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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#154667 Sep 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>How do you explain the fact that a book with information in it enables a human being to decrease entropy?
This will blow your mind....

3 books.

1 with just zeroes
1 with english text
1 with a completely random series of letters

That LAST one has the most entropy - there is no order- and the most information! Why? Because its incompressible. In order to reproduce it exactly, you must repeat the whole thing. Its all information! On the other hand the english text is partially compressible and so carries less information. And the zero book is hugely compressible. You know the whole contents just by saying "50000 zeroes in a row".

The universe is getting more information rich as the entropy increases. I have a feeling this is not going to sit well with you.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#154668 Sep 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
That's your paradigm. "Microscopic" =/= "atomic/molecular".
In biology, "microscopic" is used for cytology, histology, etc.
If you are interested in applying the SLoT, then microscopic means atomic/molecular. Yes, different areas of science have different uses of the same words. To be consistent, you have to use the appropriate definition. For thermodynamics and SLoT considerations, microscopic means soemthing different than for microbiology considerations. For SLoT, thermodynamics consiserations are the ones required.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#154669 Sep 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
That's ridiculous. There are NO MOLECULAR FORCES known that can produce a genetic code. There are binding affinities.
yes, binding affinities. Those *are* molecular forces. And they are what drive the construction of DNA.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#154670 Sep 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>How do you explain the fact that a book with information in it enables a human being to decrease entropy?
It enables a human being to decrease entropy in a local situation while increasing entropy overall. That is mechanism, which is irrelevant to SLoT.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#154671 Sep 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The amount of free movement in a DNA molecule is, as in ice, around fixed locations. You haven't explained that when you consider the sequences of nucleotides, the number of microstates sharply drops. However, in ice the water molecules themselves can be rearranged in MANY different ways.
And so can the nucleotides in the DNA.
How much entropy is added to DNA when you factor in vibration around fixed points?
Quite a bit.
How much order is added to DNA when you factor in the positions of the nucelotides themselves?
Comparatively little.
Consider a DNA molecule with 100,000 nucleotides. If you discount vibration, etc., how many configurations of those nucleotides can be achieved without changing the macrostate... not very many.
Wrong. There are only 4 types of nucleotides: ATCG. Of that 100,000, about a quarter are of each type. So any of the A's can be interchanged with any of the other A's. Similarly, any of the G's can be interchanged with any of the other G's. The results will be absolutely identical, just as the interchange of water molecules in ice.
Consider an ice crystal with 100,000 water molecules. If you discount vibration around fixed points, how many configurations of those water molecules can be made with out changing the macrostate?
50^100,000.
how in the world do you get this number? The best answer would be something like the factorial of 100,000, which is much larger. But then, the arrangements of the nucleotides in DNA with 100,000 nucleotides would give about the fourth power of 25,000 factorial.
Now let's factor in the vibration: Does the increased entropy resultant from the vibration of nucleotides around fixed points erase the order achieved by the position of individual nucelotides? Not even close...
Wrong. The number of vibrational micro-states is much, much larger.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#154672 Sep 24, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Now the book of 50000 zeroes is, strangely enough, of far lower entropy than a complex message such as english text according to wiki. Time to realise that intricate complexity is not the same thing as "low entropy"!
In fact, complexity in this sense is associated with intermediate entropy.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#154673 Sep 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
yes, binding affinities. Those *are* molecular forces. And they are what drive the construction of DNA.
Life is not possible by random sequences of nucelotides.
There are no molecular forces known that could result in a genetic code.
Dr. Charles B. Thaxton, a physical chemist, wrote,
"No one to daye has published data indicating that bonding preferences could have had any role in coding the DNA molecules"

You're comparing a monkey typing random keys to a monkey typing Shakespeare.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#154674 Sep 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. There are only 4 types of nucleotides: ATCG. Of that 100,000, about a quarter are of each type. So any of the A's can be interchanged with any of the other A's. Similarly, any of the G's can be interchanged with any of the other G's. The results will be absolutely identical, just as the interchange of water molecules in ice.
.
OK, I stand corrected...
You've just reduced the probability down from 50^-100,000 to
50^-25000 Feel free to correct my math...

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#154675 Sep 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>How do you explain the fact that a book with information in it enables a human being to decrease entropy?
As a non-sequitur&#8206;. A compass or a map doesn't make 200 steps any more or less than 200 steps. Learning that a burning coal is hot doesn't make it any more or less hot - the information did not increase or decrease entropy in any way. A bit of information is not an action, it is merely datum.
Beyond that, even your "human being to decrease entropy" fails. When the human works to decrease entropy in one way, he increased it in another. Your freezer produced and relocated more heat to make your snowflake than it extracted from the water. Newtonian TAANSTAFL.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#154676 Sep 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And so can the nucleotides in the DNA.
<quoted text>
Quite a bit.
<quoted text>
Comparatively little.
<quoted text>
Wrong. There are only 4 types of nucleotides: ATCG. Of that 100,000, about a quarter are of each type. So any of the A's can be interchanged with any of the other A's. Similarly, any of the G's can be interchanged with any of the other G's. The results will be absolutely identical, just as the interchange of water molecules in ice.
<quoted text>
how in the world do you get this number? The best answer would be something like the factorial of 100,000, which is much larger. But then, the arrangements of the nucleotides in DNA with 100,000 nucleotides would give about the fourth power of 25,000 factorial.
<quoted text>
Wrong. The number of vibrational micro-states is much, much larger.
Here is the fundamental question that you have not addressed...
Considering only the positions of nucleotides, how many microstates do you believe exist in a FUNCTIONAL DNA molecule 100,000 nucleotides in length? The whole of abiogenesis hinges on that question...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#154677 Sep 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Life is not possible by random sequences of nucelotides.
There are no molecular forces known that could result in a genetic code.
Dr. Charles B. Thaxton, a physical chemist, wrote,
"No one to daye has published data indicating that bonding preferences could have had any role in coding the DNA molecules"
You're comparing a monkey typing random keys to a monkey typing Shakespeare.
What has been shown is that natural selection had a role in "coding" the DNA molecule.

