Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 175,466

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." Full Story

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#103683 Oct 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I showed you all the math a few pages back. It is standard physics. I showed you Boltzman's formula and the reference. I stepped through the equation and referenced everything. What is wrong with you?
I've noticed that you ignored my post which clearly shows why the SloT simply doesn't apply to evolution. So here it is again.

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.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#103684 Oct 6, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Then tell us why the mass of Uranus is 14.537 times greater than earth and yet, it has only 91% of earths gravity?
It's revolution rate around the sun is very slow, at 2.59 km/s, compared to earths, 29.8 km/s.
My hypothesis still stands.
AT THE SURFACE. Uranus is much larger in diameter than Earth. The further you are from the center of mass, the less gravity there is at the surface. However, the planet exerts more gravitational pull than Earth does. Just because you don't understand physics doesn't mean that physics is wrong and whatever shit you make up is right.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#103685 Oct 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they are completely different processes. Mendellian genetics explains microevolution and we easily predict and observe the genetic variation. Macroevolution is the notion that lots of micro can cause an organism to change into a different kind of organism over vast periods of time but there isn't any evidence to support it. There is no known mechanism for it occur, i.e., genetic mutations can not create some new or nascent limb or organ. Entropy also prevents systems from becoming more organized. Macroevolution is a dead theory and is a big waste of time and money at this point.
Which means it must have been magical poofing. Of course. Now it all makes sense.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#103686 Oct 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG! English Majors! Do you understand the concept of an equation?
Do you understand the concept of my balls?

Seriously, you try to rewrite almost every field of science, and then you think that I'm the problem.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#103687 Oct 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
In certain areas that does seem to be true. Because when it comes to macroevolution, the evolutionists deny all the facts and believe in it against all odds. It's a pandemic mental illness.
So, you agree that fundamentalist Christian creationists are the only people who are competent at science. Great. Now, what is it about all other religions AND the non-religious that makes them inherently incompetent at science, and what is it about fundamentalist Christians that makes them inherently competent at science?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#103688 Oct 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because it only exists in your imagination.
Just like your God.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#103689 Oct 6, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Earths rotation rate around the barycenter between the earth and sun is about 67,000 miles an hour. Earths spinrate on its axis is right at 1,000 mph. Notice that earth has a strong atmosphere and strong gravity as well. However, earth has water all across its surface, where most other planets don't, so that likely plays a big part in having a strong atmosphere.
Then look at earths moon, it's rotational rate around the earth and its barycenter is, very slow, 1.03 km/s just as the moons spin rate on its own axis is about 13 miles per hour. Notice that the moon has very little atmosphere and very little gravity. Both axial spin and rotation around earth are slow and the atmosphere and gravity are very weak. 
Let's then look at the rotation rate of Venus, around the barycenter and the sun at 78,341 miles per hour, that's faster than earths rotation rate around the suns barycenter, of course, Venus is closer to the sun and being closer to the sun, Gravity becomes greater according to Newtons second law of motion, so how is it that Venus is 90% of the size, mass and density and it's gravity is 90% of the earths. That cannot be, Venus is 1/3 closer to the sun. If Newtons 2nd law is correct, venus should have a much greater gravity.
Then it's axis spin rate is very slow, at just 6.5 km/hour, but I add in, that Venus has an atmosphere where the winds roar across the planet at 220 miles per hour, approximately. This will prove important, because in my  hypothesis, axial spin rate creates atmosphere. However, with Venus as a model and a tiny axial spin rate, there should be no atmosphere. Volcanoes to the rescue, it seems those and more chemicals are creating the venus atmosphere. 
On to Uranus!!! 
It is 14.537 times larger than earth and yet, it has but 91%of earths gravity. Notice!!!, Uranus rotates around the sun or barycenter, at just, 2.59 km/s. 
You can fit 750 earths inside Saturn and yet, Saturn has about the same gravity as earth. 
Saturns rotational rate is just, 9.63 km/s. 
Next is Mercury, it spins on its own axis at only 6 mph and according to my hypothesis, mercury should not have much of an atmosphere and it doesnt. However, it's rotational rate around the suns barycenter is 106,000 miles per hour, meaning, that according to my hypothesis, Mercury's gravity should be higher  and by the way, it is 2/3rds closer to the sun than the earth, so it's gravity should be very high, even for its size, but wait a minute, mercury is 40% of earths size. Gravity on Mercury is only 38% of earths. According to Newtons second law of motion, gravity should be much higher on mercury.
Mars, now here's something interesting. Mars and earth traverse their orbits around the sun and their respective barycenters at about the same velocity. Both also spin on their axis at about 1,000 miles per hour., and yet, mars is half the size of earth. Mars gravity is 38% of earths gravity, which is less than half of earths, but once one factors in that mars is further away from the sun, it's easy to see the other 12% loss in gravity, considering Newtons second law of motion. The mars spin and orbital rate match up with its gravity and atmosphere, according to my hypothesis.
On rover curiosity, today's scientists claim that mars gravity is only 1/6th of earths, so who is right, today's scientists that must know mars gravity to land the 2000 pound rover curiosity from a hovering craft, or newton and Einstein, that claim mars has a gravity of 38%?
According to science, we do not rotate around the sun, we rotate around the barycenter.
Hypothesis by ,--
Jim Ryan 
Didn't you say something about people who copy/paste?

