Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178661 comments on the www.scientificblogging.com story from Feb 24, 2008, titled Should evolution be taught in high school?. In it, www.scientificblogging.com reports that:

Microbiologist Carl Woese is well known as an iconoclast. At 79 years of age, Woese is still shaking things up. Most recently, he stated in an interview with Wired that...

"My feeling is that evolution shouldn't be taught at the lower grades. You don't teach quantum mechanics in the grade schools. One has to be quite educated to work with these concepts; what they pass on as evolution in high schools is nothing but repetitious tripe that teachers don't understand."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.scientificblogging.com.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#103615 Oct 5, 2012
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
Please explain how entropy applies here:
A cell is in the process of dividing and is making a copy of its DNA.
This requires energy input.
The sequence to copy is TATAT.
What is the difference in energy use if the sequence is copied correctly (TATAT) or incorrectly (TAAAT)?
If there is no difference then your entire argument is mute.
There is a difference. Genetic Mutations can be neutral but they can also cause disease, aging, and death. We can slow it down with proper nutrition but we can't stop it altogether just like we can't stop the steady onward march of entropy and accumulating genetic mutations in the entire population.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#103616 Oct 5, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, macroevolution as observed in the lab, in nature, and in the genome appears to be quite healthy and doing fine. Thanks for your concern.
Micro has but not macro.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#103617 Oct 5, 2012
Yiago wrote:
Something like 97% of scientists agree with the theory of evolution. If you include all scientists, even those with no expertise in biology, that number stands. And it's an older estimate. More recent estimates put it at over 99%.
What difference would that make even if it were true? There are times in history when theories were discarded. But just for fun, what is your source for those estimates. Hmmmm? Or are you should talking baloney again?

“Ignorance breeds fear.”

Since: Oct 11

United Kingdom

#103618 Oct 5, 2012
This is the stupidest discussion question I have ever heard.'A load of tripe that teachers don't understand?' And what do they think of creationism being taught in schools? If these people are so spiteful about evolution being taught in schools, then they have no right to talk back if you replace every word in that statement and information below it with 'creationism'.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#103619 Oct 5, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
What difference would that make even if it were true? There are times in history when theories were discarded. But just for fun, what is your source for those estimates. Hmmmm? Or are you should talking baloney again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support...

Check the source documents.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103620 Oct 5, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that is not what's happening. Creationists are not misunderstanding it. Evolutionist are distorting it to make the reality of it untrue. If you really want to make a solid point instead of just calling names you need to show some math and physics. Otherwise you're just all talk. Oh and by the way, Creationists are much better at math and physics than evolutionists are.

You are funny.

You are saying that creationists (aka biblical literalists with a funky agenda) know more about SLoT than physicists.

I have shown that you are using the wrong formula.

I have shown that this has been addressed in real scientific papers and has been found to be untrue.

Why do you just ignore these truths?

Show us you understand the math or otherwise you're just all talk.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103621 Oct 5, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Micro has but not macro.

No, I was quite clear abut which I was talking about and the reference I gave were concerning speciation (aka macroevolution).

Do you need the references again?

Again,

Macroevolution is observable (environment, fossil record, DNA and Lab), testable, repeatable, falsifiable,....

In other words evolution is science. Creationism isn't.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#103622 Oct 5, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes!
Statiscally, entropy is logarithmically related to the randomness of a system. Here it is again:
"In short, the Boltzmann formula shows the relationship between entropy and the number of ways the atoms or molecules of a thermodynamic system can be arranged."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann%27s_en...
S = k ln W
Where S = Entropy;
k = Boltzman constant;
The Boltzmann constant (k or kB) is the physical constant relating energy at the individual particle level with temperature, which must necessarily be observed at the collective or bulk level. It is the gas constant R divided by the Avogadro constant NA:
k = 1.380662 X 10^-23 JK^-1
It has the same dimension (energy divided by temperature) as entropy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_consta...
and
W = The number of equivalent micro states (possible arrangements) of a system.
The value of was originally intended to be proportional to the Wahrscheinlichkeit (the German word for probability) of a macroscopic state for some probability distribution of possible microstates the collection of (unobservable) "ways" the (observable) thermodynamic state of a system can be realized by assigning different positions and momenta to the various molecules. Interpreted in this way, Boltzmann's formula is the most general formula for the thermodynamic entropy.
Role in the statistical definition of entropy
Further information: Entropy (statistical thermodynamics)
In statistical mechanics, the entropy S of an isolated system at thermodynamic equilibrium is defined as the natural logarithm of W, the number of distinct microscopic states available to the system given the macroscopic constraints (such as a fixed total energy E):
This equation, which relates the microscopic details, or microstates, of the system (via W) to its macroscopic state (via the entropy S), is the central idea of statistical mechanics. Such is its importance that it is inscribed on Boltzmann's tombstone.
Now after some math (which I could go through if need be) the formula becomes:
----------
dS = k ln We/Ws
----------
-which indicates that applying energy to a system will move the entropy of that system. The amount of energy applied to a system is measured in the number of component parts of the system to which it is actuallly applied. Entropy can increase if We < Ws, or a decrease in entropy can occur if Ws < We.
It is easy to visualize the formula when considering what happens when a system is heated or cooled. It is known that heating a system produces dS > 0, while cooling a system produces a dS < 0 and the formula shows why this occurs.
The formula also shows the difference between construction work and bomb explosion. Construction work has a We smallerthan the Ws fo the raw material, while in a bomb a We is larger than the Ws of the raw material.
That's how the matter is arranged, NOT how random the energy is. So, clearly your net answer is "no." Thanks for playing.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#103623 Oct 5, 2012
Johny wrote:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is what kills evolution! It is essentially the probability problem.
Does the sun input energy into the Earth? Yes or no.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#103624 Oct 5, 2012
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
Please explain how entropy applies here:
A cell is in the process of dividing and is making a copy of its DNA.
This requires energy input.
The sequence to copy is TATAT.
What is the difference in energy use if the sequence is copied correctly (TATAT) or incorrectly (TAAAT)?
If there is no difference then your entire argument is mute.
Moot, not mute. Very different words.:)

