Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 178,093

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." Read more

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#153383 Sep 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Which of the following Cases would be abiogenesis or vertical evolution:
To expand on the entropy equations:
A = High order energy;
B = Low order energy;
C = High order matter; and
D = Low order matter.
Please explain what you mean by 'high order energy' and 'low order energy'.

Now, typically heat is considered to be 'low order', but that is because of the random motion of the molecules, not a property of the energy itself. High order matter would be, say, a crystal, right? Biological materials would be at best intermediate ordered, with liquids less ordered, and gases the least (maybe plasmas?).

If these are NOT what you mean, you need to give some precise definitions of what you *do* mean. Are crystals ordered? Why or why not? Is an ice crystal more or less ordered than a corresponding amount of liquid water? Why or why not? Why do you consider biological tissues ordered?

And what does this have to do with entropy? Remember the thermodynamic definition of entropy: dS=dQ/T where dS is the change in entropy, dQ is the reversible change in internal heat, and T is the temperature.

If you wish, you could relate it instead to the statistical mechanics definition as k ln(N) where k is Boltzmann's constant and N is the number of available quantum states.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#153384 Sep 18, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is why I said 13.4billion-ABBT (ABBT=After Big Bang Theory) lol I actually said million but meant billion
Fair enough. I was wondering.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#153385 Sep 18, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Noone counts down?? What came after, oh lets say 1267BC? Uhm yes that would be 1266BC,,,, other words going down dolt!!
But nobody in 1267BC used a date of 1267BC to describe themselves.

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#153386 Sep 18, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Read the book.
Already did. It's a fantasy story.

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#153387 Sep 18, 2013
You just don't have answers for my questions.

Like, the Old Testament was written for the Jews. Why do Christians follow it at all? And if they claim to follow its laws, why do they always ignore the Leviticus 11 part?

Not to mention the Leviticus 19:27 part - "You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard."

Horoscopes and fortune cookies - Leviticus 19:31 - "Do not turn to mediums or spiritists; do not seek them out to be defiled by them. I am the Lord your God."

No tattoos - Leviticus 19:28 - "You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord."

Polyester - Leviticus 19:19 - "You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together."

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#153388 Sep 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Chimney and Poly tail-tucked and ran. The TOE VIOLATES the SLoT. End of story.

LOL. I get tired of explaining the same things to you over and over as well.

You still can't fathom why there are comets if the solar system is 4.5 billion years old and I am I can explain it to someone who is intellectually challenged and have them understand it.

If TOE violates the SLoT then that would make the SLoT wrong. You are far closer to refuting thermodynamics than evolution.


Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#153389 Sep 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
But nobody in 1267BC used a date of 1267BC to describe themselves.
Maybe he thinks they found coins with the date 1267BC. Doesn't he know the world is only 6,000yo?
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#153390 Sep 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>Oh honey, you don't even know what evidence is.
You didn't even read the evidence so further comments from you are nothing but ridicules statements of ignorance.
But I'm sure you're use to bellowing worthless crap.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#153391 Sep 18, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>The only evidence you had, was flushed by the next person.
Because you forgot to dispose of properly.
A-Myth if you have nothing it's ok to just stay quite.

Keep your mouth shut and keep the world wondering.

You choose to open wide up and show the world your ignorance.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#153392 Sep 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Please explain what you mean by 'high order energy' and 'low order energy'.
Now, typically heat is considered to be 'low order', but that is because of the random motion of the molecules, not a property of the energy itself. High order matter would be, say, a crystal, right? Biological materials would be at best intermediate ordered, with liquids less ordered, and gases the least (maybe plasmas?).
If these are NOT what you mean, you need to give some precise definitions of what you *do* mean. Are crystals ordered? Why or why not? Is an ice crystal more or less ordered than a corresponding amount of liquid water? Why or why not? Why do you consider biological tissues ordered?
And what does this have to do with entropy? Remember the thermodynamic definition of entropy: dS=dQ/T where dS is the change in entropy, dQ is the reversible change in internal heat, and T is the temperature.
If you wish, you could relate it instead to the statistical mechanics definition as k ln(N) where k is Boltzmann's constant and N is the number of available quantum states.
I already explained all this. Don't you read? Now tell me how entropy of a plant or animal can be decreased to allow for continual vertical evolution.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#153393 Sep 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. I get tired of explaining the same things to you over and over as well.
You still can't fathom why there are comets if the solar system is 4.5 billion years old and I am I can explain it to someone who is intellectually challenged and have them understand it.
If TOE violates the SLoT then that would make the SLoT wrong. You are far closer to refuting thermodynamics than evolution.
{{{ W-h-a-t }}}??????