By the way, the rover on Mars is reporting surface gravity, not the gravity of the planet. I know you don't understand the difference, but there IS a difference.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#103690 Oct 6, 2012
Psychology wrote:
I have done a lot more studying and it all seems to support my hypothesis, unless you evos think you can prove otherwise.
The evidence is there.
If you've done so much research into physics, then you already know that acceleration is ANY change in rate or direction of motion, therefore slowing down is acceleration. So, either you just lied by saying you've studied physics, or you lied when you said slowing down was not acceleration. Which is it? At least one of those was a lie (though we know it was both). It's not possible for both to be honest, so which one was the lie?

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#103691 Oct 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>That's not a proper reference. I think you are full of baloney.
It's a perfectly good starting point for casual research. Why do you think otherwise?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Pompano Beach, FL

#103692 Oct 6, 2012
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
I've noticed that you ignored my post which clearly shows why the SloT simply doesn't apply to evolution. So here it is again.
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.
That is not the argument you want to make. Entropy in general has many interdisiplinary applications, statistical mechanics and information theory for example. Standard textbooks discuss this routinely. For example, Bromberg's Physical Chemistry, 2nd Ed. Or read the Wiki on Entropy, Boltzmann's Entropy Formula, etc.

Each generation of each species is accumulating genetic mutations at the rate of approximately 100 - 300 new ones in humans. We all have them even if we don't show any particular disease. There are numerous recessive ones that is why it's not a good idea to marry your sister.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#103693 Oct 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
No, they are completely different processes. Mendellian genetics explains microevolution and we easily predict and observe the genetic variation. Macroevolution is the notion that lots of micro can cause an organism to change into a different kind of organism over vast periods of time but there isn't any evidence to support it. There is no known mechanism for it occur, i.e., genetic mutations can not create some new or nascent limb or organ. Entropy also prevents systems from becoming more organized. Macroevolution is a dead theory and is a big waste of time and money at this point.
What do you propose as the mechanism that drives "microevolutiion"? Does "micro" affect individuals or populations? Are "micro" changes heritable?

I can answer all those question as they concern "macro".

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Pompano Beach, FL

#103694 Oct 6, 2012
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a perfectly good starting point for casual research. Why do you think otherwise?
You didn't provide the reference or a link. New at this I'm guessing?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Pompano Beach, FL

#103695 Oct 6, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you understand the concept of my balls?
Seriously, you try to rewrite almost every field of science, and then you think that I'm the problem.
Maybe if you weren't always concerned about your nutsacks you'd learn something for a change.

dS = k ln We/Ws

dS is the change in entropy; k is the Botzmann's constant; ln is the natural log; We is the number of equivalent micro states (possible arrangments) of the energy and Ws is the number of equivalent micro states of the system.

Here is the bottom line and think of examples in nature and you can see this is always the case:

1. Applying energy to a system in a way that is more random than the system receiving it will increase the entropy of that system.

2. Applying energy to a system in a way that is less random than the system receiving it will decrease the entropy of that system.

