"Modern Cell Biology doesn't support Darwinism"

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.”

But folks like you keep on doing it

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.”

Morgan provided Darwinism and the evolutionary synthesis with the idea that minor mutations produce the minuscule morphological variations on which natural selection then acts, and that, although mutation is random, once a process of gradual genetic modification begins, it becomes directional and leads to morphological, and consequently organismal, transformation. In contrast, studies on the role of cell membrane physical states in regulating the expression of stress proteins in response to environmental shifts indicate the existence of a downstream mechanism that prevents or corrects genetic change (i.e., maintains "DNA homeostasis").

The best thing creationists have had going for them, is that the traditional neo-Darwinist mechanism of statistical filtering of genes has seemed to some people (Fred Hoyle, a number of mathematicians) as too weak to account for the actual evolution that is seen. If Maresca and Schwartz are proposing a more powerful mechanism for change, and one that will more obviously produce the punctuated equilibrium seen in the fossil record, then the best argument of creationists will have been rendered void.

Gillian sent a copy of the original audio tape of the interview with Dawkins to a friend of mine. He sent the tape to me.”I will state categorically that the audio tape of the interview 100% supports Gillian Brown’s contention that Dawkins couldn’t answer the question.’

Moreover, her work itself constitutes an implied argument for evolution; if evolution is false her work cannot proceed. It would be absolutely impossible for her to work on what she is working on were evolution false.