Re: In the News: Professor challenges evolution
- From: "hersheyhv" <hersheyh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 10 Feb 2006 06:32:39 -0800
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------------
By NAN AMA SARFO
Staff Writer
February 09, 2006
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.
Jeffrey Schwartz - a Pitt professor in the department of anthropology
and the department of history and philosophy of science - collaborated
with Bruno Maresca, a professor of biochemistry at Italy's University
of Salerno, for the article, which refutes Darwin's Theory of
Evolution using modern knowledge about cell biology.
The two decided to collaborate after Maresca contacted Schwartz after
reading his book, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence
of Species," in which Schwartz first explained his theory of
evolution.
And that book is perhaps the most incompetent book on genetics that I
have ever read. In fact, I gave an article based on his book to
undergrads as a test (one that was not 'creationist') of their ability
to see through bullshit by actually examining the literature he claims
to cite. His book is incompetent in its reading of the literature,
incompetent in its ignorance of population genetics, and incompetent in
its mangling of genetic language. Schwartz's understanding of genetics
is that he has negative knowledge. He would have to pass through a
state of total ignorance of genetics to become more knowledgeable. I
urge anyone interested to read what was written about this book in this
forum when it came out. Especially Larry Moran's comments. I also
went into some detail as to what was wrong with this book at that time.
I have since tried to forget his ideas, hoping that they would die the
death in isolation and silence they deserve or that someone would, more
kindlly than I would, point out his total ignorance and that he would,
like Denton on sequence data, repent of his ignorance. No such luck.
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.
Bullshit. First, Darwin's theory is of descent with modification.
Schwartz implies that there is a switch in the properties of alleles
relative to one another (that when allele a is rare, it is recessive to
allele A, but when allele a becomes common in the population it
'suddenly' becomes dominant to allele A).
He never states it that baldly, but that, in fact, is the essence of
his idea. It is a stupid, ignorant idea based on the idea that
recessiveness and dominance are inherent (but changeable) properties of
alleles rather than being a description of phenotypes in heterozygotes.
[Alleles *can* (rarely) change their dominance relationship, but they
do so because of mutations in other genes or changes in the environment
that change the environment within which the genes of a heterozygote
act. But in every case, dominance or recessiveness is a property that
is determined by examining a *phenotype* in a heterozygote and is thus
the consequence of the functional properties of the two alleles in a
particular organism and environment. The same heterozygote can be
dominant for one observed phenotype and recessive for a different one
and co-dominant for a third way of looking at the effect of the
genotype. One allele can be dominant at 37 C and recessive at 42 C.
One allele can be dominant if the organism is homozygous for particular
alleles of a second gene, and recessive if the other gene has alternate
alleles. But the allele itself does not have the property of *being*
dominant or recessive. Dominance and recessiveness are conditional
properties, not inherent ones.]
"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.
His reading of the 'history' mysteriously stops at about 1930 and then
starts using modern molecular biology to confuse things. His 'history'
includes clear evidence of misreading the early literature. My
favorite example is that he takes a classic example of neotony
(retention of juvenile characteristics in the adult), the axolotl, and
calls it progenesis (the speeding up sexual maturity) when the very
sources he cites say the opposite. But there are many other examples
of selective citation, mangled understanding, and ignorance of the way
early questions in genetics were resolved. His history of genetics is
as incompetent as his genetics. [I make no comment on his knowledge of
bone anatomy, since that is his supposed area of expertise.]
It's educational malpractice if he is teaching his ignorance of
genetics as fact.
It was through exposure to influential scientists and their
questioning views of Darwinism as a Columbia grad student that
Schwartz became interested in exploring the issue.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.pittnews.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/02/09/43eaf51de3f16
J. Spaceman
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- In the News: Professor challenges evolution
- From: Jason Spaceman
- In the News: Professor challenges evolution
- Prev by Date: Re: Karl Priest teaching creationism in public schools.
- Next by Date: Re: In the News: Professor challenges evolution
- Previous by thread: Re: In the News: Professor challenges evolution
- Next by thread: Re: In the News: Professor challenges evolution
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