DNA has an extrememly low randomness, i.e., it is highly complex and consequently has very, very low Ws. So although all the machinations of a healthy, thriving living cell are doing everything they can to preserve it, and it is probably closed to balanced (if properly fed nutriants, sun, water, etc.), it is slowly deteriorating over time as a whole as shown in the population genetics and accumulating mutations, and as we see in aging, death, and decomposition.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#103696 Oct 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not the argument you want to make.
[/QUOTE}

It's not the argument you want me to make.

[QUOTE who="Urban Cowboy"]Entropy in general has many interdisiplinary applications, statistical mechanics and information theory for example. Standard textbooks discuss this routinely. For example, Bromberg's Physical Chemistry, 2nd Ed. Or read the Wiki on Entropy, Boltzmann's Entropy Formula, etc.
[/QUOTE}

But what's that got to do with copying mistakes in DNA?
The same amount of energy is used making an error as making a perfect copy. So there is no difference in entropy.

[QUOTE who="Urban Cowboy"]
Each generation of each species is accumulating genetic mutations at the rate of approximately 100 - 300 new ones in humans. We all have them even if we don't show any particular disease. There are numerous recessive ones that is why it's not a good idea to marry your sister.
And natural selection (life) weeds out the dangerous mutations leaving only the harmless or beneficial.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Pompano Beach, FL

#103697 Oct 6, 2012
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you propose as the mechanism that drives "microevolutiion"? Does "micro" affect individuals or populations? Are "micro" changes heritable?
I can answer all those question as they concern "macro".
Mendellian genetics. The built-in design of the genome allows for a tremendous amount of flexibility within species or kind. Take every human being alive today and analyze the range of sizes, shapes, and color. But there isn't anybody starting to develop feathers or scales or blowholes.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#103698 Oct 6, 2012
Oops! Post corrected.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not the argument you want to make.
It's not the argument you want me to make.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Entropy in general has many interdisiplinary applications, statistical mechanics and information theory for example. Standard textbooks discuss this routinely. For example, Bromberg's Physical Chemistry, 2nd Ed. Or read the Wiki on Entropy, Boltzmann's Entropy Formula, etc.
But what's that got to do with copying mistakes in DNA?
The same amount of energy is used making an error as making a perfect copy. So there is no difference in entropy.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Each generation of each species is accumulating genetic mutations at the rate of approximately 100 - 300 new ones in humans. We all have them even if we don't show any particular disease. There are numerous recessive ones that is why it's not a good idea to marry your sister.
And natural selection (life) weeds out the dangerous mutations leaving only the harmless or beneficial.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Pompano Beach, FL

#103699 Oct 6, 2012
Igor Trip wrote:
And natural selection (life) weeds out the dangerous mutations leaving only the harmless or beneficial.
The harmful genetic mutations continue to accumulate in the genome and can quickly surface when inbreeding so is just a matter of time when they accumulate too far and genetic meltdown occurs. We see this happen in nature often. Besides the accumulating mutations, we also age, die, and decompose.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#103700 Oct 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The harmful genetic mutations continue to accumulate in the genome and can quickly surface when inbreeding so is just a matter of time when they accumulate too far and genetic meltdown occurs. We see this happen in nature often. Besides the accumulating mutations, we also age, die, and decompose.
In the wild inbreeding will result in weak animals that will die or fail to breed and so the bad mutations will die out, healthy ones will survive.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#103701 Oct 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Reached new lows I see. Lying and trash talking. Pathetic.
Everyone outside of your bronze age, goat herder FAIRY TALE cult knows who the LIARS are.

Heck, you "fundie xristian creotards" just can't help yourselves. Your whole world-view is based on LIES: "The Bible is "literally and inerrantly" true and everything that contradicts a "literal and inerrant Bible" is false."

Yeah, right. Let the LYING begin.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103702 Oct 6, 2012
Psychology wrote:
You claim mass dictates gravity, is that right?

Science
Newton
Einstein
QM

All understand that mass produces the effect of gravitation.

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
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 7 min Chimney1 139,563
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 23 min DanFromSmithville 127,919
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 1 hr Dogen 94
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 5 hr Ooogah Boogah 13,578
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) Wed MikeF 1,902
More Theories to Disprove Creation Wed The Dude 64
Atheism - A Non Prophet Organisation (Mar '11) Tue The Dude 996

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE