: is it the Solution for Famine in the World?”, Albert Sasson, PhD in Natural Science of the Université de Paris shared his views regarding genetically modified crops and the prospects for alleviating famine in the world.
Isn't that what I told you, that there's no such thing as proof in science? I speak generally, Mr. Sasson is thoughful enough to provide a specific example.
There will be 147 more similar claims before the month is out.
It won't work. ID is here to stay.
University At Buffalo Research Provides First Scientific Proof That Handwriting Is Unique To Each Of UsBUFFALO, N.Y. -- Computer scientists at the University at Buffalo have provided the first peer-reviewed scientific validation that each person's handwriting is individual, according to a paper that will be published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences in July. "
Cute. 5 points. That brings your score to -121 or so.
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.