Existing evolutionary theory . . . looks random and aimless.
Water, too.
:shrug:
Existing evolutionary theory . . . looks random and aimless.
not according to steve gould.
you DO know who he is, right?
he, himself, has admitted the fossil record is poor evidence.
you write the some of longest sentences i've ever read, but there is no need for you to provide anything.While I could provide you with links from this very forum which direct you to the many many times you have been supplied with Gould's quote in full and in context, had the quote explained to you, AND had the concept of punctuated equilibrium and what it really means explained to you in language simple enough even for you to understand on a similar number of occasions, it is abundantly clear from the fact that you are still attempting to flog that same dead horse some 15 months after your first posts on the subject demonstrate beyond doubt that it would be a waste of everyone's time to attempt to educate you on the subject any further - your's included.
i am not claiming anything.leopold:
Are you still persisting with your claim that Stephen J Gould didn't really believe in evolution?
see above.Or, if I have that wrong, what exactly is your claim about him or what he wrote? And what evidence do you have for your claim?
i am also sure you know what it takes to be a biology teacher.
both of the above examples come from a well respected, peer reviewed, source.
i am not claiming anything.
what i posted came verbatum from the article in question, make of it as you will.
Stephen Gould is cited so frequently he is included in the index.
Walter ReMine is the author of the book entitled The Biotic Message and is also known for advancing Haldane's dilemma which still hasn't been adequately resolved by evolutionists. He is a electrical engineer with a BSEE and MSEE degrees from the University of Minnesota in 1974 and 1977.
The reason creationists cite Gould is becuase he was critical of gradualism.
However, even the most ardent punctuationists do not dismiss gradual change as a force in evolution. "We are not saying that population genetics is irrelevant," said Eldredge, countering accusations of monotheism; "The question is over what process is most important in bringing about the major changes we in evolution. And the answer is punctuated equilibrium." Gould also sees gradual change as an important influence in evolutionary history: "The point is one of the relative frequency of one process as against the other," he explained with deliberate emphasis, betraying some frustration at having been repeatedly misunderstood on this particular issue.
(from p.884 of the article that leopold is so fond of misinterpreting)
This is a place of science and scholarship, so ALL evolution denialism is antiscientific "trash," regardless of how articulate it may or may not be. It's hard to make a case that one idiotic religionist argument is worse than any other idiotic religionist argument. We've waived the rules by simply allowing this thread to exist.Herc - if Leo was just your average spray-bomb fundie , following the usual modus operandi of bashing out the usual regurgi-post nonsense before moving on to find another forum to troll, then he would just be an occasional irritation, and occasional light entertainment. However we are now over a year down the road from the start of his hysterics on the subject and have moved no further. Despite constant correction we're STILL seeing exactly the same garbage from him. It's high time we took out the trash.
the majority of biology teachers here in the US are reluctant to teach evolution.
why is that?
ok, let's put goulds quote aside.
can anyone address the sciencedaily piece?
the majority of biology teachers here in the US are reluctant to teach evolution.
why is that?
we are talking about college educated people here, people specifically educated in the field of biology.Fallacy of argument by popularity.
A lot of people believe you can only balance an egg on its end on the equinox. Does that make it so?
this would be a good explanation if a few were reluctant, but the majority?Quite simply it is because the fundies have made it controversial so the teachers are taking the easy road and avoid it.
It is a shame that the US is lagging behind the rest of the industrial world in science education and this is just one more thing that hurts education of out kids.
I find it incredibly sad that we as a nation let a small percentage of fringe religious zealots deny our kids a decent science education.