[Posting edited for style and tone.]
Could this possibly be an accurate description of Behe’s views? It must be, right? He is being interviewed on tape by the Discovery Institute! Eddie, I think you just lost your best evidence in defense of the I.D. movement. I don’t know an Evolution scientist who uses the term de-evolution.
Over at EvolutionNews.Org, there is a brief discussion regarding Harvard’s medical school video of a giant bacteria petri dish (more the size of a door laid across the top of a table!) … where two groups of bacteria quickly expand into ever-increasingly toxic territories of the dish. Each group has to develop new genetic “tools” to cope with the dramatic increases in antibiotics present in the growth medium.
“On an episode of ID the Future, biologist Michael Behe talked with Discovery Institute’s Sarah Chaffee about a Science article and Harvard Medical School video in the news that’s supposed to be giving “creationists” nightmares.”
“Dr. Behe isn’t losing any sleep. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria demonstrate evolution by breaking stuff – not by building it and certainly not by creating complex new biological information. On the contrary, information is lost. In other words, says Behe, what we have here is devolution, not evolution, the opposite of what needs to be explained by Darwinian theory.”
Devolution? Is this a standard term in the journals?
When reptiles lose their limbs (on their way to becoming snakes) … is that devolution? Or just another variety of evolution? Isn’t virtually any change in the gene pool of a population a category of Evolution? Over time, you can expect to have a dramatically successful mutation send the entire population down a new developmental path. When heading down a new path, it is expected that some less crucial genetic inheritance loses out.
Would an evolutionist call the newly emerged land-based tetrapod a Devolved Fish?
@Swamidass, do you have any thoughts on this matter?
Clips are available at this Evolution News website: