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.
If we can come up with a testable theory for the Creator, I'm all for it. You may or may not like the results of the test, though.
Out for the night.
No it doesn't. Because that would make it even more a fiction of yours.... Something changed into something else a billion and a half years ago. They were quite unlike the protamines and histones of today. What a joke.
Obviously not - we know that histones are highly conserved, but equally obviously your inability to explain why we should expect the same of protoamines is matched only by your inability to faithfully represent the argument you are supposed to be rebutting. Go lie on someone else, or play the fool with someone else, as the case may be - just remind yourself that God loves you for it, and it's all okay.
This post would be like posting a press release from the DNC verbatim as if it were meaningful in any way.
The level of discourse is that of the old rich lady benefactors who get fed these type of press releases with watered-down, not even usually accurate science.
The New Anatomist. Wow.
:-} Yeah, the Senator did give that one short shrift.
More later.
I find my friend Senator Bedfellow's answers a bit underwhelming thus far. :{
Actually, I did point out that it is in no way "impervious" to mutation.
We should expect protamines to remain protamines because that is what you used in your fiction. Whether they were highly conserved protamines is not relevant. The histone that is the center of this question is H4. H1 is not as conserved but it also remains a histone. Your fiction stated a minor change in a protamine made a histone. That is fiction which you have not backed up. And I have faithfully represented your fiction since I have quoted it quite often. Here it is again ---homologs such as the protamines may well have served some entirely different function before doing what histones do now. A minor change to that homolog, and presto - histones
Protamines that, in the AndrewC fictional version, should be identical to any pruative protamine that may have served that function a billion years ago. Whatever. If you can't be bothered to address the argument as it actually is, rather than some ridiculous parody that exists solely in your head, there's precious little point in continuing - you do not discuss this subject in good faith.
It doesn't matter how long ago, a minor change is a minor change. We know that the histone that we are considering is practically "eternal". A minor change constrains the changee if the change-target is "fixed". Any more futile attempts to distance yourself from your fiction? homologs such as the protamines may well have served some entirely different function before doing what histones do now. A minor change to that homolog, and presto - histones .
I'd like to get back to Dover since that is my pals AOE. The significance of Histone 4 and Fred Hoyle vis a vis Dover is that it "falsifies" the Judge Jones, and every anti ID person here at FR, claim that ID = religion. Hoyle was not a religionist and his unbridled skepticism of the NDT, small changes over time variety, is based not on any religious belief but on mathematics and science.
So what's the point? The point is that Judge Jones has banned Hoyles work in the Mathematics of Evolution from the classroom because it indeed is a work that draws the conclusion that intelligent design is a valid theory.
Senator, you were right the first time. The lawyers have no business in deciding what is or is not science.
But we don't know that about protamines, do we? How many ways do you want me to say the same thing before you get it?
And how many ways do you want me to say it is not relevant since you have set the limits with your use of protamine and minor change?
Me, I'd probably opt for door number 1 if I were into ID theory, and realistically contemporary ID theory doesn't bear much resemblance to Hoyle's theory.
That doesn't even remotely make sense. You're not seriously arguing that the protamines we see today are the only possible protamines, are you?
Yeah, protamines are protamines. If they are not protamines they are something else. Unless you plan on falling on the Something changed into something else a billion and a half years ago. They were quite unlike the protamines and histones of today argument.
Allow me to be the first, apparently, to disabuse you of this notion that you've somehow internalized, that protamines are somehow defined from a list of compounds X, Y, and Z, and things not X, Y, or Z are therefore not protamines. It doesn't work that way, despite how convenient such a definition might be for your purposes here.
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.