Interesting thing about punctuated equilibrium: Isn’t that just saying we can’t imagine finding all the intermediate forms we would need? Isn’t it just “giving up” on gradualism — you know what was the real science at the time.

No it isn’t. It was based on the observation that the rate of evolution changes – G.G. Simpson noted this (e.g. in his book “Tempo and Mode in Evolution”). IANAP (P=palaeontologist), but by understanding is that they often do see species remaining unchanged, followed by short bursts of change.

When he was here, we had a discussion session with Stephen J. Gould, and one point he made was that the time scales that palaeontologists (like Gould) work on are much longer than the scales that we see when we observe wild populations. So, in a palaeontological blink of an eye a species can potentially change massively (e.g. in size). IOW gradualism can easily explain these bursts of change, because they are extremely slow bursts ecologically.

Bob

Jerry is right. It’s not like researchers were working in the lab and found that monitored species changed faster than they thought. It’s that they didn’t find the evidence for their model, so they changed their model. Instead of waiting for evidence to prove their assumptions right, they thought they would look to evolution as the fossil record showed it. One of the problems not noticed by the people who use this “documentation” is that you cannot *prove* by your definition. Expected-gradualism-because-that’s-the-way-nature-usually-works is independent of the fossil record. If they had found more transitional forms as they looked, then that would be confirmed by another source, and it would have been pretty telling.

But things like denying the obvious that ID proponents are not being silenced is not a very helpful direction.

I don’t believe that ID proponents are being silenced.

You want an open honest discussion as long as I play by your rules and be dishonest. Sorry, there’s a problem there.

No there is one jerry. And I did say

“tend to nit pick various points. Some times this is welcome and we learn and that is good”

You have an advanced degree in biology (my assumption) and should be a fount of information. When great_ape commented here, it was a breath of fresh air because he believed in the power of neo Darwinism but was always willing to accept criticism of it as well as dish it out when the ID proponents went off the reservation and he corrected them.

You should be able to fulfill the same function but there never seems to be a give and take. You continually post here but it is more like quick short comment tending to undermine small points in the discussion without any constructive criticism to move it forward. You should be capable of it. Otherwise why post here if all you seem to do is poke some minor holes in a comment from time to time.

So I am goading you to step up and contribute. But things like denying the obvious that ID proponents are not being silenced is not a very helpful direction. A thoughtful discussion of the phenomena would be useful as opposed to saying we have one here but I am not sure what he believes. If he is a creationist or ID proponent, does it affect his performance. Is he anyway restricted in what he can teach? Is it a non issue? So I do not want your silence, I want your knowledge and experiences put to something useful here with open honest discussions.

I believe ID proponents should try to be squeaky clean when they criticize or propose scientific explanations in the cosmological and evolution debate so that there is no need for mea culpa’s.

I don’t like having my sincerity questioned, especially by someone who puts words into my mouth. It hardly seems like being squeaky clean, and if you agree with this other jerry that IDers should be squeaky clean when criticizing scientific explanations, then I can’t see a reason why you shouldn’t also be squeaky clean in your other ID dealings.

Now the good news, son of Galmod – you have my silence.

Mea culpa? Come on; give me a break. I am just pointing out the insincerity of your remarks by what you tend to disagree with. I corrected what you said was not right and admitted the hyperbole. Sometimes it necessary to be absurd to highlight the absurd and hyperbole can get others to remark on the hyperbole but not the substance and that is revealing. By putting words in your mouth I was illustrating absurdity with absurdity. I knew you would not agree with it but the words I used were the logical implications of what you had said or failed to say.

And to say there is no silencing of people who hold ID positions is one of the more absurd comments I have heard yet. To say that Richard Sternberg still holds his job with the implication that nothing has happened to him or he is free to do what he wants at his job is a ludicrous point and essentially reveals what you are about. Why would you make such an absurd comment?

If you don’t think there is a silencing of dissent then you have you head in the ground or pathologically insincere.