Why do you always quote people who are out of their depth?

Oh yeah, because you have nothing.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#154678 Sep 24, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
This will blow your mind....
3 books.
1 with just zeroes
1 with english text
1 with a completely random series of letters
That LAST one has the most entropy - there is no order- and the most information! Why? Because its incompressible. In order to reproduce it exactly, you must repeat the whole thing. Its all information! On the other hand the english text is partially compressible and so carries less information. And the zero book is hugely compressible. You know the whole contents just by saying "50000 zeroes in a row".
The universe is getting more information rich as the entropy increases. I have a feeling this is not going to sit well with you.
Do you have a reference to back up your definition of information in terms of data compression? Boltzmann's equation of entropy defines order in terms of numbers of microstates. Logically explain to me why a similar definition cannot be applied in the context of books.
A book of zeros contains no information. Can you, an intelligent human being, increase order by reading a book of zeros?
No, but you can increase order by reading a book on how to build a house.
By the way, John Sanford has said that DNA has data compression.

Here's a question for you and/or Polymath...

Suppose I was in a math class and I turned in homework that was exactly like someone else's in the math class. Suppose that my professor accused me of copying.
My response is that there is no mathematical justification for his conclusion that I didn't come up with my homework on my own, and that order cannot be assessed ex post facto. What is the mathematical law that prohibits two people from ending up with the same result on a test? In a similar manner, what is the mathematical law that prohibits a monkey from typing a book of quantum mechanics?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#154679 Sep 24, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
As a non-sequitur&#8206;. A compass or a map doesn't make 200 steps any more or less than 200 steps. Learning that a burning coal is hot doesn't make it any more or less hot - the information did not increase or decrease entropy in any way. A bit of information is not an action, it is merely datum.
Beyond that, even your "human being to decrease entropy" fails. When the human works to decrease entropy in one way, he increased it in another. Your freezer produced and relocated more heat to make your snowflake than it extracted from the water. Newtonian TAANSTAFL.
We are not talking about molecular entropy... we are talking about order above the level of molecules. Do you deny that macromolecular order exists? Why is it that intelligence can create macromolecular order and non-intelligent forces cannot? Information allows order to be created.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#154680 Sep 24, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
And now you are even looking more silly by bringing religion in to the discussion. Not on link I provided out of the three had anything to do with religion. Which falls back on what the creationists always say, when you are confronted with something that disagrees with what you believe, you always throw religion in there to clutter the conversation and you just proved that to a TEE!!!!!!!!!!

I missed the religion portion of the post.


Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Energy from the sun radiates out into space at night. A closed or open system is determined by the energy available to enter and leave the system.
Only creatards will not acknowledge the truth of this simplicity.
Matter is bombarded from space it's impact is known on all planets, the influx of space dust everyday is ENORMOUS.
Creatards do not allow it, despite its continual occurrence.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#154681 Sep 24, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I gave the source/link form what science says. If you say it is wrong that is ok but it is science that you claim to be infallible or at most correct when it comes to evolution. So if you question science here why do you not question science in evolution?
You can find something to support just about anything on the internet. Just because it says it is science, doesn't mean it is real science.

Of course there is a grain of truth to the article that you linked. Whole leaves, trees, antelopes, cats, dogs, etc., stay on the earth, so some might think that their energy remains on earth to be recycled into other leaves, trees, etc. Some of their energy in fact does get recycled right here on earth. But most of it is given back to the universe. That's okay because we get tons of free energy from the universe to replace what was lost every day.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#154682 Sep 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
We are not talking about molecular entropy... we are talking about order above the level of molecules. Do you deny that macromolecular order exists? Why is it that intelligence can create macromolecular order and non-intelligent forces cannot? Information allows order to be created.
If this were true it would still have nothing to do with the SLoT.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#154683 Sep 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What has been shown is that natural selection had a role in "coding" the DNA molecule.
Why do you always quote people who are out of their depth?
Oh yeah, because you have nothing.
We're talking about abiogenesis.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#154684 Sep 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>How do you explain the fact that a book with information in it enables a human being to decrease entropy?
The book has a defined amount of entropy. The difference in entropy is in the human energy, not the book.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#154685 Sep 24, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are going down hill with the motor off,,, neither. So what is your point?

It was an analogy.

I suspect you got it even while pretending you didn't.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#154686 Sep 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Life is not possible by random sequences of nucelotides.
There are no molecular forces known that could result in a genetic code.
Dr. Charles B. Thaxton, a physical chemist, wrote,
"No one to daye has published data indicating that bonding preferences could have had any role in coding the DNA molecules"
You're comparing a monkey typing random keys to a monkey typing Shakespeare.
Except that there is no monkey. They monkey, a defined amount of capability, puts limits on what nature can produce.

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 6 hr Darsey 169,892
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 11 hr Darsey 95,384
Hawaiian Volcanic Eruptions and Prophetic Catac... 12 hr Darsey 24
List what words of Jesus (the Creator) you evol... 12 hr Davidjayjordan 100
Genetic Study proves 90 percent of animals appe... 16 hr 15th Dalai Lama 71
The “cumulative evidence” problem Mon jla2w 30
E equals MC squared Jun 17 Jim Ryan 15