|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: "Sudden Origins" by Jeffery H Schwartz | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
"Sudden Origins
Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species" by Jeffery H Schwartz I now have this book and will be writing bits about it as time permits. In the acknowledgments he says (among other things) "And, as so often happens, a chance conversation with Nile Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History provoked me to consider in greater depth the implications of some of my earlier conclusions." So I find it difficult to believe he was not aware of Punk Eek. He starts the book by saying that often we need to reinvestigate old theories that have only lost out by "intellectual victory" (presumably rather than by the evidence against them), as this "does not, however, necessarily equate with correctness" and then he proceeds to list a number of "gaps" in the fossil record and he goes back to the thinking of Georges Cuvier and his theory of multiple floods and multiple edens as places of refuge during the floods as an early explanation of saltation and sudden appearance of new types of species. SO far it looks like he is just laying the philosophical background similar to Eldredge and Gould on Punk Eek. Enjoy. Links and Information forum please Edited by Zen Deist, : splingby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
He seems to revisit almost every old idea that supports his position with no evaluation of their validity, makes several arguments from incredulity with regard to hox genes and their role in evolution, and combines this with a dated (more than 8 year old) view of human evolution. So far I see nothing compelling in his book, and lots of fodder for creatortionista quote mining.
Curiously his discussion of the australopithicus tibia being human like (p31 paperback ed) seems out of context with the rest of his argument (refers to picture):
quote: Note this picture has the tibia upside-down with the knee at the top. In the text discussing this he says:
quote: Two problems with this. (1) the Australopithicus tibia shaft in the picture flares on one side almost identical to the Homo and on the other side flares half way between the ape and the Homo so it is more similar to the Homo than the ape. It could even be described as "flared out in a trumpet like fashion" in the same manner that A. anamensis is described (with no comparison to the completeness of the flaring compared to Homo. (2) There is no picture of a A. anamensis tibia for one to make their own comparison so one has to take Schwartz's word for it. This is shoddy and the kind of "evidence" usually found on creatortionista sites. The first chapter recapitulates almost every old saltational theory every written with no review of their validity, and the first half of the second chapter is full of references to archaic classifications systems of animals from the greeks to lineaus, page after page of really irrelevant history. So far: what he says of scientific evidence is questionable and seems to be missing some important things, and the rest of what he says is verbose and irrelevant. He could cover the evidence issues so far covered in about 10 pages (I'm on p 63). And I'm still waiting for something out of the ordinary. So far the evidence I can take from this is that the Australopithicus tibia is flared at the top and straight shafted like the homo tibia, and clearly indicates adaptation to bi-pedal walking based on this evidence, compared to the non-flared, bent shaft, and convex cupped top of the ape tibia. That A. anamensis is similar to Australopithicus, but the relative details of development are not given. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The section starting on p63, subtitled "Toward a better definition of Homo sapiens" and going into chapter 3, takes a turn for the better. Here he delves into the differences that make us human, with particular attention to details of skeleton and anatomy that differentiate us from the apes. He continues his theme of showing how the thinking was originally bedded in the thinking of the times and evolved as information became available.
I think he could start the book here and not lose much, especially if he takes the stuff he had on the tibia to a later section to show it found in it's time and how thinking about humans versus hominids versus apes evolved. He makes a point of referring to Buffon's and then Blumenbach's classification of primates as "quadramanous" or four handed. This is an interesting point because the human foot is really evolved from a hand with a vestigial "thumb" as the big toe, and a the ankle is formed from wrist bones. That many (if not all) apes CAN and DO walk (occasionally) on their two hind "hands" really makes it no surprise that one ape should adopt it for permanent ground perambulation: the only question is when it happened. Chapter 3 goes into the trouble people had accepting fossils as something not mineral or supernatural (hand axes were the tips of thunderbolts), and really shows the intellectual climate of the age and the culture (Victorian England, sure of their conquest of the world and their right to do so as a superior race\culture). The rest of the chapter continues to place things in context with their times, from the term "evolution" being adapted from embryology in general and Haeckle in particular (cue randman) and Haeckle's prediction of "Pithicanthropus" to placing the neanderthals in the human lineage as a species or a race. This continues in chapter 4 with finding the of Pithicanthropus erectus (Java man) and then Pithicanthropus dawsoni (Piltdown fraud), again with the context of the times and the limited information of hominid development and competing theories of what the "missing link" would look like. Then he goes to the Tuang child, but unfortunately ends there in 1924 with the picture incomplete: where are the rest of the australopithicus fossils talked about in passing in chapter 1? (and here is where the tibia could be, as well as the pelvis and other elements. Chapter 5 jumps back to "Humans as Embryos" at this point. Seems to me the editor of the book could have done a better job. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
... and combines this with a dated (more than 8 year old) view of human evolution ... estdt! C'mon, that was cheap.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Perhaps I was not clear. The book is 8 years old, so the comment was that it was dated at the time it was written. This view he used was still a linear progression of all hominids, and that has not been held for some time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
RAZD: Have you read the Introduction or Preface to this book? Schwartz gives a tremendous historical overview, leading up to the synthesis, and through the synthesis. This is the context of everything written thereafter. Schwartz is one of your own and he is a brilliant writer and anthropologist. Your dismissals of Schwartz is baffling.
Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Yes I've read the intro and the preface. I find the book dull, repetitious and dodging back and forth, rather than concise. Hardly brilliant to me. The book does not grab me.
Yes the history information is interesting, but it at this point (half-way through) it is not anything new, and some of it is rather selective in what is said and what is not said. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Yes I've read the intro and the preface. I find the book dull, repetitious and dodging back and forth, rather than concise. Hardly brilliant to me. The book does not grab me. Yes the history information is interesting, but it at this point (half-way through) it is not anything new, and some of it is rather selective in what is said and what is not said. I just want to say that the history review is the very best short, to the point, concise and well written summary that will be found anywhere. Persons who are new and learning about the history of evolutionary ideas and science can read this section and instantly receive an accurate gestalt of said theory. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Percy writes: Schwartz is one of your own... 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Ray, originally writes: Schwartz is one of your own... I should not have written this. I do not think that Schwartz is "one of your own" because the title of his book "Sudden Origins" is prima facie evidence to the contrary (in addition to the points you also made).
Since Schwartz believes that Darwinism "is not a viable model for the origin/emergence of novelty," SNIP... How would you classify or label Schwartz?
Percy writes: http://EvC Forum: Dr. Schwartz' "MIssing Links" -->EvC Forum: Dr. Schwartz' "MIssing Links" "Schwartz is just an anthropologist venturing outside his field." So is Eugenie Scott for that matter (anthropologist). Michael Ruse and Daniel Dennett are philosophers. Dawkins is a zoologist, yet is he not considered a respectable authority on genes? My point is: this type of point (pasted above) is not a good point? Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Cold Foreign Object writes: How would you classify or label Schwartz? 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."
Percy writes: http://< !--UB EvC Forum: Dr. Schwartz' "MIssing Links" -->http://EvC Forum: Dr. Schwartz' "MIssing Links" -->EvC Forum: Dr. Schwartz' "MIssing Links"< !--UE--> "Schwartz is just an anthropologist venturing outside his field." So is Eugenie Scott for that matter (anthropologist). Michael Ruse and Daniel Dennett are philosophers. Dawkins is a zoologist, yet is he not considered a respectable authority on genes? My point is: this type of point (pasted above) is not a good point? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
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." So evolutionists have the magical ability to leave their bias, worldviews and preconceptions at the lab door and everyone else does not? Surely that is not your point?
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. Yes, it was an accidental quote-mine. Now I understand.
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. I was under the belief that anyone can contribute to mainstream journals as long as they have credentials. Are you saying that in addition to credentials a person must promote the majority view? IDists are criticized for not publishing in these journals but according to your point (if I am understanding it correctly) they are not eligible to be published based on non-mainstream views? If true, why are IDists criticized in this respect in the first place since their views are not eligible for publishing in these publications?
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. Are you saying that Schwartz has become a crackpot? Is John Davison a crackpot? I am through here. I hope you choose to respond. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
I was under the belief that anyone can contribute to mainstream journals as long as they have credentials. Um, you are clearly mistaken. Anyone can contribute, no matter what their 'credentials', the issue is the calibre of the submitted work. That is why Percy describes the journals Schwartz work on this has been published in as 'less demanding', not because they demand a lower level of qualification to publish but because they do not have the same profile, are not submitted to as frequently and therefore have a naturally less stringent review process. That is not to say that they do not have a robust review process, merely that it is not as stringent as for a higher impact journal. There is a well established hierarchy in terms of the order in which one would proceed in submitting a paper for publication working down from the highest impact generalist journals to the more specific ones with high impact in a particular field and finally down to the ones that are edited by a close personal friend and only exist online.
If true, why are IDists criticized in this respect in the first place since their views are not eligible for publishing in these publications? Because the reasons their work is likely to be considered ineligible for publication are the same reasons why ID is considered unscientific. Clearly when it is done scientifically ID oriented research can be published, as Behe and Snokes' showed, albeit not necessarily in a particularly high profile journal, but at the same time their work highlights the fact that when it is done scientifically this ID oriented research offers no solace at all to the ID movement but rather supports the current evolutionary theory. Scientific journals aren't set up to publish views, they are set up to publish scientific research. If all the ID movement has are views then they aren't ever going to get published except via the backdoor as in the case of Meyer's paper.
Is John Davison a crackpot? Is this a trick question? TTFN, WK
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024