Re: Theorist: Darwin had it wrong

From: jack syme <>
Date: Sat Apr 17 2004 - 21:27:46 EDT

I am a physician, a neurologist, and have studied biology, of course, for
many years. I have also been a Christian during all of my training, and
never really knew what to think regarding the conflict between
creationism/evolution, and didnt really make any conscious decision one way
or another. I had always believed in creation of course, but never really
thought enough about it, and while never really accepting "evolution" I
never thought that evolution was incompatible with a Creator, or

Now that I am established in practice, and settled in life and raising a
family, over the past few years I have been looking into things more
closely. I have never been a YEC'er. And during some debates with my
brothers, and church members over the past few years, mainly over
eschatology, ( I am a preterist, what some would call full, or hyper
preterist), I found out just how prominent YEC beliefs are in the
evangelical community, so have spent most of my recent energy in that area,
debating them about the age of the Earth.

And just within the past several months have I started looking into
evolution itself, Darwinism. Natural selection is a given. But, I have
always been troubled with random mutation/variation, and natural selection
as a cause of speciation. I have been playing around with the idea in my
head for the past couple of years, that natural selection is selecting out,
through competition,variations that have existed in the genome, since the
beginning. And here is that idea spelled out more formally. I am very
intrigued by this idea that the genetic code is necessary biochemically.
Actually it sounds like more fuel for the ID camp. Nevertheless, I find
this intriguing to say the least, and will have to look into this some more.

I would appreciate an analysis/critique of Schwabe's ideas/evidence, if
anyone is so inclined.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 8:07 PM
Subject: Theorist: Darwin had it wrong

> 04170332/1001/Nation
> Article published Apr 17, 2004
> Theorist: Darwin had it wrong
> S.C. professor says life forms arose without common origin
> CHARLESTON, S.C. - In the beginning, it was just the proteins.
> The way biochemist Christian Schwabe saw it, Darwinian evolution should
> have given closely related animals similar sets of proteins.
> It was a simple idea, just a way to prove the cellular legacy of
> millions of years of common ancestry. Only it didn't work.
> The mismatched proteins were just a stray thread in the grand tapestry
> of life, yet the flaw gnawed at the back of the professor's mind - until
> one day at Harvard University in 1970, when a new idea struck him in the
> middle of a lecture.
> "That's not going to work that way," Dr. Schwabe said aloud, and his
> students watched in bewilderment as their instructor spent the rest of
> the class working out the first bits of his idea on the blackboard.
> What Dr. Schwabe began that day would become, by 1984, something he
> called the "genomic potential hypothesis:" the idea that life on Earth
> arose not from a single, random-chance event, but from multiple,
> predictable, chemical processes.
> As bold as that idea seemed, it was tame compared with the second part
> of his theory: that evolution by natural selection - a cornerstone of
> Darwinian thought - was a 19th-century illusion.
> Rather than a world of diversely adapted species with one common origin,
> Dr. Schwabe saw each modern species as the ultimate expression of its
> own independent origin.
> Evolution wasn't about adaptation, Dr. Schwabe said, but the perfection
> of each species' original "genomic potential."
> He and a colleague published the first paper on the idea in 1984, and
> the German-born professor settled in to await the inevitable critical
> response. It never came.
> More articles in small academic journals followed in 1985 and 1990, but
> they, too, failed to provoke debate.
> Today, Dr. Schwabe is a professor of biochemistry at the Medical
> University of South Carolina, a federally funded investigator who has
> accounted for more than $4 million in research funding, much of it
> related to drugs that regulate blood flow.
> He has published more than 100 scholarly works and received five patents
> for his discoveries.
> Yet when it comes to his most provocative idea, Dr. Schwabe is
> practically an invisible man. His articles on genomic potential
> hypothesis - GPH - typically are returned without meaningful comment by
> editors, most recently by the prestigious journal Science, and sometimes
> it seems as if the only people paying attention to his work are Internet
> fringe-dwellers.
> "I think one of the most brilliant and bravest thinkers in America lives
> in Charleston, S.C.," said Ron Landes, a scientific publisher from
> Texas, "and nobody knows about him."
> All he wants, Dr. Schwabe says, is a hearing by his peers.
> "If they don't like it, they should tell me factually what is wrong," he
> said. "If they think it's no good, they have the obligation to disprove
> it."
> That's the ideal of science we all learned in grade school. But as Dr.
> Schwabe continues to demonstrate, the practice of science is a bit more
> complex.
> It takes an educated specialist to evaluate scientific claims; new
> discoveries are practically meaningless until they are published in
> major journals.
> Publication signifies that the science behind an article is solid and
> that the idea, right or wrong, is worthy of study. This system of
> establishing credibility, called peer review, is essential to the
> scientific process, yet not every idea is worthy of serious, high-level
> peer review.
> But the critical question in Dr. Schwabe's case isn't whether peer
> review works - rather, it's, "Can unorthodox but potentially significant
> ideas get access to legitimate peer review?"
> Though peer review remains essential to the scientific method, "It is
> not a requirement that anyone else pay attention to you," said Jerry
> Hilbish, professor of biological sciences at the University of South
> Carolina.
> Yet the big journals also have a lot to lose by missing out on a big
> breakthrough, he said.
> "It is normal in science for new ideas that contradict old ones to be
> resisted or ignored for a while," Dr. Bauer said. "Many people in that
> situation are stunned that they're not being listened to, because
> science is supposed to be so open to new ideas. But the reality is that
> (science) is open to new things, but just not things that are too new."
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
Received on Sat Apr 17 21:28:24 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Apr 17 2004 - 21:28:25 EDT