Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180300 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

#154021 Sep 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me give another example that T think will equalize the variables....
Polymath says that a book of purposeful text has more disorder than book full of 0's.
Consider two scenarios.....
Construction team A, composed of novices who have never built anything, is given the assignment to build a house. Materials are provided, along with a book on "How to Build a House".
Construction team B, composed of novices who have never built anything, is given the same task, but instead of a book of instruction, they are given only a book full of 0's.
Construction team A, after a year of labor, completes an decent house.(Lower entropy). However, substantial energy is expended in the process.
Construction team B, after two years of trial and error labor, completes a house that is much less ordered than house A, at a cost of much more energy.
The only difference in these two systems is the provision of instructions. Construction team A obviously resulted in lower entropy (superior house with less energy expended). Yet you guys are claiming that the instructions provided to team A were "less ordered" than those provided to team B.
Please logically explain this dilemma in terms of your concept of order.

?

This does not create a dilemma. What makes you think this is a dilemma?

You demonstrate you don't understand what "ordered" means in context.

There is a false analogy issue as well, but lets not quibble.


Level 2

Since: Sep 13

Mariposa, CA

#154022 Sep 20, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know when you don't know what benefit each mutation resulted in or in what order they occurred?
You are one of the evolutionists who believe that reptiles can transform into birds. Is the fact that you don't know what the selection pressures are and what mutations would have to occur to accomplish this transformation your idea of proof for your mathematically irrational theory?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#154023 Sep 20, 2013
kleinman wrote:
<quoted text>
You are one of the evolutionists who believe that reptiles can transform into birds. Is the fact that you don't know what the selection pressures are and what mutations would have to occur to accomplish this transformation your idea of proof for your mathematically irrational theory?

That which happens must be possible.

IF math demonstrates that reality isn't possible then it is the math that is flawed.

Axiomatic.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#154024 Sep 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me give another example that T think will equalize the variables....
Polymath says that a book of purposeful text has more disorder than book full of 0's.
Consider two scenarios.....
Construction team A, composed of novices who have never built anything, is given the assignment to build a house. Materials are provided, along with a book on "How to Build a House".
Construction team B, composed of novices who have never built anything, is given the same task, but instead of a book of instruction, they are given only a book full of 0's.
Construction team A, after a year of labor, completes an decent house.(Lower entropy). However, substantial energy is expended in the process.
Construction team B, after two years of trial and error labor, completes a house that is much less ordered than house A, at a cost of much more energy.
The only difference in these two systems is the provision of instructions. Construction team A obviously resulted in lower entropy (superior house with less energy expended). Yet you guys are claiming that the instructions provided to team A were "less ordered" than those provided to team B.
Please logically explain this dilemma in terms of your concept of order.
You are being way too nice.

Level 2

Since: Sep 13

Mariposa, CA

#154025 Sep 20, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
If mutation A has spread throughout the population then the probability is 1.
You evolutionists really like to use the term spread which is the incorrect terminology to use to understand what is physically happening. What if your total population is only a small number. Then even if the variant with mutation A spreads completely throughout the small population, the probability that mutation B will occur on a member with mutation A will remain small unless that small population can replicate over many generations. The variant with mutation A must amplify, that is it must increase in number in order to improve the probability that mutation B will fall on a member with mutation A. So how do you compute the probability that mutation B will occur on a member with mutation A? You do it in the same manner as computing the probability that mutation A will occur on some member of a population size n and over m generations.
P(B)= 1 -(1 P(beneficialB)*mu)^mA*nA
where mA is the number of generations that the variant with mutation A replicates, and nA is the number of members of the subpopulation with mutation A. And the joint probability for the two mutations A and B occurring on a subpopulation is
P(A)*P(B)=(1 -(1 P(beneficial)*mu)^m*n)*(1 -(1 P(beneficialB)*mu)^mA*nA)
This joint probability will remain low if the members of the population with mutation A can not amplify (increase in number). This is why combination therapy for the treatment of HIV works (and for every other mutation and selection problem where multiple genes are targeted by selection pressures). Even if a beneficial mutation occurs for one of the selection conditions, the selection condition which target the other gene inhibit the reproduction of that variant.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#154026 Sep 20, 2013
kleinman wrote:
<quoted text>
You evolutionists really like to use the term spread which is the incorrect terminology to use to understand what is physically happening. What if your total population is only a small number. Then even if the variant with mutation A spreads completely throughout the small population, the probability that mutation B will occur on a member with mutation A will remain small unless that small population can replicate over many generations. The variant with mutation A must amplify, that is it must increase in number in order to improve the probability that mutation B will fall on a member with mutation A. So how do you compute the probability that mutation B will occur on a member with mutation A? You do it in the same manner as computing the probability that mutation A will occur on some member of a population size n and over m generations.
P(B)= 1 -(1 P(beneficialB)*mu)^mA*nA
where mA is the number of generations that the variant with mutation A replicates, and nA is the number of members of the subpopulation with mutation A. And the joint probability for the two mutations A and B occurring on a subpopulation is
P(A)*P(B)=(1 -(1 P(beneficial)*mu)^m*n)*(1 -(1 P(beneficialB)*mu)^mA*nA)
This joint probability will remain low if the members of the population with mutation A can not amplify (increase in number). This is why combination therapy for the treatment of HIV works (and for every other mutation and selection problem where multiple genes are targeted by selection pressures). Even if a beneficial mutation occurs for one of the selection conditions, the selection condition which target the other gene inhibit the reproduction of that variant.
Lets say the population is 50,000 and John Doe gets the mutation. Now in one generation(when he is around 20) he gets with no mutation Jane Doe so he has a 50% probability to pass on said mutation same as 50% as not to pass to on. Now this mutation can only be spread by breeding which means it will be confined to only his offspring and if only one of the offspring get the said mutation and two don't then said mutation will not have a good chance to spread.

