Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180369 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.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#145497 Aug 3, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
According to who? You? LOL! And isn't it true that the secular community does exactly the same thing? All results are expected to conform with evolution, right? Hypocrite. And you've been told this many times but still continue to spread these lies. But in this case, the research regarding the winding problem is well documented in the secular press. Why didn't you mention that? Why do you have to be such a bigoted gas-bag all the time?

You are missing the big picture. All the results DO conform with evolution.

There simply is NO "winding problem". This idea is from the 1960's. TODAY there are 2 theories for the formation of spiral galaxies and in NEITHER is winding an issue. Can we move on the the issue of the mountain gnome problem now?
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#145498 Aug 3, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Actually it's called the
Galaxy rotation curve, problem.
Related, but different perspective. The GRC is a problem because the curve's observed velocity does not decrease with distance from the center. Instead, it is the same regardless of distance. This is not what Newtonian physics would predict. Normally, Newtonian motion would predict that the velocity would decrease with distance but this is not the case with galaxies. I guess this is also what should cause the spiral to wind up in a short period of time. Based on calculations based on observed velocities, in about 10 million years maximum. So is a huge problem for evolution, because as far as we can see in the farthest reaches of the universe we see young spiral galaxies and none of them are wound up yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_...
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#145499 Aug 3, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
If you can prove an instance of my story changing that would be very enlightening.
Remember, you have tried to do this a few times and you always end up with and egg facial.
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I have been studying religion (my favorite area of study is the birth and early development of Christianity) as well as science since I was a teen. I spent time as a fundy/creationist.
With that in mind when I call a creationist a liar I don't really mean that in the common sense that they are lying to ME. What I really mean is that they are lying to themselves and I use the word "liar" to attempt to draw their attention to that fact.
I generally use the word right after I have demonstrated that something they believed is incorrect.
I hope that helps, liar.
I COULD if I wanted to. For years you were a Buddhist, remember? Now your latest schtick is to be a reformed fundy. You're so full of it Dogen.

AussiPino
Level 5

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#145500 Aug 3, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure they are. You don't need religion to be moral. Why do you think murder and theft are universally illegal in human societies? What morals do you really think come directly from religion as opposed to basic reasoning skills?
Watch this, then try again: http://youtu.be/WJl1mpTqj-o
I know that people don't need religion to be moral. What I was getting at was that people these days TEND to be more selfish compared to a couple of generations ago. People are less-giving - self-interest has been more prevalent lately.

In regards to Sunday Church, at the very least it provides some reiteration on how to treat others, as how you want them to treat you etc. Sometimes people need a reminder-pointer to keep them in line with basic etiquette and courtesy.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#145501 Aug 3, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You are missing the big picture. All the results DO conform with evolution.
There simply is NO "winding problem". This idea is from the 1960's. TODAY there are 2 theories for the formation of spiral galaxies and in NEITHER is winding an issue. Can we move on the the issue of the mountain gnome problem now?
Last time I check, the laws of physics hasn't changed any since the 1960s. And evolutionist made up, just-so stories to compensate for reality and force fit it to rescue does not solve the problem. It usually just makes it worse.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#145502 Aug 3, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Related, but different perspective. The GRC is a problem because the curve's observed velocity does not decrease with distance from the center. Instead, it is the same regardless of distance. This is not what Newtonian physics would predict. Normally, Newtonian motion would predict that the velocity would decrease with distance but this is not the case with galaxies. I guess this is also what should cause the spiral to wind up in a short period of time. Based on calculations based on observed velocities, in about 10 million years maximum. So is a huge problem for evolution, because as far as we can see in the farthest reaches of the universe we see young spiral galaxies and none of them are wound up yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_...
Funny, nobody has ever said that one before. It's a problem for gravity, not for evolution. I don't even see how that connection can be made, it doesn't change the age of the universe one damn bit. I suggest you take a looksy, and don't let your vanity get in the way.

http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/videos_science.html
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#145503 Aug 3, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, this is true for some kinds. As an example let me point out Creationist intellect, which regresses to a simpler state with each passing generation. In a million years we might have chimp analogs indignantly protesting that they did not evolve from Creationists.
It should be funny to me that you mock and scoff instead of facing the truth and accepting that the basic idea of evolution is worth viewing as a sham, but inaccurate claims are never brought out from under the rug by fibbers.
One way or another

United States

#145504 Aug 3, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you measure intelligence? Einstein was brilliant but it is said he couldn't tie his shoes or drive a car... Oh no... I just unleashed the google hounds again...
If you can't show just cause, then your claim has no validity.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#145505 Aug 3, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
According to who? You? LOL! And isn't it true that the secular community does exactly the same thing?
Why do you keep saying "secular community"?