You are a friggin' certified suitcase Dogen!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#153394 Sep 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You state that humans are apes, along with gorillas, chimps, etc.
However, you say humans did not DESCEND from apes.
What was homo erectus? You're saying homo erectus was NOT an ape?

Home erectus was also an ape.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> You say that gorillas have complex emotions... Of course they are complex.
However, their minds are less complex than a human mind.

Complex is relative. Mind is difficult to define. So you made a statement that I cannot evaluate logically without further definition.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> All life is complex. However, there are different levels of complexity.

Again, you are using words that have no absolute meaning. Complexity is a concept.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to have trouble grasping that.
You keep dodging the issue.
I stated that a human mind is more complex than an chimp's mind.
You can't bear to admit that, because ou can't deal with the evolution of complexity.

You are into philosophy here.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I made the challenge to document a single example of a mutation resulting in increased intelligence.

At present time we have no way of documenting the billions of mutations that have effected our genome and what each mutation has done and how all those mutations have interacted with each other and.... So your "challenge" is actually a farce. It is as if I suggested physics cannot prove nuclear power because they cannot document what each atom is doing at every moment in a reaction.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> The only response I got was from Chimney, who suggested Tay Sachs,...
Disregarding the fact that homozygous infants with the Tay Sach's mutation die in infancy, Chimney failed to document that the mutation had anything to do with the slightly enhanced intelligence of carriers.
So I take it that you have NO EVENDENCE that intelligence can evolve into greater complexity.
You just dogmatically accept that evolutiondidit.

You have added nothing here. It is the same old creation fallacies. Essentially you claim evolution is false because blabs are evidence for blapes but not blahahs. Fine. I refute creationism with the color purple. I challenge you to prove purple does not refute creationism.

This stuff is simple enough for a child to understand. Only someone who has already made up their mind to refuse to believe it can fail to do so.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#153395 Sep 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>The period of very rapid expansion happened very early on, well before galaxies appeared. In fact, it happened well before the age of nucleosynthesis. It did leave its mark on the background radiation.

We see distant galaxies as they were in the past (because it takes time for light to travel) and they were not moving faster than light at that point in the past with respect to us.

The observable universe is that part of the universe that we can actually have causal contact with. Many of the distant galaxies we see would NOW be farther away and outside of that causal contact. Those would now be moving faster than light relative to us.

[QUOTE]Again the expansion is speeding up not slowing down so what we're at warp 2 or 3 now?
"

You really don't understand the basics of relativity do you? We are at local rest. Other galaxies are at *their* local rest. Space itself is expanding, dragging the galaxies with it. And yes, that expansion is accelerating. But the galaxies close enough for us to see were moving slower than the speed of light with respect to us when they emitted the light we now see (otherwise the light wouldn't catch up to us).
So how does light catch up to us from a star 14.8 billion light years away at the time the light we are observing right now was just leaving the star. In 14.8 billion years moving faster then light that star could be millions of light years away from us now. One would think the red shift would be so radical that we would not even see it.

Oh one more thing why is the Andromeda Galaxy on a collision course with the Milky Way Galaxy?
How is this possible when everything started flying apart 13.7 billion years ago at faster then light speeds ?

These galaxy's are expanding with space yet this rather perplexing problem?

Doesn't seem possible with you explanation up above does it?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#153396 Sep 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
{{{ W-h-a-t }}}??????
You are a friggin' certified suitcase Dogen!