So in a population of 50,000 John Doe gets the mutation. He passes it to one offspring 20 years later. Lets say 20 years later that one offspring is lucky enough to pass the mutation on to two offspring. 20 years later those two offspring have a 50/50 chance of passing it on. Lets say one passes it on to one and the other passes it on to none. Now we have said mutation in three generations that has only spread to 4 people of now a population of 60,000 being more are generally born than die per generation.

So for said mutation to be spread throughout the population as a whole and take over the population, how many generations will have to pass?
Believer aka Aunt Bee

Manchester, TN

#154028 Sep 20, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the recent, uninterpolated text that replaces the traditional version which, unfortunately, had suffered early interpolation. For a more detailed evaluation of Josephus and his references to Jesus, please see my separate article on Josephus in this series.
External Evidence: Secular
Cornelius Tacitus, one of the most reliable source historians of first-century Rome, wrote in his Annals a year-by-year account of events in the Roman Empire under the early Caesars. Among the highlights that he reports for the year A.D. 64 was the great fire of Rome. People blamed the emperor Nero for this conflagration since it happened "on his watch," but in order to save himself, Nero switched the blame to "the Christians," which is the first time they appear in secular history. Careful historian that he was, Tacitus then explains who "the Christians" were: "Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus" (15:44). He then goes on to report the horrors that were inflicted on the Christians in what became their first Roman persecution.
Tacitus, it should be emphasized, was not some Christian historian who was trying to prove that Jesus Christ really lived, but a pagan who despised Christians as a "disease," a term he uses later in the passage. Had Jesus never even existed, he would have been the first to expose that pathetic phantom on whom such cultists placed their trust. Were no other references to Jesus available, this passage alone would have been sufficient to establish his historicity. Skeptics realize this, and so have tried every imaginable means to discredit this passage—but to no avail. Manuscript analysis and computer studies have never found any reason to call this sentence into question, nor its context.
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus also recorded events of the first century in his famous Lives of the Twelve Caesars. He, too, regarded the Christians as a sect "professing a new and mischievous religious belief" (Nero 16) and doubtless cited "Christus" as well, spelling his name "Chrestus" (Claudius 25). That the vowels "e" and "i" were often interchangeable is demonstrated by the French term for "Christian" to this day:chretien.
Pliny the Younger was the Roman governor of Bithynia—today, the northwestern corner of Turkey—and about the year 110 he wrote the emperor Trajan (98-117 A.D.), asking what to do about the Christians, a "wretched cult" whom he mentions eight times in his letter. Christ himself is cited three times, the most famous instance referring to Christians "...who met on a fixed day to chant verses alternately among themselves in honor of Christ, as if to a god..." (Letter No. 96). Trajan's response, interestingly enough, suggests that Christians not be hunted out.(Ibid., No. 97). But again, if Christ were only a mythical character, these hostile sources would have been the first to emblazon that fact in derision.
Other ancient secular sources, such as Theudas and Mara bar Serapion also bear witness to the historicity of Jesus. But any further evidence clearly comes under the "beating a dead horse" category so far as this article is concerned. Nothing more is necessary in view of the overpowering evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was no myth, but a totally historical figure who truly lived. Skeptics should focus instead on whether or not Jesus wasmore than a man. That, at least, could evoke a reasonable debate among reasonable inquirers, rather than a pointless discussion with sensationalists who struggle to reject the obvious.
This Web site is part of NAMB's major mission objective committed to sharing Christ. More>
Amen! Thank you!

