Pittsburgh Professors Challenge Darwin

Syberghost writes "Darwin's Theory of Evolution comes under an interesting attack from an American anthropologist and an Italian biochemist, according to an article from University of Pittsburgh's school newspaper. In a nutshell, Schwartz and Maresca argue that change is not gradual as Darwin stated, but comes rapidly in response to drastic mutations caused by shifting environmental conditions."

Comments

Pardon my ignorance but

[BitterAndDrunk]

Isn't that simply punctuated equilibrium? I'd thought it was already considered part of current evolutionary theory. I'm a neophyte so I'm probably way off; someone correct me. (and no FSM references please; they're already hack and it's under a year old)

Misleading, sensationalist headline.

[TripMaster Monkey]

The title of TFA reads, "Professor Challenges Evolution", when in fact he is doing nothing of the sort.

From TFA:

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.

While Schwartz is challenging a specific premise of evolutionary doctrine, he is by no means refuting the entire theory. Apparently, Nan Ama Sarfo felt the story would be read more if it appeared to jump on the anti-evolution ID bandwagon.

Shame on you, Nan.

I wrote a reply to that effect:

[Morosoph]

Given the modern controversy over the role of natural selection, the article is misleading, and the headline is wrong.

The professor hasn't challenged evolution by natural selection, but rather gradualism, as did Steven J. Gould. Darwin did posit gradualism, so an accurate headline would have been to say that the professor had challenged Darwin. As it is, it appears that it is the theory of evolution, rather than the detail of Charles Darwin's theories that is being challenged.

The article is to be commended upon the elucidation of the "dual mutation theory"; is it a shame that it did not make clearer that this theory restores natural selection to the driving seat.

This is important, since responsible editing that promotes truth over political advantage should seek avoid false inferences from being drawn by the less sophisticated.

Faithfully,