|
Author
|
Topic: "Modern Cell Biology doesn't support Darwinism"
|
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4917 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
Message 1 of 87 (285533)
02-10-2006 12:22 PM
|
|
|
A Pitt professor challenged a part of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution in an article published in the scientific magazine The New Anatomist last week. ....Schwartz refuted Darwin’s theory of gradual evolution in organisms with one that states that evolution occurs quickly and suddenly as the result of cell mutations. “Darwinism’s presence in science is so overwhelming,” Schwartz said. “For the longest time, there was no room for alternative thinking among the scientific community.” This has led Schwartz ” who believes that this indoctrination has resulted in scientists who don’t know enough about the history of the theories they learned ” to teach all different aspects of evolution to his students. .... Darwin’s theory, a staple in science curriculums, states that evolution in organisms occurs gradually over time. His theory also states that gaps in the fossil record, in which there are missing links between the different phases of evolution in organisms are temporary because the linking fossils haven’t been found yet. Schwartz, through research of the fossil record and use of Maresca’s findings about cell structure, believes otherwise. “If you look at the fossil record, organisms didn’t gain new items like teeth and jaws gradually,” Schwartz said. “It’s not like fish developed bony teeth one piece at a time. It happened suddenly.” ... Modern cell biology doesn’t support Darwinism.” Page not found - The Pitt News These guys have published their paper, and though refuting Darwinism, it is still evolution. What is interesting to me is how they assert the same facts I have asserted here concerning the fossil record. Note: the thread title is a quote from them, but is not meant to convey the topic is really about just cell biology. It is about their ideas, which include the fossil record, and the fact they have published this idea. This message has been edited by randman, 02-10-2006 12:24 PM
|
AdminWounded
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 2 of 87 (285545)
02-10-2006 12:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
02-10-2006 12:22 PM
|
|
This looks very interesting, I'd prefer something from the actual research paper to a newspaper article but in the interest of expediency I will promote this as is. The article has been published here, this is the abstract, those with the neccessary academic access should be able to get the full text. TTFN, AW *ABE* Rectified faulty link This message has been edited by AdminWounded, 10-Feb-2006 11:24 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by randman, posted 02-10-2006 12:22 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
AdminWounded
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 3 of 87 (285546)
02-10-2006 12:37 PM
|
|
|
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 4 of 87 (285557)
02-10-2006 12:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
02-10-2006 12:22 PM
|
|
I haven't read the published article. The wiley site isn't even giving me access to the abstract (some strange message about cookies).
It seems to be evidence for punctuated equilibrium, which is already well supported within the evolutionist community. I doubt that there is much of great interest here.
from the news report
However, it takes years for these changes to appear in organisms, since, according to Schwartz, mutations occur recessively and are passed unknowingly until the mutation saturates the population. Then, when members of the population receive two copies of the mutation, the trait appears suddenly.
Then it is not so sudden if it takes years to appear. From the news report, it seems to be a kind of recessive "hopeful monster" theory. I don't expect this to revolutionize biology.
According to Schwartz, time will tell if and when the scientific community will begin to move away from Darwin’s theories and adopt others, such as his own.
Maybe someone should tell Schwartz that the scientific community moved away from Darwin's original version a long time ago, when they became aware of Mendel's work. The theory of evolution has itself been evolving.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by randman, posted 02-10-2006 12:22 PM | | randman has replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1485 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 5 of 87 (285560)
02-10-2006 12:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
02-10-2006 12:22 PM
|
|
These guys have published their paper, and though refuting Darwinism, it is still evolution. Yeah, Rand. That's why folks like us have to keep repeating that it's an error to equivocate "Darwinism" and the theory of evolution. But folks like you keep on doing it; as though by disproving features of evolution we abandoned decades ago you can somehow scientifically prove God, or something.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by randman, posted 02-10-2006 12:22 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 8 by randman, posted 02-10-2006 1:05 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2511 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: 08-09-2005
|
|
|
Message 6 of 87 (285563)
02-10-2006 1:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
02-10-2006 12:22 PM
|
|
This is just PE on the Micro scale
So? Sounds like this guy is just coming out in support of punctuated. Is the point of the article that Darwin didn't address PE in his original theory? Well, duh. Newton described gravity but didn't discuss that it bends light. Does that mean that there is no gravity? The whole point of science is that theories are introduced, then refined and flushed out. That process compliments the original theory.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by randman, posted 02-10-2006 12:22 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4917 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 7 of 87 (285564)
02-10-2006 1:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 4 by nwr
02-10-2006 12:55 PM
|
|
Punctuated Equilibrium
Maybe they are confused on what PE says since it seems over time, evos have said so many things about PE. I can't blame them if they did see PE now as asserting that the fossil record is explained via gaps rather than rapid, "sudden" change since that's what evos started saying when creationists pointed out that PE descriptions of the fossil record matched what they had been saying for years. I guess someone will have to post something of the original paper to know. It is interesting that they feel the fossil record and cell biology to accord with mainstream evolutionist claims.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 4 by nwr, posted 02-10-2006 12:55 PM | | nwr has not replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4917 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 8 of 87 (285565)
02-10-2006 1:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 5 by crashfrog
02-10-2006 12:59 PM
|
|
folks like me, eh?
