Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 20 comments on the Feb 24, 2008, www.scientificblogging.com story 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.

Psychology

Hollywood, FL

#109767 Nov 28, 2012
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.

I thought it was very clear, but ok, axis spin in part is necessary in creating weather and rotational spin is necessary in part, in creating gravity. The speed of spin and rotation are just as important as the spin and rotation. There are clear cut exceptions in the rule of axis spin creating weather and 2 are Venus and Neptune. Surface water on earth is another reason for heavier

Hypothesis by ,--

Jim Ryan 

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109768 Nov 28, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Also notice how NASA claims the word,---PULLS
Below, claiming that gravity pulls. Not pushes so gravity is claimed to be a pulling effect, with
NO evidence. There is no way for NASA to tell if it is a pulling or pushing effect. Science has just always assumed it.

Clearly you have not yet read and understood my post to you. If you have not read it I suggest you do so. If you have read it then please ask question because you clearly do not yet understand.


I believe this has been explained to you more than once. I will try again. All matter has mass, correct? Now imagine you are looking at a transparent beech ball and imagine it is the earth (with mass) and you are a dot on the surface. Now, which direction are you going to be pulled? It will be (on average) toward the center of the ball, correct?

Now imagine you are at the center of the beech ball globe; which way will gravity pull you? Well, it will pull you in all directions equally, correct? So the net effect is no gravity. Are you with me so far?

You can do the same thought experiment and imagine you are 2/3's of the way from the surface to the middle of the beech ball. What is the net effect of gravity there? Well, gravity will be pulling in all directions but the gravity in the direction of the center is going to still be greater and you will be pulled in that direction, BUT with less force than if you are standing on the surface.

Now, one more mental experiment to try. Imaging that you are a million miles away from the earth out in space (over 4 times the distance to the moon). Is the gravitational force affecting you going to be less, more or the same as if you were standing on earth. Of course it will be less, correct? Gravity (just like electromagnetic energy) decreases as a function of the square of the distance (e.g. if you double the distance the force is 1/4 as strong).

So..... the gravitational field is the same strength at the center of the earth, it is simply acting in all directions and not unidirectionally as on the surface.

Now, do you understand all of this? If not where do you get lost or disagree with it?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109769 Nov 28, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
Notice how science is adding spinning planets into its lexicon. My hypothesis on spin gravity is lookin pretty good about now.

Planets spinning on their axis was discovered By Galileo in 1610. You are only 402 years behind.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109770 Nov 28, 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.
I thought it was very clear, but ok, axis spin in part is necessary in creating weather and rotational spin is necessary in part, in creating gravity. The speed of spin and rotation are just as important as the spin and rotation. There are clear cut exceptions in the rule of axis spin creating weather and 2 are Venus and Neptune. Surface water on earth is another reason for heavier
Hypothesis by ,--
Jim Ryan 

This is not a hypothesis. This is a notion, and a refuted one.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#109771 Nov 28, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
To an extent that is actually true. The front of a museum is for general audiences. The back (or basement, whatever) is where professionals do research. You can learn a lot at a museum if you know what you are going to look at and try to answer questions at the same time. But yes, they are dumbed down.
Yeah, basically the Darwinism nerve-center. I bought their grandest book of propaganda. Must have been 2000 pages and weighed in at 50 pounds. Too bad it's rotting in the landfill now. Ha ha ha!
Psychology

Hollywood, FL

#109772 Nov 28, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You are fixated on the word spinning. It says nothing about spin creating gravity. A rapidly spinning object like a pulsar (MSP) distorts gravity due to relativity (remember gravity moves just like electromagnetism and is distorted in the same manor) and gravity is always a space-time distortion.
<quoted text>
Now what was the name of this project, oh yea,----GRAVITY PROBE B. Actually, you were the one to suggest it, only I didn't use your site, I found another.

The whole paragraph below is all about gravity.

Gravity can be distorted by a star run amok, but earth is not a star and it is not running amok. Did you suddenly forget all about science?

The experiment, launched in 2004, used four ultra-precise gyroscopes to measure the hypothesized geodetic effect, the warping of space and time around a gravitational body, and frame-dragging, the amount a spinning object pulls space and time with it as it rotates
Psychology

Hollywood, FL

#109773 Nov 28, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
This is not a hypothesis. This is a notion, and a refuted one.
Then show the refutation, because funny, I never saw it.
Psychology

Hollywood, FL

#109774 Nov 28, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Planets spinning on their axis was discovered By Galileo in 1610. You are only 402 years behind.
Then why didn't Galileo claim spin gravity, like GRAVITY PROBE B?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#109775 Nov 28, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, basically the Darwinism nerve-center. I bought their grandest book of propaganda. Must have been 2000 pages and weighed in at 50 pounds. Too bad it's rotting in the landfill now. Ha ha ha!
I would have thought you would have burned it.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#109776 Nov 28, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I would have thought you would have burned it.
Actually it was a gift to a best friend's son who wound up tossing it.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#109777 Nov 28, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it was a gift to a best friend's son who wound up tossing it.
Ah.