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#154029 Sep 20, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are being way too nice.

I think you mean 'way too stupid'.
Believer aka Aunt Bee

Manchester, TN

#154030 Sep 20, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"H. G. Wells, British writer, 1866-1946
When asked which person left the most permanent impression on history, he replied that judging a person’s greatness by historical standards:
“By this test, Jesus stands first.”
“I am a historian, I am not a believer, but I must confess as a historian that this penniless preacher from Nazareth is irrevocably the very center of history. Jesus Christ is easily the most dominant figure in all history.”
“Christ is the most unique person of history. No man can write a history of the human race without giving first and foremost place to the penniless teacher of Nazareth.”
Kenneth Scott Latourette, former President of American Historic Society
In A History of Christianity:
“It is evidence of His importance, of the effect that He has had upon history and presumably, of the baffling mystery of His being that no other life ever lived on this planet has evoked so huge a volume of literature among so many people and languages, and that, far from ebbing, the flood continues to mount.”
“As the centuries pass by, the evidence is accumulating that measured by its effect on history, Jesus is the most influential life ever lived on this planet. The influence appears to be mounting.”
“No other life lived on this planet has so widely and deeply affected mankind.”
George Bancroft, great American historian
“I find the name of Jesus Christ written on the top of every page of modern history.”"
http://www.why-jesus.com/history.htm
Thank you!

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#154031 Sep 20, 2013
one way or another wrote:
Oh my gosh, docent just guessed off the top of his head, just like the scientists that haha, PREDICT, the future. Lol

Not the future.

Science makes predictions based on theories which are, in turn, based on the data.

One of the hallmarks of a good theory is the ability to make good predictions.

However, I was just using data that I already knew, i.e. the number of galaxies in our local group. I actually was a little low on my estimate of the number of members of our local group.

On further review I made a pretty good estimate of how many galaxies that might fall within the range of being close enough to have blue shifted galaxies. On review several sites I found that the number of Galactic groups in our neighborhood turns out to be 6 within 10 MPC (about 33 million light years). Plus our own that would be 7. Of course that would include dwarf and satellite galaxies most of which have not been detected yet.
Believer aka Aunt Bee

Manchester, TN

#154032 Sep 20, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Your logic is poor a usual.
I completely agree that Jesus existed, but your twisting of historic documents does nothing to prove he existed. All they prove is that there was a group of people who believed he existed.
There are many historic references to followers of Osiris (or any other god you want to insert here). That does not prove they were historic personages.
You see the problem with this sort of "logic"?
Dogen,
I know you are not a Christian, but your respecting Jesus one post and disrespecting him the next reminds me of God referring to lukewarm Christians as making one want to vomit.

Do you believe Jesus Christ lived? Do you believe He was a righteous man. Do you compare Him to Buddha in your religion...are they similar in importance?

I think you need to come out and explain exactly what you believe about Jesus in your religion, if you are going to continue to give us your opinion of Him. Tell us where you are coming from.

At least the Atheists are willing to say they are Atheists. We know where they stand. You, on the other hand appear to be a bit lukewarm on the issue of God/Jesus.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#154033 Sep 20, 2013
Believer aka Aunt Bee wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you!

tsar is only quoting typical Christian apologetics.

If you want to know why:

http://beyondunknowing.wordpress.com/2011/03/...

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/0...

http://www.seanmcdowell.org/index.php/apologe...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#154034 Sep 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me give another example that T think will equalize the variables....
Polymath says that a book of purposeful text has more disorder than book full of 0's.
Consider two scenarios.....
Construction team A, composed of novices who have never built anything, is given the assignment to build a house. Materials are provided, along with a book on "How to Build a House".
Construction team B, composed of novices who have never built anything, is given the same task, but instead of a book of instruction, they are given only a book full of 0's.
Construction team A, after a year of labor, completes an decent house.(Lower entropy). However, substantial energy is expended in the process.
Construction team B, after two years of trial and error labor, completes a house that is much less ordered than house A, at a cost of much more energy.
The only difference in these two systems is the provision of instructions. Construction team A obviously resulted in lower entropy (superior house with less energy expended). Yet you guys are claiming that the instructions provided to team A were "less ordered" than those provided to team B.
Please logically explain this dilemma in terms of your concept of order.
What dilemma? Both teams produced a lot of disorder. One team produced a bit more order in a localized place. Why do you think that has anything at all to do with the thermodynamic properties of either book?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#154035 Sep 20, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
This is not in my line of study but as a guess I would say gravitational force inside a hollow sphere is zero. Referring to the shell theory. And if I remember right to find the force of gravity you also need to know the mass of the object(s).
But as I said it is a guess for this is not my line of study.
Now my turn. Lets say you have a pneumonia patient on a Drager Evita 4 ventilator at RR of 14, an O2 of 95%, an IP of 3 and a Peep of 4.
The ABG comes back as - pH; 7.32, PCO2; 50, PaO2; 80, HCO3; 26, & SaO2-94%. What is the problem and what adjustments to the ventilator do you need to make to fix it?
Not bad at least you have heard of shell theory and that is what is used to solve the problem. But since they do not share a center the answer is nonzero.

