"Sudden Origins" by Jeffery H Schwartz

The close of Schwartz's Message 39 neatly sums up where he's probably going in his book: Darwinism "is not a viable model for the origin/emergence of novelty."--Percy

Since Schwartz believes that Darwinism "is not a viable model for the origin/emergence of novelty," I don't think very many who understand how powerfully the theory of evolution interprets the body of evidence would consider him one their own. See his recent paper that was the topic of the Dr. Schwartz' "MIssing Links" thread, and his Message 31.--Percy

As I said in Message 51 of the Dr. Schwartz' "MIssing Links" thread, "He is an example of the worst kind of scientist one can imagine, one who just like creationists lets his ideas about the way the world must be govern his acceptance and interpretation of evidence." You've drawn my comment out of context. In the original message in which it appeared, that comment was a reference to Schwartz's research paper on molecular clocks that appeared in an obscure journal not even devoted to that field of research, probably to evade peer review. I don't believe Eugenie Scott, Michael Ruse or Daniel Dennett are seeking out obscure non-peer reviewed journals in which to publish work outside their fields.As a professor at the University of Pittsburgh, Schwartz is probably caught in a publish or perish dilemma. Unable to promote his ideas about human ancestry in mainstream journals, he's seeking out less demanding journals that are willing to consider papers whose quality and rigour isn't up to standards.Schwartz is an unlucky victim of genetic analysis. His ideas about the relatedness of orangutans and humans were scholarly, astute and persuasive, but when genetic analysis ruled out the possibility he refused to abandon it. Instead of incorporating the new information into his thinking, he attacked it, and continues to attack it. Since the evidence he's been able to muster for his views is not only inadequate but even misused (see RAZD's comments on his book), he's been marginalized, and he's probably fighting for his professional career at this point. I assume he has tenure and can't be fired, but he's probably getting the worst offices, the worst grad students, the worst class assignments. He's floundering about trying to find some way to regain the prestige he once had in the 1990's.--Percy

Yes, you are correct, that is not my point. Schwartz is continuing to argue a point that genetic analysis settled a while ago, and he arguing it not from evidence but just because he won't give up his pet view that brought him professional fame back in the 1990's. What he's doing is like continuing to argue for a flat earth in an era of moon landings. Not quite so dramatic, perhaps, but you get the idea. No, of course not. There's peer review. After a paper has been accepted for consideration by editors, legitimate technical journals send it out to as few as 2 and as many as 5 peer reviewers (scientists from the same field), who remain anonymous to the paper's authors. Based upon the results of the peer review the paper is either accepted, accepted provisionally based upon whether requested changes are made in a satisfactory manner, or rejected. No, of course not. A paper must meet certain standards and criteria, which is why I stated that Schwartz's paper doesn't meet the normal standards for a professional technical paper. Foremost among these standards is that the paper must be based upon sound evidence and reasoning. Schwartz has only circumstantial evidence for his views in the form of phenotypal observations, while the rather conclusive genetic evidence says he's dead wrong, and he tries to overcome this through transparently bad reasoning and mischaracterization of the nature of existing evidence. Legitimate journals will not consider papers that combine poor evidence with poor reasoning and outright misrepresentations. That's why he has to carry out his attacks on molecular clocks in obscure journals. Yes and yes. Of course! Indubitably! Without a doubt! Count on it! For sure! You betcha!--Percy