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#103625 Oct 5, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that is not what's happening. Creationists are not misunderstanding it. Evolutionist are distorting it to make the reality of it untrue. If you really want to make a solid point instead of just calling names you need to show some math and physics. Otherwise you're just all talk. Oh and by the way, Creationists are much better at math and physics than evolutionists are.
Right. Fundamentalist Christian creationists are the only ones who are competent at science and honest about it. EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD is incompetent at science and/or a liar. That seems like the most reasonable explanation.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#103626 Oct 5, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a difference. Genetic Mutations can be neutral but they can also cause disease, aging, and death. We can slow it down with proper nutrition but we can't stop it altogether just like we can't stop the steady onward march of entropy and accumulating genetic mutations in the entire population.
And, if a genetic mutation results in, say, better eyesight, what then? Is such a mutation impossible? If so, explain why it is impossible, or why better eyesight would actually be harmful.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#103627 Oct 5, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a difference. Genetic Mutations can be neutral but they can also cause disease, aging, and death. We can slow it down with proper nutrition but we can't stop it altogether just like we can't stop the steady onward march of entropy and accumulating genetic mutations in the entire population.
But you're talking about two totally separate things.

Thermodynamics is about energy.
Genetic errors require as much energy as the correct copying of DNA, so there's no difference in entropy hence thermodynamics are irrelevant.

As for genetic mutations, this is where natural selection comes in. Any serious mutation would probably result in a miscarriage or early death of the baby. In this harsh world only the healthiest creatures survive to pass on their genes.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#103628 Oct 5, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>No, that is not what's happening. Creationists are not misunderstanding it. Evolutionist are distorting it to make the reality of it untrue. If you really want to make a solid point instead of just calling names you need to show some math and physics. Otherwise you're just all talk. Oh and by the way, Creationists are much better at math and physics than evolutionists are.
99+% of actual experts in science disagree with you. I am not inclined to do any more math than that.

Creationism is basically stupid, technically speaking.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#103629 Oct 5, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>There is a difference. Genetic Mutations can be neutral but they can also cause disease, aging, and death. We can slow it down with proper nutrition but we can't stop it altogether just like we can't stop the steady onward march of entropy and accumulating genetic mutations in the entire population.
I don't think you answered the question here. That was a dodge.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#103630 Oct 5, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>What difference would that make even if it were true? There are times in history when theories were discarded. But just for fun, what is your source for those estimates. Hmmmm? Or are you should talking baloney again?
Wiki. You don't have to dig very deep in a discussion with Creationists.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#103631 Oct 5, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a difference. Genetic Mutations can be neutral but they can also cause disease, aging, and death. We can slow it down with proper nutrition but we can't stop it altogether just like we can't stop the steady onward march of entropy and accumulating genetic mutations in the entire population.
Mutations that increase the reproductive potential of an organism are more likely to become fixed in a population than mutations that decrease the reproductive potential of an organism.

This is not a difficult concept to understand but it somehow escapes you.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#103632 Oct 5, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not watch it. I read several articles this morning which stated that Romney won clearly, but failed to score a knockout. Obama seemed to just want to get out without a big gaff.
The political fact check sites seem to to be calling it a double forfeit based on facts, but facts don't rule in politics, opinion does. Romney will get a few points in the polls, probably.
He will still be trailing, especially in the electoral college.
And Romney may have won a pyrrhic victory, because he now has to defend some positions that many conservatives would not approve of. The "new Romney" would have been the first candidate to be eliminated in the primaries.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#103633 Oct 5, 2012
Johny wrote:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is what kills evolution!
No, it doesn't:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.h...

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#103634 Oct 5, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Just one of many things that kill macroevolution.
In order to kill macroevolution you have to kill microevolution, because macroevolution is just more microevolution.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 19 min kenedy 142,768
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 20 min Chimney1 20,714
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 47 min ChristineM 172,029
What Motives Created Social Darwinism? 16 hr Zog Has-fallen 1
Simulated Evolution in a Computer Program 17 hr Zog Has-fallen 2
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 19 hr Chimney1 304
Cartier brand luxury bangle cartier watch on il... 22 hr Dopy 1
More from around the web