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.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#110249 Nov 30, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't read what I posted? It's from 2012 very recent. WHy do I have to repeat everything?
Sorry, I can't find the articles in question, but I do remember posting some links (one of them from Nature) that resolved the mutation rate problem. Maybe someone else can find them.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#110250 Nov 30, 2012
Biatch 1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Does the journal Nature publish peer-reviewed scientific articles, Yes or No?
Asked and answered already. Now get me my shoes, biatch! Daddy has to go to work soon.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#110251 Nov 30, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Asked and answered already. Now get me my shoes, biatch! Daddy has to go to work soon.
Coward.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#110252 Nov 30, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Coward.
Yes, we all know that you are.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#110253 Nov 30, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, we all know that you are.
No, not me. I'll tell you right now it does. You're too cowardly to answer it. Afraid your Darwin buddies my be on the hook for your error.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#110254 Nov 30, 2012
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, I can't find the articles in question, but I do remember posting some links (one of them from Nature) that resolved the mutation rate problem. Maybe someone else can find them.
No problem.

I am not sure what paper you are referring to but the paper I was talking about was published in Nature July 2012.

It was regarding father's age and the increased risk of disease. It is the most extensive study of its kind on mapping the entire human genome and human mutation rates based on 78 Icelandic parent-offspring trios. So they studied and counted them from generation to generation to calculate an accurate rate. Here is a link to the article:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n74...

And then what I was concerned with and particularly interested in was A. Kondrashov's comments on the article that appeared in the same volume. He basically agreed with the results and added comments about how we are at increased risk of disease. If I remember correctly, the rate calculates out to 63.2 new mutations per trio or say, 60 new mutations per generation.

The human genome is 3 billion nucleotides so do the math. Do it for evolutionary timeframes vs. creation. In a creation scenario these mutations would certainly cause an increased risk as we experience it but in the evolutionary scenario it greately exceeds the tolerable limit.

Not sure that was what you were looking for but maybe that helps.
LowellGuy

United States

#110255 Nov 30, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Actually, gravity is theory, except my theory on gravity has no holes like the present theory.
Mine is based on observable facts.
Why were the Mars rovers able to reach the planet and land if our understanding of gravity is fundamentally flawed? If a body doesn't rotate, can it have gravity? How much does rotational rate affect gravitational pull? If something spins at 2000 RPM, is its gravitational pull greater than that of the same body at rest? If so, by what margin? Please show your work. Thanks!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110256 Nov 30, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
It is too bad the Darwinsts have to always subterfuge any attempt to discuss Darwinism or science. Instead they prefer to spend all their energy on false personal attacks and lies. We could have been having an intelligent, civil back and forth discussion of mammalian middle ear evolution, but instead, they have to lie about whether a journal has peer reviewed articles or not. Such a stupid waste of time! Multiply this times all the Darwinists in the world. Such a waste. All due to Darwinism.

It is too bad the Creationists have to always subterfuge any attempt to discuss either Creationism or science. Instead they prefer to spend all their energy on false personal attacks and lies. We could have been having an intelligent, civil back and forth discussion of mammalian middle ear evolution, but instead, they have to lie about whether a journal has peer reviewed articles or not. Such a stupid waste of time! Multiply this times all the Creationists in the world. Such a waste. All due to Creationism.

Yep. I call projection

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110257 Nov 30, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Does the journal Nature publish peer-reviewed scientific articles, Yes or No?

OOh! I can name that fallacy!

False dichotomy.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110258 Nov 30, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not me. I'll tell you right now it does. You're too cowardly to answer it. Afraid your Darwin buddies my be on the hook for your error.

LOL. We have you dead to rights (again).

You lose every time. Selective memory or just faulty.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110259 Nov 30, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No problem.
I am not sure what paper you are referring to but the paper I was talking about was published in Nature July 2012.
It was regarding father's age and the increased risk of disease. It is the most extensive study of its kind on mapping the entire human genome and human mutation rates based on 78 Icelandic parent-offspring trios. So they studied and counted them from generation to generation to calculate an accurate rate. Here is a link to the article:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n74...
And then what I was concerned with and particularly interested in was A. Kondrashov's comments on the article that appeared in the same volume. He basically agreed with the results and added comments about how we are at increased risk of disease. If I remember correctly, the rate calculates out to 63.2 new mutations per trio or say, 60 new mutations per generation.
The human genome is 3 billion nucleotides so do the math. Do it for evolutionary timeframes vs. creation. In a creation scenario these mutations would certainly cause an increased risk as we experience it but in the evolutionary scenario it greately exceeds the tolerable limit.
Not sure that was what you were looking for but maybe that helps.