“it isn’t an issue around here”

So I assume there is occasional discussion of ID and it relevance for biology and that the ID supporter can express his views in biology meetings, bring it up in biology courses as possible explanation for why Darwin’s ideas don’t work in evolution and be taken seriously by the other faculty. Also since you say you are at a university, then criticism of Darwin’s ideas are I assume fair game in biology courses. After all a paradigm with no empirical backing should include criticism as part of an academic discussion. So I assume all this is going on at your university. I also assume there is a reaction to the suppression openly expressed by the Council of Europe at your university as unwarranted interference with academic freedom and that someone is leading the challenge to their proposed fiat.

ID and biology are completely in sync so 99% of biology that is researched or taught is not a problem. However, that doesn’t include evolutionary biology and without this exception one would never know the difference between the biology that an ID proponent taught and researched from those who are anti ID.

Bob, you universally fail to say much at all and tend to nit pick various points. Some times this is welcome and we learn and that is good but much of the time it comes off as petty (like every thing is honkey dory with Richard Sternberg because he has his job) and when you fail to nit pick something it means you have no good nit picking to do so it is essentially confirmation when you cannot dispute it. And for that we welcome your silence. It is reassuring to know you are probably right.

I still wouldn’t agree that there is silencing of dissent. For example, the Evolutionary Informatics Lab pages are still available, and are even gaining new members.

If I felt an ID proponent was being unfairly attacked, and I was in a position to speak up, I would. But, quite frankly, it isn’t an issue around here, and there is at least one ID supporter (or creationist, I’m not sure of the guy’s exact views) in our technical university. He’s a biologist.

Bob

So if I said the following in #18

“I brought in Stalin because there is lots of evidence of purges/squelching of dissent going on in academia of those investigating/discussing the relation of ID to biology though they are not eliminated the same way that Stalin did the elimination.

I admit Stalin was just an hyperbole to emphasize a point but I find the comparison somewhat appropriate. Those who disagree are eliminated or silenced. Let me know why that is not an appropriate comparison.”

it sounds like you would be in agreement. I am glad to hear that so just assume this is what I meant in #18 and I look forward to you being in the forefront of defending ID proponents with proper credentials in the future.

http://www.freerepublic.com/fo.....0354/posts

of special note:
But whereas in Bell’s test these quantities are derived from the so-called ‘linear’ polarization of the photons — crudely, whether their electromagnetic fields oscillate in one direction or the other — Zeilinger’s experiment looks at a different sort of polarization, called elliptical polarization.

Like Bell’s, Zeilinger’s equality proved false. This doesn’t rule out all possible non-local realistic s, but it does exclude an important subset of them. Specifically, it shows that if you have a group of photons that all have independent polarizations, then you can’t ascribe specific polarizations to each. It’s rather like saying that you know there are particular numbers of blue, white and silver cars in a car park — but it is meaningless even to imagine saying which ones are which.

So Dave, when try to derive a specific measurement for information, in a group of photons, they have uncertainty in the photons, yet when an observer makes a measurement for a specific photon only then does the information become specific.

I consider this experiment hard proof that information is not inherent to photons but is indeed independent of it.

Two points.

First, common descent does not point to any mechanism for species creation. It certainly does not point to gradualism versus some other mechanism. Now gradualism is consistent with common descent but does not necessarily flow from it.

To justify gradualism, you would have to point to some other evidence that strongly suggests that this mechanism is possible and did in fact happen.

Second, homologies or like parts in various species also do not point to gradualism. The same comments for common descent are appropriate here.

So to briefly sum up, Neither common descent or homologies and the information that supports these two concepts cannot per se be used for support of gradualism. It could just as easily be used to justify some intelligence involved in the process. Common descent and homologies are consistent with any of the ID mechanisms for evolution.

The main argument for all sides in this debate is negative evidence against the other sides and has nothing to do with common descent and homologies. So the neo Darwinists will actually use theological arguments against ID saying something like bad design or inappropriate design would never be what God would have used. ID also uses negative arguments against neo Darwinism by pointing out the lack of forensic evidence supporting their position.

As an aside, Behe uses the argument of interacting systems (as a measure of design and its complexity) and the lack of any evidence as to how these systems could arise to justify agency in their origin. See Dembski’s latest post today about E.O. Wilson on what ID is about and how it is distorted by anti ID people.