Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 9:30 AM
32 online now:
AlexCaledin, AZPaul3, JonF, Larni, Percy (Admin), Tangle, vimesey (7 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,811 Year: 8,847/19,786 Month: 1,269/2,119 Week: 29/576 Day: 29/50 Hour: 5/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Author Topic:   Dr. Schwartz' "MIssing Links"
subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 16 of 86 (403633)
06-04-2007 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by RAZD
06-04-2007 3:49 PM


One thing we can be certain of though, is that creatortionistas will have a field day with quote mines, as they have with Gould.

As my semi-literate 16 y.o. son would say, "U right."

Here is the article that the press release is about.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 06-04-2007 3:49 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 17 of 86 (403774)
06-05-2007 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by crashfrog
06-04-2007 1:10 PM


Sounds like the latest in a long line of scientists quoted out of context by the media to fit their narrative of equal opposing consensuses.

There was a series of ID articles in World magazine a few years back. Three of the authors were: Phillip Johnson, Jonathan Wells, William Dembski. The fourth was Jeffrey Schwartz.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 06-04-2007 1:10 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by subbie, posted 06-05-2007 2:39 PM Modulous has responded
 Message 36 by crashfrog, posted 06-08-2007 5:06 PM Modulous has responded

  
mick
Member (Idle past 3149 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 18 of 86 (403776)
06-05-2007 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by AdminNosy
06-01-2007 9:42 PM


press releas writes:

Jeffrey H. Schwartz, University of Pittsburgh professor of anthropology in the School of Arts and Sciences, is working to debunk a major tenet of Darwinian evolution. Schwartz believes that evolutionary changes occur suddenly as opposed to the Darwinian model of evolution, which is characterized by gradual and constant change.

I don't understand why such a big deal is made out of this notion of constant gradual change. Does anybody even believe it any more? Did anybody ever insist that the rate of evolution should be constant? Surely it is plain from a cursory examination of the fossil record that the rate of morphological change is not constant. Some species change a lot in a short amount of time, others change a little over a long time. This is exactly what is predicted by population genetics, where population size, generation time, selection strength etc. will all cause the rate of evolution (measured in terms of morphological or genetic divergence) to vary.

It is perfectly normal practice when fitting a model of evolution to genetic data to incorporate variables representing variation in evolutionary rate across branches and even across codons within a gene. The punctuationist model can be and is fitted to the data in a large number of studies of comparative morphology - specifically, the model is simply a phylogenetic tree with branches of equal length. It's not that brain-taxing to see if such a model fits the data better than alternatives.

The idea that "gradual and constant change" is a "major tenet" of the modern synthesis is simply not true. But it is a press release after all. It would hardly say that Professor X is proudly conducting normal science in support of an established paradigm, now is it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AdminNosy, posted 06-01-2007 9:42 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-05-2007 6:14 AM mick has not yet responded
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2007 7:37 AM mick has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16095
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 19 of 86 (403783)
06-05-2007 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by mick
06-05-2007 4:55 AM


Did anybody ever insist that the rate of evolution should be constant?

No.

"The period during which each species underwent modification, though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change." (Charles Darwin, On The Origin Of Species)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by mick, posted 06-05-2007 4:55 AM mick has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19865
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 20 of 86 (403795)
06-05-2007 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by mick
06-05-2007 4:55 AM


I don't understand why such a big deal is made out of this notion of constant gradual change. Does anybody even believe it any more?

No biologist I know of speaks of constant change, but all "dating" by "molecular clocks" use a uniform rate - mtDNA Eve, y-chromosome Adam, etc. - which is why I find such dating questionable.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by mick, posted 06-05-2007 4:55 AM mick has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by derwood, posted 07-15-2007 4:32 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 21 of 86 (403861)
06-05-2007 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Modulous
06-05-2007 4:35 AM


Well, the second link that RADZ has in message 15 is a list of publications for Jeffery H. Schwartz, University of Pittsburgh. No mention is made of the article from World magazine. The most likely explanation, I think, is that the World article was by a different Jeffery Schwartz. This seems particularly likely given the number of seemingly legitimate articles that Jeffery H. Schwartz has had published in peer review publications.