The VAST MAJORITY of people who accept the Theory of Evolution, an old Earth and an ancient Cosmos as the best scientific explanations we have of the reality around us are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Confucianists, Daoists, Shinto, Pagans, Wiccans, etc..

In fact, the VAST majority of SCIENTISTS who accept the Theory of Evolution, an old Earth and an ancient Cosmos as the best scientific explanations we have of the reality around us are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Confucianists, Daoists, Shinto, Pagans, Wiccans, etc..

You know, RELIGIOUS peoples. Ones who believe in God[s]. Ones who don't have a problem with being devoutly religious AND understanding science.

Why do you keep lying and trying to make it sound like a "debate" between only Christians and atheists? The "debate" is between a minority bronze age, fairy tale cult of "fundamentalist xristians and muslims" and pretty much EVERYBODY else.

You'll note that I put the word "debate" in quotations, because outside of your bronze age fairy tale cult there is NO debate as to whether the ToE is a valid scientific theory or not AND whether you "fundamentalist xristians and muslims" are a dangerous laughing stock or not.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#145506 Aug 3, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>It should be funny to me that you mock and scoff instead of facing the truth and accepting that the basic idea of evolution is worth viewing as a sham, but inaccurate claims are never brought out from under the rug by fibbers.
Wow. Delusional much?
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#145507 Aug 3, 2013
MIDutch wrote:
Why do you keep lying and trying to make it sound like a "debate" between only Christians and atheists?
I never claimed that you lying douchebag.
One way or another

United States

#145508 Aug 3, 2013
imagine2011 wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that most posters here are highly intelligent and each knows something in depth about a special area.
I also notice that they do not curse very much at all, which is another sign of a higher IQ.


Then according to your words, it takes name calling to be of a higher IQ? Do you understand the constant derision by the evos, as a group?

You and defender seem to think that you are smart because you say they are smart, as neither of you can show proof.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#145509 Aug 3, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>It should be funny to me that you mock and scoff instead of facing the truth and accepting that the basic idea of evolution is worth viewing as a sham, but inaccurate claims are never brought out from under the rug by fibbers.

"inaccurate claims are never brought out from under the rug by fibbers"

Why not, you um...just did.
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#145510 Aug 3, 2013
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>Wow. Delusional much?
Yes, the evolutionist have a mistaken belief! Who knew?
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#145511 Aug 3, 2013
Here the spiral galaxy winding problem is acknowledged in Scientific American, a vehemently pro-evolution popular magazine:

"The basic physics of why galaxies have spirals is known, but the details remain controversial, sometimes intensely so. Spirals exist only among flattened or 'disk' galaxies. These galaxies are differentially rotating--that is, the time to complete a full rotation increases with distance from the center. Differential rotation causes any disturbance in the disk to wind up into a spiral form. The trouble with this simple explanation is that the differential rotation would cause spiral features to wind up too quickly, so galaxies would not look like spirals for any appreciable length of time."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...
One way or another

United States

#145512 Aug 3, 2013
Imagine 2011

How many times must those who believe, get hit over the head by a group of people working together, before they understand?

Most of the evos posts are laced with childishness. How is it you miss all that?

You are arguing with a group of children.
Mugwump

Leeds, UK

#145513 Aug 3, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Here the spiral galaxy winding problem is acknowledged in Scientific American, a vehemently pro-evolution popular magazine:
"The basic physics of why galaxies have spirals is known, but the details remain controversial, sometimes intensely so. Spirals exist only among flattened or 'disk' galaxies. These galaxies are differentially rotating--that is, the time to complete a full rotation increases with distance from the center. Differential rotation causes any disturbance in the disk to wind up into a spiral form. The trouble with this simple explanation is that the differential rotation would cause spiral features to wind up too quickly, so galaxies would not look like spirals for any appreciable length of time."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...
And the it DIRECTLY following your quote

"The second important piece of physics for understanding spiral structure is that the stars and gas in the disk of the galaxy exert an appreciable gravitational force. That force helps maintain the spiral form against the tendency to wind up. Almost everyone agrees on this basic physics."
Mugwump

Leeds, UK

#145514 Aug 3, 2013
Sorry, in above it = bit
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#145515 Aug 3, 2013
Sometimes the simplest of observations produces the stickiest of dilemmas. Take, for instance, a well-formed spiral galaxy, of which there are a great many. When astronomers measure the circumferential velocities of the stars, as they circle around the galaxy's hub, they find that all the stars orbit at about the same velocity, regardless of how far out from the hub they are. Their speeds do not drop off with increasing distance, as the velocities of the planets do in the solar system. This observation is anomalous itself, because it seems that the laws of orbital motion have been violated. We will save this anomaly for another day, the one we are after now is called: The Winding Dilemma. N. Comins and L. Marschall elaborate as follows:

"Stars closer to the center of a spiral galaxy don't have as far to go to complete an orbit as stars located farther from the center. Thus, inner stars should orbit more frequently than outer stars, resulting in a spiral that gradually winds up as the galaxy ages. But observations of spiral galaxies at various distances -- and thus at different stages in their evolution -- have shown that this is not the case. Astronomers believe density waves, stochastic star formation, or perhaps a combination of both processes may sustain or regenerate the spiral pattern."

