Admissions of an Evolutionist
Why have transitional fossils not been found? Evolutionist Jeffery Schwartz argued, “they have not been found because they don’t exist” (“Pitt. Professor’s Theory...,” 2006). Has this staunch evolutionist abandoned ship and joined ranks with creationists? Absolutely not! In fact, his declaration is simply a means to support an alternative evolutionary theory, as Neo-Darwinians rush to bolster their faltering premise. Schwartz supports a new theory, titled “sudden origins,” over the gradual incremental changes once proposed by evolutionists. [If the concept of “sudden origins” seems ironic, it might be because that is what creationists’ have argued for decades!] Schwartz maintains gradual change does not occur, stating “evolution is not necessarily gradual but often sudden, dramatic expressions of change” (“Pitt Professor’s...,” emp. added).
Schwartz has a paper that appeared in the January 30, 2006 issue of New Anatomist journal. The University of Pittsburg’s press release indicated that his upcoming paper gives a better understanding of cell structure, which Schwartz maintains gives strong support to his “sudden origins” theory of evolution. This “newly improved,” or neatly “repackaged,” version of evolution was originally detailed in his 2000 book, Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species. According to Schwartz, evolution is an expression of “change that began on the cellular level because of radical environmental stressors—like extreme heat, cold, or crowding—years earlier” (“Pitt Professor’s...”). The mechanism, Schwartz explains, 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” (“Pitt Professor’s...”). Out of thin air?
In defending his new model, Schwartz described why cells do not subtly and constantly change in small ways over time—as Darwin and his followers predicted. The press release observed: “Cell biologists know the answer: Cells don’t like to change and don’t do so easily.” Consequently, these massive environmental changes lead to mutations that “may be significant and beneficial (like teeth or limbs) or, more likely, kill the organism” (emp. added). Schwartz further argued that “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” (“Pitt Professor’s...”).
Lets review: (1) transitional fossils do not exist; (2) gradual change does not occur—but rather is sudden; (3) cells do not like to change and do not easily do so; (4) mutations cannot get a “foothold” to make changes necessary for evolution to occur—and, even then, they will likely “kill” the organism; (5) organisms are not adapting to the environment, but rather are reacting to it. But this sounds like a script written decades ago by creationists—who have long recognized that life appeared suddenly. Indeed, there are no transitional fossils, and gradual changes cannot account for the diversity of life we see around us today. Additionally, we know that most mutations are not beneficial, and cells do not like to “change.” How long will it take these men to take that final step and give God the credit for the “sudden origin” of life?
As studies such as this one continue to make the news, is it any wonder that so many people are now questioning evolutionary theory? Many have come to realize that evolution does not give the answers that were once promised. In fact, the BBC News reported this week that “just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll” (“Britons Unconvinced...,” 2006, emp. added). In the BBC report, Andrew Cohen, editor for Horizon noted: “Most people would have expected the public to go for evolution theory, but it seems there are lots of people who appear to believe in an alternative theory for life’s origins.” The report continued, noting: “The findings prompted surprise from the scientific community. Lord Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, said: ‘It is surprising that many should still be skeptical of Darwinian evolution. Darwin proposed his theory nearly 150 years ago, and it is now supported by an immense weight of evidence’” (“Britons Unconvinced...,” 2006).
Immense weight? Obviously, Lord Martin Rees has yet to come to the same realization as Schwartz and scores of others. The real “weight” supports a sudden origin—an origin that can only be accounted for by the handiwork of God. No transitional fossils, no gradual changes, no beneficial mutations—sounds like the real “weight” is the truth that evolutionists must now explain.
“Britons Unconvinced on Evolution,” (2006), BBC News, January 26, [On-line], URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm.
“Pitt Professor’s Theory of Evolution Gets Boost From Cell Research” (2006), University of Pittsburg: News From Pitt, January 26, [On-line], URL: http://www.umc.pitt.edu:591/m/FMPro?-db=ma&-lay=a&-format=d.html&id=2297&-Find.