You never had the opportunity, eh?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109778 Nov 28, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, basically the Darwinism nerve-center. I bought their grandest book of propaganda. Must have been 2000 pages and weighed in at 50 pounds. Too bad it's rotting in the landfill now. Ha ha ha!

Yes, you seem so much smarter with pseudoscience crap on your coffee table.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109779 Nov 28, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
Now what was the name of this project, oh yea,----GRAVITY PROBE B. Actually, you were the one to suggest it, only I didn't use your site, I found another.
The whole paragraph below is all about gravity.
Gravity can be distorted by a star run amok, but earth is not a star and it is not running amok. Did you suddenly forget all about science?
The experiment, launched in 2004, used four ultra-precise gyroscopes to measure the hypothesized geodetic effect, the warping of space and time around a gravitational body, and frame-dragging, the amount a spinning object pulls space and time with it as it rotates

I don't think you read my post so you can find it below. All mass warps space-time and causes gravity.

Now read the post you responded to but clearly did not understand.
----------

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You are fixated on the word spinning. It says nothing about spin creating gravity. A rapidly spinning object like a pulsar (MSP) distorts gravity due to relativity (remember gravity moves just like electromagnetism and is distorted in the same manor) and gravity is always a space-time distortion.
<quoted text>

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109780 Nov 28, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
Then show the refutation, because funny, I never saw it.

I have only refuted it maybe 30 times including a few blow by blow refutations. Others have refuted it even more. Now we just mock it because we know what is wrong with it and you don't.

If you promise to READ a refutation and RESPOND to it with questions, or be specific about what you think are my errors, I will post it again.

If not I am not going to bother.

Ball in your court.

BTW, you have not responded to my little thought experiment answering some of you questions about gravity.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109781 Nov 28, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen to you. I have 6 semester hours in college logic and critical thinking courses. Thank God for that because it truly helped me sort through all the Darwinistic BS and ultimately shitcan that crap altogether. LOL!
Looks like you needed 66

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109782 Nov 28, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Back when I was an ignorant practicing Darwinist, while on a trip I bought a big expensive coffee table book on evolution from the National Museum of Natural History Gift Shop. Obviously it is all true since it was in a big official-looking book from the Smithsonian in Washington DC, right? LOL!
You clearly never understood evolution. If you had, you would not be using the erroneous arguments against straw man versions of evolution that you do now. You just thought you understood it obviously!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109783 Nov 28, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why didn't Galileo claim spin gravity, like GRAVITY PROBE B?

BPB did not claim spin gravity. What it says was that a number of the consequences of Einstein's theory concerning the warping of space-time by mass (gravity) were supported by the probe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativi...

Especially focus on the section titled
Geodetic precession and frame-dragging

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109784 Nov 28, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it was a gift to a best friend's son who wound up tossing it.

Ah,.... so you never actually READ it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109785 Nov 28, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, never mind soft dinosaur tissue, derived fossils, living fossils, polystrate fossils, seashells in mountains worldwide or even the Cambrian Explosion (which is a complete riddle to Darwinists); how about the fact that all major animal phyla and all major plant divisions are also found in dinosaur rock layers.
Yes never mind any of that because none of it refutes an old earth or evolution.

Now, you were basically claiming that fossils are randomly distributed stratographically...we should be as likely to find a rabbit in the Cambrian as in the Jurassic as in the modern era if that is the case. You claimed that this was the case, but fossil hunters had been one eyed and selective, the Establishment did not allow these things, and so on. They just wlked right past all those camels, human, whale, and dog fossils that were lying right there with the cynodonts and archosaurs, right?

So now, back it up. Show us examples of verified finds of fossils that predate their possible evolutionary antecedents. If 800,000 or (ahem)200,000,000 fossils have been found, there should be thousands of examples falsifying the evolutionary sequence.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#109786 Nov 28, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
Science says,--In a recent publication in Physical Review Letters, the physicists propose a way to translate the elusive magnetic spin of electrons into easily measurable electric signals. The finding is a key step in the development of computing based on spintronics, which doesn't rely on electron charge to digitize information.
Physicists use the term "spin" as a mathematical value, but it is not the same as a rotational measurement. Here's a link that might be helpful.
http://web.utk.edu/~cnattras/Phys250Fall2012/...

I'm hoping someone with a better understanding of physics than I have can explain it in common terms.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 18 min Aura Mytha 161,145
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 31 min Dogen 1,437
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 19 hr Denisova 13,673
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 20 hr Denisova 18,697
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 23 hr MikeF 141,290
No Place For ID? Sat GTID62 1
Guadeloupe Woman Found (1812 (Mar '10) Apr 23 MikeF 73
More from around the web