Either that or he wrote the World article during some fit of insanity and is now disavowing all connection to is.

I must admit, though, it does seem odd that the press release article speaks of "debunking" a supposed Darwinian myth. As several have already pointed out, there is nothing implicit in Darwinism that requires that change be constant or gradual. Moreover, I always get a funny feeling in the back of my mind whenever sanyone talks about "debunking" anything relating to Darwinism. "Debunking" just doesn't seem like a word that is often used in describing peer reviewed articles.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Modulous, posted 06-05-2007 4:35 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2007 3:33 PM subbie has not yet responded
 Message 23 by Modulous, posted 06-05-2007 4:16 PM subbie has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19865
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 22 of 86 (403874)
06-05-2007 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by subbie
06-05-2007 2:39 PM


Well he is NOT on the "100 scientist list" at DI:
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf

OR the one at AiG:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/#presentsci

For what that is worth.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by subbie, posted 06-05-2007 2:39 PM subbie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 06-05-2007 4:37 PM RAZD has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 23 of 86 (403880)
06-05-2007 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by subbie
06-05-2007 2:39 PM


Well, the second link that RADZ has in message 15 is a list of publications for Jeffery H. Schwartz, University of Pittsburgh. No mention is made of the article from World magazine. The most likely explanation, I think, is that the World article was by a different Jeffery Schwartz.

A second look at the Schwartzes does reveal they are likely different people. The IDer seems to be at UCLA.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by subbie, posted 06-05-2007 2:39 PM subbie has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30980
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 24 of 86 (403884)
06-05-2007 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by RAZD
06-05-2007 3:33 PM


My problem is what has been presented makes little sense.
Forget the headlines for the moment, help me understand the model.

He claims that ...

Schwartz argues that the structure of the genome does not keep changing, based on the presence of stress proteins, also known as heat shock proteins. These proteins are located in each cell, and their main function is to eliminate the potential for cellular error and change via maintaining normal cellular form through protein folding.

... but then later he says ...

If an organism's stress proteins are unable to cope with a significant change, the genomic structure can be modified. However, Schwartz notes, a mutation also can be recessive in an organism for many generations before it is displayed in its offspring. Whether or not the offspring survives is another matter. If it does in fact live, the presence of this genetically modified organism is not the product of gradual molecular change but a sudden display of the genetic mutation, which may have occurred myriad years prior.

... and that is where I get lost.

If the mechanism does not change due to the "heat shock proteins" then where do the changes that somehow lie dormant for "myriad years prior" come from?

Frankly, his scenario seems to make no sense. On one hand he says change can't happen but then it can and lie dormant until expressed.

What is the difference between a change that happened and was then put on the shelf just in inventory, only to be taken down and used during times of stress, and a "just in time genome manufacturing system" where things are expressed when produced and the successful ones kept?

Why would the two processes be mutually exclusive?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2007 3:33 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2007 6:11 PM jar has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19865
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 25 of 86 (403898)
06-05-2007 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by jar
06-05-2007 4:37 PM


Re: My problem is what has been presented makes little sense.
What is the difference between a change that happened and was then put on the shelf just in inventory, only to be taken down and used during times of stress, and a "just in time genome manufacturing system" where things are expressed when produced and the successful ones kept?

Timing.

In one case you have some solutions "in the bank" waiting in case of need. In the other you have to come up with the solution when already in jeopardy.

Personally I would call these "neutral" mutations that increase diversity within a population. As it moves into stasis mode the amount of diversity is not checked except by population size. If this population is increasing then there is opportunity for increased diversity that gives it more future potential to deal with stress situations (even if one such is just geographical dispersal with outer populations being more diverse from the central population).

If the mechanism does not change due to the "heat shock proteins" then where do the changes that somehow lie dormant for "myriad years prior" come from?

The "heat shock proteins" are overwhelmed by the situation, and this allows the kinds of mutations, ones they normally prevent from occurring, to occur, resulting in stress response increased mutation rates -- as we have seen in some bacteria.

These appear to be two different mechanisms, that can each supply "solutions" to stress situations, in different ways. The "neutral" mutation one is a more standard concept. I would want to read his book before making judgment though.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 06-05-2007 4:37 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 06-05-2007 6:19 PM RAZD has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30980
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 26 of 86 (403899)
06-05-2007 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by RAZD
06-05-2007 6:11 PM


Re: My problem is what has been presented makes little sense.
The "heat shock proteins" are overwhelmed by the situation, and this allows the kinds of mutations, ones they normally prevent from occurring, to occur, resulting in stress response increased mutation rates -- as we have seen in some bacteria.

But if they normally prevent the mutations from occurring, how do the shelves get stocked in the first place?

If the scenario you describe is in fact what happens, what we would be seeing is "stress response increased mutation rates" and not the expression of some trait that was stocked on the shelf, lying dormant, for use "just in case".


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2007 6:11 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by subbie, posted 06-05-2007 7:05 PM jar has responded
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2007 7:10 PM jar has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 27 of 86 (403900)
06-05-2007 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by jar
06-05-2007 6:19 PM


Re: My problem is what has been presented makes little sense.
I am way out of my field here, and only partially understand the conversation, so what I'm about to ask may be gibberish. If so, don't be afraid to tell me.

Is he saying that the changes "store up" but are not expressed until something happens when the "heat shock proteins" are "overwhelmed?"


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 06-05-2007 6:19 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 06-05-2007 7:10 PM subbie has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19865
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 28 of 86 (403901)
06-05-2007 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by jar
06-05-2007 6:19 PM


Re: My problem is what has been presented makes little sense.
But if they normally prevent the mutations from occurring, how do the shelves get stocked in the first place?

If the scenario you describe is in fact what happens, what we would be seeing is "stress response increased mutation rates" and not the expression of some trait that was stocked on the shelf, lying dormant, for use "just in case".

I read this as (possibly) two mechanisms, two layers, the first stocks the shelves with generic (heh) solutions and diversity, and the second allows what would normally be deleterious mutations to be expressed (along with more neutral and beneficial ones). This would broaden the number of possibilities beyond the stock generic ones, and it could begin to occur in a generation or so.

I've ordered his book "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species (Paperback)" to see what he says there ($2 used), so give me a week to get and read.

If this is so, then I don't see this as challenging evolution so much as providing a mechanism for PunkEek (and fodder for creatortionistas and IDologists).

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 06-05-2007 6:19 PM jar has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30980
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 29 of 86 (403902)
06-05-2007 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by subbie
06-05-2007 7:05 PM


Re: My problem is what has been presented makes little sense.
Is he saying that the changes "store up" but are not expressed until something happens when the "heat shock proteins" are "overwhelmed?"

I don't know.

In addition, how would the two be distinguishable?

What differentiates a change that was stored but not expressed from one that is created at that time?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by subbie, posted 06-05-2007 7:05 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by subbie, posted 06-05-2007 7:21 PM jar has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 30 of 86 (403903)
06-05-2007 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by jar
06-05-2007 7:10 PM


Re: My problem is what has been presented makes little sense.
Well, as I said, way out of my field, and I haven't read the paper, so about all I can do is try to discuss the language, without regard to the science behind it.

On the one hand, he could be saying that the "heat shock proteins" keep the mutations from happening at all, until the stressor, and then all hell breaks loose. Or, it could be that the mutations are continuing all the time, but not expressing until the stressor. In either case, the outward appearance of the organism will not change until the stressor, but in the latter, the genetic make up of the organism will constantly be changing, whereas in the former, the genetic make up is unchanged until the stressor.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 06-05-2007 7:10 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019