Humm, so a full genetic turnover in 3,750,000,000 years. That is a bit higher than I would expect, but since some portions of DNA are conserved (highly redundant) maybe that is about right.
Psychology

United States

#110260 Nov 30, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why were the Mars rovers able to reach the planet and land if our understanding of gravity is fundamentally flawed? If a body doesn't rotate, can it have gravity? How much does rotational rate affect gravitational pull? If something spins at 2000 RPM, is its gravitational pull greater than that of the same body at rest? If so, by what margin? Please show your work. Thanks!
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/mai...
Psychology

United States

#110261 Nov 30, 2012
My hypothesis has observed evidence.

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 weather.

According to science, we do not rotate around the sun, we rotate around the barycenter.

Hypothesis by ,--

Jim Ryan 

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#110262 Nov 30, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
You just can't say, ok, your right. Lol
I DID say "you're right" lol.

But I also pointed out something important. When was atomic theory widely accepted as confirmed? LONG before any pictures of atoms were produced. Why? Because it was far and away the best explanation for what was observed!

Likewise, evolution.
Psychology

United States

#110263 Nov 30, 2012
My hypothesis has observed evidence. If you can, refute the evidence.

Earths rotation rate around the barycenter between the earth and sun is about 67,000 miles an hour. Earths spin rate 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 weather.

According to science, we do not rotate around the sun, we rotate around the barycenter.

Hypothesis by ,--

Jim Ryan 

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110264 Nov 30, 2012
Psychology wrote:

You did not answer the questions put to you.


LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why were the Mars rovers able to reach the planet and land if our understanding of gravity is fundamentally flawed? If a body doesn't rotate, can it have gravity? How much does rotational rate affect gravitational pull? If something spins at 2000 RPM, is its gravitational pull greater than that of the same body at rest? If so, by what margin? Please show your work. Thanks!
Psychology

United States

#110265 Nov 30, 2012
Saturn is more than 8 times the distance from the sun, with a very tiny rotational rate. Considering Saturn can fit 750 earths inside its boundaries, newtons 2nd law of distance and gravity, with a tiny rotation rate, explains why Saturn has about the same gravity as earth.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110266 Nov 30, 2012
Psychology wrote:
My hypothesis has observed evidence.

Your "hypothesis" ignores far more evidence than it accounts for. What you have at this point is a notion (and a rather sucky one at that) because it cannot explain even most of the data.

What you have done is called "cherry picking".

To be acceptable as even a hypothesis it has to do AT LEAST as well as the currently accepted theory of gravity (and it does not). It must also explain the relationship between gravity and spin (which it does not). If this is a valid hypothesis you would need to show the relationship (mathematical) between spin and the other known factor affecting gravitation (you have not done that).

Further, a valid hypothesis should be able to generate valid and testable predictions.

When may celestial bodies are looked at it is clearly found that there is no relationship between spin and gravity.
[which is not to say centrifugal and centripetal forces are not at work]

The fact that 100% of gravity can be explained by Einstein (on the macro level) leaves 0% variance to account for. Ergo, no additional effects are needed to account for observed gravity.
Psychology wrote:
According to science, we do not rotate around the sun, we rotate around the barycenter.

So? My nephew is in 7th grade and knows this.
Psychology wrote:
Hypothesis by ,--
Jim Ryan 

Correction,'unsupported notion' by Jim Ryan.

Refutation by Dogen.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110267 Nov 30, 2012
Psychology wrote:
My hypothesis has observed evidence. If you can, refute the evidence.

Refuted 2 minutes ago by Dogen.

You are welcome.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#110268 Nov 30, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Saturn is more than 8 times the distance from the sun, with a very tiny rotational rate. Considering Saturn can fit 750 earths inside its boundaries, newtons 2nd law of distance and gravity, with a tiny rotation rate, explains why Saturn has about the same gravity as earth.
Jim, demonstrate an experiment that could be done to support / refute your hypothesis.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 9 min thetruth 20,740
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 14 min Paul Porter1 172,049
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Chimney1 142,827
Evolutionists are monkeys 2 hr Zog Has-fallen 11
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 9 hr Paul Porter1 306
What Motives Created Social Darwinism? Mon Zog Has-fallen 1
Simulated Evolution in a Computer Program Mon Zog Has-fallen 2
More from around the web