But folks like you keep on doing it You mean these 2 university professors that published their theory just recently?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 02-10-2006 12:59 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 12 by nator, posted 02-10-2006 1:23 PM | | randman has not replied | | | Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 02-10-2006 1:27 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4917 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 9 of 87 (285566)
02-10-2006 1:08 PM
|
|
|
what to make of this?
His theory also states that gaps in the fossil record, in which there are missing links between the different phases of evolution in organisms are temporary because the linking fossils haven’t been found yet. Schwartz, through research of the fossil record and use of Maresca’s findings about cell structure, believes otherwise. “If you look at the fossil record, organisms didn’t gain new items like teeth and jaws gradually,” Schwartz said. “It’s not like fish developed bony teeth one piece at a time. It happened suddenly.” It appears he is saying that the fossil record is more complete than evos say, and credits the sudden appearance of changes as evidence not of just fossil rarity and not finding the gaps, but that something like a whole new set of teeth appears suddenly and so there are no fossils of the gradual change. My point is that this is an admission of what I and many have been saying about the fossil record all along.
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2188 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 10 of 87 (285568)
02-10-2006 1:11 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
02-10-2006 12:22 PM
|
|
"Modern Cell Biology doesn't support Darwinism" There's a fair bit of modern Evolutionary Theory that doesn't support straight Darwinian theory. That's why it's called "The Modern Synthesis" these days, since it includes the rather major evolutionary fields in Genetics. And Elderidge and Gould introduced Punctuated Equilibrium what, a couple of decades ago? PE isn't Darwinian, either. So what's your point, again?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by randman, posted 02-10-2006 12:22 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2188 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 11 of 87 (285570)
02-10-2006 1:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 9 by randman
02-10-2006 1:08 PM
|
|
Re: what to make of this?
quote:
My point is that this is an admission of what I and many have been saying about the fossil record all along.
So why didn't you or others submit such a paper to a scientific journal and why wasn't it published?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 9 by randman, posted 02-10-2006 1:08 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2188 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 12 of 87 (285577)
02-10-2006 1:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 8 by randman
02-10-2006 1:05 PM
|
|
Re: folks like me, eh?
quote:
You mean these 2 university professors that published their theory just recently?
You can't have it both ways. Either the scientific community is conspiring to promote falsehoods, or are grossly negligent and incompetent, or they aren't. You cannot point to a couple of scientists whom you think are telling you what you want to hear and say that these scientists are the good, honest, competent ones but then refer to others who's scientific work disagree with your religious beliefs and consider them the bad, dishonest, incompetent ones. Could it be that it's actually scientists, doing science in their area of expertise, who are doing the work of advancing scientific understanding? Could it be that Creationist "critics" of Evolutionary theory are actually irrelevant to scientific progress?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by randman, posted 02-10-2006 1:05 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
Omnivorous
Member Posts: 3983 From: Adirondackia Joined: 07-21-2005 Member Rating: 7.0
|
|
|
Message 13 of 87 (285578)
02-10-2006 1:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 9 by randman
02-10-2006 1:08 PM
|
|
Admission?
randman writes: My point is that this is an admission of what I and many have been saying about the fossil record all along. "Admission" is a strange choice of words in this context, Rand. Did Schwartz formerly support the gap-in-the-fossil-record explanation even though he didn't actually believe it, but now he has repented? That would be an admission. Is Schwartz a spokesperson for evolutionary scientists in general who previously felt the fossil record has gaps but lied about it? That might fairly be called an omission. But, no, Scwartz is offering his own theory for a genetic mechanism to drive evolution and suggests that what appear to be gaps in the fossil record could actually be evidence for that theory. This is not an admission, it is a falsifiable hypothesis. How could we falsify his hypothesis? Do you agree that one well-recorded process of gradual change in the fossil record would falsify his theory?
"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?" -Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night
Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!---------------------------------------
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 9 by randman, posted 02-10-2006 1:08 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1485 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 14 of 87 (285580)
02-10-2006 1:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 8 by randman
02-10-2006 1:05 PM
|
|
Re: folks like me, eh?
You mean these 2 university professors that published their theory just recently? I don't see them equating Darwinism with evolution. I see them doing the opposite, in fact.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by randman, posted 02-10-2006 1:05 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1485 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 15 of 87 (285582)
02-10-2006 1:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 9 by randman
02-10-2006 1:08 PM
|
|
Re: what to make of this?
My point is that this is an admission of what I and many have been saying about the fossil record all along. You've got it backwards. You've only been repeating and misunderstanding what we've already known for decades.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 9 by randman, posted 02-10-2006 1:08 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2