Dr. Schwartz' "MIssing Links"

Schwartz is just an anthropologist venturing outside his field. Based upon the Science Daily article, he has a fundamental misunderstanding of the simple rate of copying errors during cell division or gamete formation. This quote from the article clearly brings out this misunderstanding: But our "molecules" (he means DNA, I assume) *are* constantly changing. Copying errors are unavoidable - cell division resulting in a perfect copy probably almost never happens, and this is true of both normal cells and gametes. He proposes nothing new when he mentions stress, as it is already well-established that environmental stress increases mutation rates, though the processes are not well understood at this time, and since he's an anthropologist and not a molecular biologist he's an unlikely candidate for groundbreaking work in this area.But none of this calls the molecular clock into question. The title of Schwartz's article is "Do Molecular Clocks Run at All? A Critique of Molecular Systematics." The answer is that of course they run, only perfect copying could stop them, and perfect copying almost never happens.The article itself appeared in the February 9th issue of Biological Theory. Subbie had a link to the article that didn't work for me, this one seems to work: The article's authors are Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Departments of Anthropology and History and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh, and Bruno Maresca, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Salerno.In other words, this article on molecular clocks is by an anthropologist/historian/philosopher and a pharmacist. I think it's nonsense. The abstract says nothing about molecular clocks, even though the phrase "molecular clocks" appears in the article's title, so apparently he's confusing chemical measures of relatedness with molecular clocks. Here are the first two paragraphs of the article, just to give people a clear idea of the nonsense: Just as we have no idea what was going on in genius Fred Hoyle's mind when he ventured outside his own field of physics to make boldly wrong declarations about biology, we can have no idea why Jeffrey H. Schwartz is doing the same in molecular biology.The Biological Theory journal that printed this nonsense is associated with the Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research. Going to their website, their About KLI and Research webpages seem comprised of the stuff of fringe (read questionable) science and is pervaded by relativism. Alan Sokal, where are you, we need you!--Percy

I think the Lawrence Krauss response to Stuart Hameroff's presentation on another topic at the Beyond Belief 2006 conference is the one that is most appropriate here: "I think everything you say is nonsense. And maybe I'm being too polite."If you stick around we can get into the details, but I'm sure you're already well aware of the reasons why you had to publish this in an obscure journal from a research organization whose focus isn't even on molecular biology.But this other comment you made has aroused my curiosity: I assume you mean he was in the same program at Columbia at roughly the same time as Eldredge and Gould? Anyway, I hope your mention of these names is not meant to imply that they agree with you that Darwinism (by which you mean the ideas of Darwin as distinct from the modern synthesis, or are you referring to the modern synthetic theory of evolution?) "is not a viable model for the origin/emergence of novelty."--Percy

I see you've picked up a concurring response. If descent with modification and natural selection are insufficient for the production of novelty, then how do you explain novelty? Flegr explains it like this in his paper Where is Modern Evolutionary Biology Heading - The Theory of Frozen Plasticity and Biological Psychiatry: After all Flegr's popular press criticism of evolution, his "novel" idea comes down to nothing more than that only small isolated populations can evolve significantly in response to environmental stress. He ties this in to "biological psychiatry", I suppose because he was unable to publish his ideas on evolution in any respectable biology journal, so like you he sought other outlets, in this case an obscure psychiatry journal where his evolutionary ideas wouldn't receive review by actual peers competent to comment. Just add a few gratuitous references to psychiatry and voil, the paper is published!I'd say his ideas about the insufficiency of mainstream ideas of evolution seem as unfounded as your own. When one flies with the loons I guess one has to expect cuckoos joining the flock, too.So how are things in Pittsburgh? I haven't been back in a long while, but back in the 70's I attended grad school just up Forbes Avenue from you at Carnegie Mellon.--Percy

