Re: Pasteur and nature of science

From: Bill Payne (
Date: Sun Jan 06 2002 - 23:49:58 EST

  • Next message: george murphy: "Re: Pasteur and nature of science"

    On Sun, 06 Jan 2002 15:50:37 -0500 george murphy <>

    > In discussing the IDEA website we've noted its misleading definition
    > of "Darwinism." Here's a misleading definition of evolution.
    Evolution is
    > "descent with modification" not (as a matter of definition) "life
    > from simple to complex." The emergence of a new species would not
    > necessarily involve any increase in complexity, & might even involve
    > simplification. This isn't to deny that the complexity of organisms
    > increased over the past ~3.5 x 10^9 yr, but that's not inherent in the
    > of evolution.

    I followed the response to the use of "uniformitarianism", and to an
    extent agreed. But I think this one is splitting hairs.

    From the Kansas Science Standards (p 70 of 75): "Evolution - Biological:
    .....With respect to living organisms, evolution has two major
    perspectives: The long-term perspective focuses on the branching of
    lineages; the short-term perspective centers on changes within lineages.
    In the long term, evolution is the descent with modification of different
    lineages from common ancestors..."

     Without the concept of "molecules to man" (increasing complexity), you
    cut the heart out of the theory.

    Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
    Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 07 2002 - 00:00:10 EST