Not at all. We have more lines of observed evidence from more fields for evolution than for SLoT therefor you have refuted the SLoT.

Easy peasey.

I notice you called me a name but did not address your own refutation of the SLoT.


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. I get tired of explaining the same things to you over and over as well.
You still can't fathom why there are comets if the solar system is 4.5 billion years old and I am I can explain it to someone who is intellectually challenged and have them understand it.
If TOE violates the SLoT then that would make the SLoT wrong. You are far closer to refuting thermodynamics than evolution.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#153397 Sep 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I already explained all this. Don't you read? Now tell me how entropy of a plant or animal can be decreased to allow for continual vertical evolution.

Making up terms is not an explanation.

If you cannot provide valid scientific definitions for your terms then you are not even engaging is a reasoned philosophical debate.

Did you tell Pollymath the good news that you refuted the SLoT?

You have till February to submit your Nobel Prize nomination. Don't wait till the last minute.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#153398 Sep 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>So it could be as young as 13.7 billion years (based on the error margin) and the Universe could be as old as 13.835 billion years old (also based on the current best estimate of the age + margin of error).

Not a problem even if we ignore the technical explanation.
You don't see any problem?
Like there was the Big Bang and instantly there were stars?

Oh come on.....

It took billion of years after the Big Bang for stars to form.

Read a book and learn SOMETHING!

“Move into the light.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#153399 Sep 18, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
A-Myth if you have nothing it's ok to just stay quite.
Keep your mouth shut and keep the world wondering.
You choose to open wide up and show the world your ignorance.
Yeah, but you're the one with a mouth full of shit.
I'll never stay "quiet", you dunderhead with a mouthful of cocky doodle. I will never be quite what you expect, you freaking shit for brains.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#153400 Sep 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
Are crystals ordered? Why or why not? Is an ice crystal more or less ordered than a corresponding amount of liquid water? Why or why not?
A little. As I've said 5 times today, they are just external manifestations of the internal ice molecules. Plus they are close-ended. Once a crystal forms, that's it. It goes no further. So don't go there, it isn't an argument. Plus the ice releases heat energy when the snowflake forms. THis is the opposite of what you require for evolution, which is suppose to absorb heat energy to form life or continuously evolve.
polymath257 wrote:
Why do you consider biological tissues ordered?
And what does this have to do with entropy?
Yes. Very highly ordered.
polymath257 wrote:
Remember the thermodynamic definition of entropy: dS=dQ/T where dS is the change in entropy, dQ is the reversible change in internal heat, and T is the temperature.
If you wish, you could relate it instead to the statistical mechanics definition as k ln(N) where k is Boltzmann's constant and N is the number of available quantum states.
Of course since we are dealing with order and information issues we use Bolzmann's. I could give you the complete derivation of his equations if need be.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#153401 Sep 18, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't even read the evidence so further comments from you are nothing but ridicules statements of ignorance.
But I'm sure you're use to bellowing worthless crap.

What I stated was a fact. None of what you offered is scientific evidence.

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

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

If you can present anything remotely resembling actual scientific evidence I will be glad to reconsider.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#153402 Sep 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. We have more lines of observed evidence from more fields for evolution than for SLoT therefor you have refuted the SLoT.
Easy peasey.
I notice you called me a name but did not address your own refutation of the SLoT.
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. I get tired of explaining the same things to you over and over as well.
You still can't fathom why there are comets if the solar system is 4.5 billion years old and I am I can explain it to someone who is intellectually challenged and have them understand it.
If TOE violates the SLoT then that would make the SLoT wrong. You are far closer to refuting thermodynamics than evolution.
SLot isn't wrong. TOE is wrong.

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) 4 min dirtclod 154,643
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 2 hr Chimney1 901
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Dogen 17,917
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Thu Dogen 1,714
News Another Successful Prediction of Intelligent De... Thu MikeF 1
News Intelligent Design: Corey Lee Wed Paul Porter1 1
News Evolution debate vote (Mar '09) Mar 25 MikeF 3,394
More from around the web