Really? Imagine that! I had no idea! Conference proceedings, which contain the papers presented at a conference, are a type of journal. The papers presented at legitimate scientific conferences are subjected to peer-review. If not for peer review I would have presented papers at twice as many conferences as I actually did. In fact, had I written a better paper I would have spent this past early May at a resort in Colorado, but peer review narrowly rejected my paper, the letter of rejection saying that the competition was particularly tough this year, but they always say that. The cretins somehow didn't appreciate the genius behind my ideas extending the LCS algorithm. Gould and Eldredge's first presentation of their idea of punctuated equilibrium was at a symposium at the November, 1971, meeting of the Geological Society of America in Washington D.C. A symposium is not a conference, and like many symposiums, this one was for the presentation and discussion of new ideas. Gould was assigned to present ideas applying the evolutionary concept of speciation to the fossil record by the symposium's sponsor. You can read about the details in Gould's own words at Opus 200, but Gould doesn't describe what, if any, review process was involved.The papers were later collected in a book called Models in Paleobiology. The paper can be found at Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism.So clearly it would be wrong to say that Gould and Eldredge first presented their ideas at the symposium because they couldn't find respectable outlets, because as Gould clearly explains, it was the assignment of the topic by the symposium's sponsor that was the original impetus for the idea. Like all human endeavors, peer review is not perfect. Ideally we hope for acceptance of high quality papers and rejection of low quality papers. The point you're ignoring is that both Schwartz and Flegr attempt to avoid the normal standards of peer review by submitting their work to obscure journals whose peer review process is either minimal or absent. In other words, rather than seeking the benefit of scrutiny and criticism from their peers, they instead try to avoid it. And as one would expect, ideas that are unhoned by the review process are not very sharp.--Percy

This is actually a reply to both Crash and RAZD.It's not news that the rates of molecular clocks vary. For example, the Wikipedia entry on molecular clocks covers the issue early in the article in the section titled Calibration. As with radiometric dating, sometimes the technique can be applied very well, sometimes it can't, and we're developing a better understanding of how and where the technique can be successfully applied. Schwartz is mentioned in the article.The Wikipedia entry on Jeffrey H. Schwartz himself provides the reason why he's inclined toward a wholesale challenge of the validity of molecular clocks. Based upon morphological comparisons, he believes humans are more closely related to orangutans than to chimpanzees, and his view naturally conflicts with the DNA analysis.Schwartz's list of significant publications on this Wikipedia page as well as a search for his papers by Google Scholar support the view that he is unqualified to comment with any authority on molecular clocks. There are very confirming and damning facts supporting this view: a) his choice of journal for publication of his article on molecular clocks; b) his statement that he believes Darwinism cannot produce novelty.In other words, Schwartz is not challenging molecular clocks because he is a qualified researcher in this area and has evidence supporting his view of them. He's challenging molecular clocks because they conflict with his views on human evolution in particular and on the theory of evolution in general. 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

Yes, alas, it's merely my point of view, which pales before God's given truth that you're handing down to us. Yes, peer-review can be particularly scathing sometimes! I don't know why you believe his ideas didn't benefit from his time at Oxford. Certainly many of his ideas did not receive a favorable reception, and what better way to hone arguments than on the grindstone of debate with the best minds of the day. The purpose of peer-review is not to grant a free pass but to examine and critique. The spirit of peer-review is captured by the term given to the oral review of a PhD candidate's ideas. It is termed a defense, not an anointing.About Neubauer, I don't see the point of introducing yet another obscure scientist making boldly wrong and in this case ridiculous declarations outside his field into the discussion.--Percy

Huh? Any critics Bruno didn't like don't qualify as "best minds"? Interesting criteria.Let me tell you something. I'm not especially fond of the two reviewers of my rejected paper who made negative comments. That's just human nature. I could make denigrating comments about them, but they'd be irrelevant with regard to judging their intellectual talents. If I wanted to say something relevant I'd have to be factual and objective and say things that were actually about them, which is what I suggest you do if you'd like to defend Schwartz, Flegr and Neubauer.--Percy

Hi Refpunk,I see you believe that creationists are treated unfairly here: This is a sentiment frequently voiced by creationists, but this site needs creationists, because without them there would be nobody to discuss with and the site would go idle. Suspending creationists for expressing creationist viewpoints would be counterproductive.But we do have Forum Guidelines that are designed to make discussion as rewarding and informative as possible for the participants, and your suspensions result from your inability or unwillingness, I'm not sure which, to follow them. Follow the Forum Guidelines by focusing your discussion on the topic and your difficulties should cease.--Percy