Density waves have recently been applied to explain the spiral rings of Saturn, and now to the arms of spiral galaxies. The density waves are thought to stimulate the condensation of bright new stars as they move through space. A good analogy is the bioluminescent wake of ship in tropical waters. The density waves in a galaxy maintain the spiral pattern with new stars, while the old stars die out (in much less time than it takes for them to orbit the hub) as they orbit out of the spiral pattern.

Postulating density waves just raises more questions, as is often the case in science. What causes the density waves? Theory says that the density waves should damp out in under a billion years, yet we see spiral galaxies over a wide range of ages.

(Comins, Neil, and Marscall, Laurence; "How Do Spiral Galaxies Spiral?" Astronomy, 15:7, December 1987.)

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf055/sf055p...
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#145516 Aug 3, 2013
Take a look through your telescope at our local universe, and you’ll find lots of beautiful, grand-design spirals. Messier objects M51, M81, and M101 all come to mind — perhaps M101 especially because of the supernova that exploded there last year. But if your telescope reached a bit further than our cosmic backyard, you would find that these elegant spiral disks gradually give way to clumpy, irregularly shaped galaxies. So when astronomers found a grand-design spiral gleaming from the universe when it was only 3 billion years old, they were pleasantly shocked.

Despite its great distance, the spiral design of the galaxy Q2343-BX442 is clear in observations by the Hubble Space Telescope and the Keck II Telescope in Hawaii. Measurements made with Keck’s OSIRIS spectrograph confirm that the arms are indeed rotating around a central bulge, so the apparent spiral shape doesn’t result from a chance alignment of two disk-shaped galaxies, the study’s authors conclude in the July 19th Nature.

By all appearances, BX442 is a pretty normal galaxy. With a diameter of 52,000 light-years, the spiral is roughly half the size of the Milky Way. The arms churn out stars at a rate 30 times higher than our galaxy’s neighbors, but these high rates are comparable to other star-forming clumps in the ancient universe.



Grand design spiral
The artist's illustration above is based on this false-color image of BX442, which combines observations taken by the Hubble Space Telescope and the Keck Observatory in Hawaii.(The real image is slightly tilted compared to the artist's illustration.)

David Law / Dunlap Insitute for Astronomy & Astrophysics
The only thing that’s not normal about BX442 is the fact that it exists. The galaxy is the only one with a regular spiral shape out of 306 galaxies the team examined with Hubble, all of which lie a similar distance away. Astronomers think spiral patterns are rare in the early universe because newly formed galaxies tend to be turbulent and therefore unfriendly to organized structure. Many of a galaxy’s stars will circle the nucleus in well-behaved elliptical orbits, but other stars will follow random paths that don’t match the galaxy’s overall rotation. As a result, the galaxy becomes “puffy,” making it difficult to shepherd the stars and gas into a spiral pattern.

But BX442 is puffy, the Keck spectroscopic observations reveal. So how did the fluffy galaxy arrange its gas and stars into such sweeping spiral arms? Based on computer simulations, the authors suggest that the gravitational pull of a passing dwarf galaxy (seen to the upper left of BX442 in the image) may have disrupted the galaxy in just the right way to form the spiral pattern. The catch is that the spirality is therefore short-lived, lasting less than 100 million years in the simulation, which might explain why spirals are so hard to find in the early universe.

A galaxy’s disk must be relatively stable to start with if you want to make a spiral, says James Bullock (University of California, Irvine), an expert in galaxy evolution not involved in the study. Last year, Bullock and his colleagues suggested that the Milky Way’s spiral structure might result from its interaction with the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy. Stable galaxies that interact with a neighbor in just the right way to form spiral arms are exceptional in the early universe, he says.“Law and his colleagues seem to have found one of these rare gems!”

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/Ancient-G...

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
Bible 'Science' Verses opposing the Evolution R... 1 min Science 157
Evolution is boring as Hell 5 min Eagle 12 - 13
SEX did not EVOLVE 32 min 15th Dalai Lama 143
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 50 min Into The Night 83,164
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr lightbeamrider 223,024
Golden Section in our DNA again proves DESIGN 2 hr Reb Bacchus 42
Evolution is a racist doctrine 4 hr Rose_NoHo 52
More from around the web