It's a crappy job, but someone has to do it! :)
Posted on 01/26/2006 11:47:13 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Jeffrey H. Schwartz's Sudden Origins closed Darwin's gaps; cell biology explains how.
An article by University of Pittsburgh Professor of Anthropology Jeffrey H. Schwartz and University of Salerno Professor of Biochemistry Bruno Maresca, to be published Jan. 30 in the New Anatomist journal, shows that the emerging understanding of cell structure lends strong support to Schwartz's theory of evolution, originally explained in his seminal work, Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species (John Wiley & Sons, 2000).
In that book, Schwartz hearkens back to earlier theories that suggest that the Darwinian model of evolution as continual and gradual adaptation to the environment glosses over gaps in the fossil record by assuming the intervening fossils simply have not been found yet. Rather, Schwartz argues, they have not been found because they don't exist, since evolution is not necessarily gradual but often sudden, dramatic expressions of change that began on the cellular level because of radical environmental stressors-like extreme heat, cold, or crowding-years earlier.
Determining the mechanism that causes those delayed expressions of change is Schwartz's major contribution to the evolution of the theory of evolution. The mechanism, the authors explain, is this: Environmental upheaval causes genes to mutate, and those altered genes remain in a recessive state, spreading silently through the population until offspring appear with two copies of the new mutation and change suddenly, seemingly appearing out of thin air. Those changes may be significant and beneficial (like teeth or limbs) or, more likely, kill the organism.
Why does it take an environmental drama to cause mutations? Why don't cells subtly and constantly change in small ways over time, as Darwin suggests?
Cell biologists know the answer: Cells don't like to change and don't do so easily. As Schwartz and Maresca explain: Cells in their ordinary states have suites of molecules- various kinds of proteins-whose jobs are to eliminate error that might get introduced and derail the functioning of their cell. For instance, some proteins work to keep the cell membrane intact. Other proteins act as chaperones, bringing molecules to their proper locations in the cell, and so on. In short, with that kind of protection from change, it is very difficult for mutations, of whatever kind, to gain a foothold. But extreme stress pushes cells beyond their capacity to produce protective proteins, and then mutation can occur.
This revelation has enormous implications for the notion that organisms routinely change to adapt to the environment. Actually, Schwartz argues, it is the environment that knocks them off their equilibrium and as likely ultimately kills them as changes them. And so they are being rocked by the environment, not adapting to it.
The article's conclusions also have important implications for the notion of “fixing” the environment to protect endangered species. While it is indeed the environment causing the mutation, the resulting organism is in an altogether different environment by the time the novelty finally escapes its recessive state and expresses itself.
“You just can't do a quick fix on the environment to prevent extinction because the cause of the mutation occurred some time in the past, and you don't know what the cause of the stress was at that time,” Schwartz said.
“This new understanding of how organisms change provides us with an opportunity to forestall the damage we might cause by unthinking disruption of the environment,” added Schwartz. “The Sudden Origins theory, buttressed by modern cell biology, underscores the need to preserve the environment-not only to enhance life today, but to protect life generations from now.”
Schwartz, with his colleague Ian Tattersall, curator of anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, also authored the four-volume The Human Fossil Record (Wiley-Liss, 2002-05). Together, the volumes represent the first study of the entire human fossil record. Volume 1 was recognized by the Association of American Publishers with its Professional Scholarly Publishing Award. In 1987, Schwartz's The Red Ape: Orang-utans and Human Origin (Houghton Mifflin Company) was met with critical acclaim.
Schwartz, who also is a Pitt professor of the history and philosophy of science, was named a fellow in Pitt's Center for the Philosophy of Science and a fellow of the prestigious World Academy of Arts and Science.
The journal, The New Anatomist, is an invitation-only supplement to the Anatomical Record.
Certainly, Molecular Biology is a pretty 'hard' science.
Wonder how much grant money is involved?
Heck, I do well to add and subtract! :)
Agreed. Alas for Jeffrey H. Schwartz, the creationists and ID-ers have pretty much already reserved that term for the next incarnation of their hocus-pocus. He'd be well advised to call it something like "latent characteristics" or something.
Hard? You ever see a molecular biologist at work with dirt under his/her fingernails? Worse problem they probably have to cope with is the air conditioning set too high.
That's right. Some of us really throw ourselves into our work!
It's a crappy job, but someone has to do it! :)
That would seem to open gaps in the Natural Selection areas in evolution, rather than close them. If the changes are due to an ice age, and don't show up for a long time after, then it would have double the trouble of being viable.
The guy made a nice try, but as Casey learned, even a mighty swing can miss the ball.
this thread has gone to sh--
Interesting theory. Has nothing to do with Darwin, however.
No, he's not, and yes, you are missing something.
Moreover, is he suggesting that these genetic mutations, which have taken place in every cell of the organism and even in future reproductive cells,
Wrong again.
are duplicated in other similar organism to the extent that when two of these organism that have indipentently undergone the same genetic mutation mate, the genetic mutations are passed on into the genetic pool as viable genetic variants?
That's not how new mutations get spread through the population. The old "a new mutation would need an identical mutation to mate with" canard exists only in creationist pamphlets, and bears no resemblance to how things actually work in biology.
Natural selection I understand.
Somehow I doubt that.
This, on the other hand, is LAUGHABLE!!!!
Not at all, although your misunderstanding of the article, and of biology in general, is rather amusing.
You know that environmental factor? His name is GOD.
No, not unless you call environmental stressors "God". See for example: Bradshaw, A.D. (1965). "Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants," Advances in Genetics vol 13 pp 115-155, [West-Eberhard, M.J. (1986) "Alternative adaptations, speciation, and phylogeny (A Review)," Proceedings National Academy of Science USA vol 83 pp 1388-1392] [Harrison R.G. (1980) "Dispersal polymorphisms in insects," Annual Reviews of Ecological Systems vol 11 pp 152-153.] [Schlichting, C.D. (1986) "The evolution of phenotypic plasticity in plants," Annual Review of Ecological Systems, vol. 17 pp 667-693] [Stearns S.C. (1989) "The evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity" Bioscience vol 39 pp 436-445].
LOL! Dirt under the finger-nails is not the definition of hard science, unless car mechanics are scientists. Scrabbling around in the dirt might be fun, but it ain't Physics.
You've claimed I am wrong but you have not explained how these things could possibly be true. How could these mutated genes be passed on as recessive genes as the author claims unless they entered the genetic information of reproductive cells? If I am missing something, please, explain it to me.
P.S. Unlike you, I have never read creationist literature. This is pure logical analysis and evolution has never added up in my book.
Of course they don't exist.
How can evolutionists claim their 'theory' is a fact when they can't even decide if change was gradual or sudden?
This article is nothing more than wild speculation presented in an attempt to overcome the obvious weaknesses of the many theories of evolution speculated about by others.
If anything, this article casts further doubt on evolution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.