|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: "Modern Cell Biology doesn't support Darwinism" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
But folks like you keep on doing it You mean these 2 university professors that published their theory just recently?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The wackos are out in full-force, I see.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Crash and Shraf primarily. I am not sure how better to characterize their posts.
This message has been edited by randman, 02-10-2006 01:44 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Maybe if there was some argument in there to refute and some reasoning, you'd have a point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
But I think I got more of this than most of your posts.
What do you think of the idea that a full set of teeth could appear in a toothless creature?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Maybe some around here should give her more credit, as isn't this similar to the argument she made.
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"). shortened link Evidently, this is not the laughable, hopelessly ignorant idea that some evcers insisted it was, or surely the journal would have rejected the paper. This message has been edited by AdminJar, 02-10-2006 05:41 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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.
One reason I wonder about taking evos seriously is the tendency to never acknowledge a fact or argument as having merit until evos can come up with some explanation for it. This smacks of me of a sort of deliberateness and straightforward biasness which calls into question whether objectivity is part of the evo mindset.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
very good point
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Crash, actually it looks like AIG is correct and TalkOrigins is wrong. Read the end of the article.
Skeptics Choke on Frog
| Answers in Genesis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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.’ Note this is from someone unfriendly to the creationist position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Are you claiming crashfrog's wife is working on trying to review the arguments and data for ToE to see if it is true? If so, can you please provide some papers she has written to that effect so I can comment on them?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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.
why?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025