NEWSFLASH: Schools In Georgia (US) Are Allowed To Teach About Creation

I would just like to add a stronger comment here: No, Time Magazine is NOT a credible source. I stopped reading it entirely after reading articles on neuroscience-related issues (which I have some expertise in) and being appalled at the low quality of reporting. I haven't gone back for a few years now, but the point remains that most mainstream science reporting is truly abysmal. Even the New York Times science section, one of the best mainstream science news sources, often has corrections. Time generally doesn't bother.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][B]Time magazine is not credible?[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

Not in regards to science, where only PR papers count.

​

If Creationism is such a great contender to evolution, where are the papers?

---

quote:

---

Thanks for pointing that out. But I don't think I have been misled.

---

Of course you were misled! Without the complete sentence, it appears Gould is saying something other than he intended! Is this really the sort of tactic you approve of?

quote:

---

However, it is hardly rational to attempt to explain the fossil gap in the evolution of birds, for instance, with a claim that "a bird popped all of a sudden out of a reptile egg"

---

Of course, this bears no relation whatsoever to punctuated equilibrium or the modern synthesis, so I assume you use this example because, while you may have "heard" of these terms, you have no understanding of them.Here's a summary, perhaps not the easiest, on P.E.Punctuated EquilibriaYou may want to start with the ending...Punctuated Equilibria

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Good to see a Zhimbo post every so often.

---

GeneI assume you wrote this BEFORE reading my post in the coffee shop

Oddly enough, Wise's article specifically contradicts your characterization of punctuated equilibrium. While you characterize it as "a bird popping out of a reptile egg", Wise at least understands that the "sudden" changes of P.E. apply only to species-to-species transitions, not transitions between higher taxa (such as birds from reptiles - or, more in tune with current scientific opinion, birds from dinosaurs.) Wise also specifically distinguishes between Goldschmidt's "Hopeful monster" ideas and P.E. You, like many other creationists, conflate them.
Now, I'm curious about what you want to continue discussing. If you want to discuss Wise's ideas on reinterpreting the fossil evidence from a catastrophic point of view, I suggest starting a new thread in another forum with an appropriate topic. If you want to discuss what P.E. itself actually claims, and if you've accurately represented it, let's just end that conversation now by going to the source:From S.J. Gould, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, Chapter 9, Appendix A"Since punctuated equilibrium provides an even easier target for this form of intellectual dishonesty (or crass stupidity if a charge of dishonesty grants [creationists] too much acumen), no one should be surprised that our views have become grist for their mills and skills of distortion...
Standard creationist literature on punctuated equilibrium rarely goes beyond the continuous recycling of two false characterizations: the conflation of punctuated equilibrium with the true saltationism of Goldschmidt's hopeful monsters, and the misscaling of punctuated equilibrium's genuine breaks between species to the claim that no intermediates exist for the largest morphological transitions between classes and phyla. I regard the latter distortion as particularly egregious because we formulated punctuated equilibrium as a positive theory about the nature of intermediacy in such large-scale structural trends...Moreover, I have written numerous essays in my popular series, spanning ten printed volumes, on the documentation of this style of intermediacy in a variety of lineages, including the transition to terrestriality in vertebrates, the origin of birds, and the evolution of mammals, whales and humans - the very cases that the usual creationist literature has proclaimed impossible."

quote:

---

Mark, I asked you many a times: "How can IC systems evolve, in the first place?" I just don't see any way it can.

---

IC roughly means "if any single component is removed, then the system doesn't work". Agreed? Anything important missing from the definition?Given this point, and the ASSUMPTION that evolution can only progress by addition of components, you'd be right.However, your assumption is flawed. Since you're fond of the persuasiveness of Behe's mousetrap analogy, I feel free to respond with another non-biological analogy.An arch of stones is irreducibly complex. If you remove any single component, the arch collapses. But, can we assume that the archway therefore CAN'T be built? Of course not. If you first build a supporting scaffolding, it can support the arch. When the arch is complete, it can be free-standing on its own even when the scaffolding is removed.Behe's argument collapses, because evolution as simple linear addition of components is crucial to the idea that IC systems can't evolve through gradual evolution.Behe wants to argue that,[i][b]in principle [/i][/b], IC systems can't evolve because there are no pathways, [i][b]in principle [/i][/b], for simple addition of components to reach the required state.All that is necessary to refute Behe is to demonstrate that, [i][b]in principle [/i][/b], other paths are possible. One possible path is that a more complex system with different components can simplify to an IC system. Therefore, [i][b]in principle [/i][/b], another path is possible.Conclusion:
Behe is well aware that simply not knowing specifically how something evolved is not sufficient to say it did NOT evolve. Therefore, his argument can't rest on absence of evidence for evolution; instead he has to show that a system couldn't evolve [i][b]in principle [/i][/b]. However, his argument carries a trivially obvious flaw: Evolution is not required to work in the manner of simple linear addition of components.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 11-25-2002]

You keep insisting that it is part of the definition of I.C. that it is "unevolvable". As far as I know, Behe does not use the term this way. His definition ONLY involves whether the system can function if any part is missing.The "unevolvable" part is a further conclusion based on assumptions about possible evolutionary paths. I've already covered in my previous post that there are other possible paths.Also, punctuated equilibrium is STILL "gradual" evolution, just at a geologically fast time scale.