And I can't answer your question.

What is neat about the solution to the problem that I gave to you is that the answer does not depend at all about either value of r or R. It does not matter how big the small sphere is or how big the larger sphere is.

The size of the two spheres is a bit of a red herring.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#154036 Sep 20, 2013
Believer aka Aunt Bee wrote:
<quoted text>
Dogen,
I know you are not a Christian, but your respecting Jesus one post and disrespecting him the next reminds me of God referring to lukewarm Christians as making one want to vomit.

Actually I am a Christian. I have never disrespected Jesus. I have been guilty of disrespecting some who claim to be his followers but behave in very unchristian ways.
Believer aka Aunt Bee wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you believe Jesus Christ lived? Do you believe He was a righteous man. Do you compare Him to Buddha in your religion...are they similar in importance?
Yes to all.
Believer aka Aunt Bee wrote:
<quoted text> I think you need to come out and explain exactly what you believe about Jesus in your religion, if you are going to continue to give us your opinion of Him. Tell us where you are coming from.

As this is a scientific forum I prefer to keep the focus on science.
Believer aka Aunt Bee wrote:
<quoted text> At least the Atheists are willing to say they are Atheists. We know where they stand. You, on the other hand appear to be a bit lukewarm on the issue of God/Jesus.

Not at all. But the atheists typically behave more 'Christlike' than many of the "Christians". I do not get flack from the atheists for my beliefs as I do not lorded over them with self righteousness. My Bible seems to be missing the scripture that says science should be rejected and the one that says we should believe myths over verifiable truth.

My difference with you relates to our respective understanding (or lack thereof) of the Bible.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#154037 Sep 20, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
What dilemma? Both teams produced a lot of disorder. One team produced a bit more order in a localized place. Why do you think that has anything at all to do with the thermodynamic properties of either book?

Thank you!

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#154038 Sep 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not disputing that lowering the temperature of a dead body won't slow down decomposition.
The problem is that when a person dies of hypothermia, the result of lowered body temperature is immediate and dramaatic decomposition... that contradicts Polymath's interpretation of the SLoT equations.
Prove it, there are many tales of revival from death after time that would have otherwise produced brain damage. Because the temperature was freezing or close too it.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#154040 Sep 20, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it, there are many tales of revival from death after time that would have otherwise produced brain damage. Because the temperature was freezing or close too it.
HTS also needs to look at when a donor organ is transported, it is put on ice/kept cold to minimize breakdown of the tissue.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#154043 Sep 20, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
HTS also needs to look at when a donor organ is transported, it is put on ice/kept cold to minimize breakdown of the tissue.
Not a bad point. HST is a fool to argue thermodynamics with an expert. Polymath knows his stuff.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#154044 Sep 20, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>How is it that your version or 'take' on Christianity is any more right then the people quoted in my post??

Do you have special, or any, qualifications that allow you to say with confidence that they are wrong and you are right??

I don't think you do....
Yes.

The Hubble space telescope has enabled astronomers to identify the oldest known star whose age we can reliably estimate.

With a birthdate around 14.5 billion years ago and a margin for error of 0.8 billion years (depending on how youthful the star wishes to appear to others), HD 140283 has been given the slightly more memory-friendly name "the Methuselah star", a reference to the oldest person to ever live according to the Bible.

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
Womans Birth Cycle absolutely Proves Design and... 6 min Rose_NoHo 75
The Design of Time is Prophecy and is absolute ... 7 min Rose_NoHo 31
News Evolution debate vote (Mar '09) 19 min WELL SAID 3,404
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 38 min Samuel Patre 168,005
What's your religion? (Sep '17) 2 hr was auch immer 1,162
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 5 hr Wisdom of Ages 6,061
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 hr MIDutch 93,434