Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179706 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.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#154629 Sep 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
In considering the entropy of the house, it was assumed that we are referring entropy above the molecular level.
And that is part of your difficulty. There is no 'entropy above the molecular level'. There is entropy.
You and Chimney agreed that the house is lower entropy than the pile of building materials. No one was suggesting that the molecules in the bricks and 2x4's were more ordered. My understanding is that the Boltzmann equation can be applied to systems such as calculating the order of a book.
It can,*if* you include *all* micro-states. In other words, as long as you include *all* the entropy.
Is that correct? If so, then the amount of molecular disorder that is produced in the process is not part of the macrostate.
And that is wrong. If you are going to use the SLoT, you have to include all of the entropy. That means delaing with all micro-states at the quantum level.
Would you please explain to me why a book of zeros is more ordered than a book of QM. I fell that I understand what micro- and microstates are. How many microstates does a book of zeros have? How many microstates does a book of QM have?
And I thought we were talking only about the contribution to the entropy from the writing. The rest of the entropy comes into play if you want to use the SLoT in any way. There is no distinction between macro-entropy and micro-entropy.
All order produced at the molecular by non-intelligent processes can be explained by atomic and molecular forces such as polarity. I know of no order that has been proven [observed] to be produced without intelligence that is above the molecular level.
Which is, again, irrelevant for SLoT considerations. We were having an exercise abut how to compute entropy using bricks and houses as an analogy. But for the actual entropy of a situation, you have to consider what is going on at the molecular level. When you do that, the entropy of the two books is almost identical. And the entropy of the unbuilt house and the one fully constructed is almost identical. In all these cases, most of the entropy happens at the molecular level. The 'macro-entropy' is way, way, way smaller. I'm approximating that the factor is about a quintillion or so.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#154630 Sep 24, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Sub is a completely sealed vacuum of glass tubes a closed or open system?
If you say closed I say BS because sun energy can go through the glass.
If you say open I say BS because matter cannot be transferred in or out.
Think about it. The Earth is a closed system: energy from sunlight enters and “no” matter enters or leaves.
Your last statement is incorrect. Matter does enter and leave the earth. About 40 tons of dust and other space junk fall to earth every day.

Although the loss is small, both hydrogen and helium are lost every day.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...

So matter is exchanged. Now if you want to consider the earth to be a closed system for some arguments sake, fine. But it is still an open system.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#154631 Sep 24, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Technically a closed system allows the entry and exit of energy but not mass. An isolated system allows neither mass nor energy to arrive or leave.
Earth is an open system although the matter transfer is pretty trivial.
Precisely.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#154632 Sep 24, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
The sun is energy so back to the question!
Is a completely sealed vacuum of glass tubes a closed or open system?
Not in the sense relevant to SLoT.
If you say closed I say BS because sun energy can go through the glass.
And that is why it is not closed in the sense required by SLoT.
If you say open I say BS because matter cannot be transferred in or out.
Think about it. The Earth is a closed system: energy from sunlight enters and “no” matter enters or leaves.
And the fact that energy enters means it is not closed in the sense required by SLoT.
Then again earth receives energy and puts out energy (i.e. the sun's input, radiation into space at night) so could it be open system right?
It is open in the sense required when applying SLoT.
Wrong!! An open system lets both energy and matter to be moved into and out of it. A closed system only lets energy move in and out, not matter.
Oh and Dan you to feel free to answer the question of the vacuum system.
I think what we have is contrasting definitions of the term 'closed' in different areas of study. When dealing with SLoT, a closed system is one that does not exchange energy or matter with its surroundings.

In other words, if you want to state the SLoT in the form 'in a closed system, the entropy will increase', then you cannot allow energy to go in or out. Now, perhaps you would re-write the SLoT in the form 'in an isolated system, entropy will increase'. That is fine as long as we agree on definitions. But if the definition changes, we will have problems.

By your definition of 'closed' versus 'isolated', the SLoT says that in an *isolated* system, any changes will be in the direction of increased entropy.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#154633 Sep 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
I see some sources do agree with replaytime and some agree with me.
Of course in this discussion it is energy that matters and as far as energy goes the Earth is a closed system.
There does seem to be some disagreement about terminology in the sources I have read also. Replaytime's version is not uncommon.

So, once again, if you want to use the triple system open/closed/isolated, then the SLoT says that in an *isolated* system, the direction of spontaneous change is in that of increased entropy.

If you use this version of the terminology, then closed systems can have decreased entropy for some reactions.

In particular, if you want to consider the system as being the earth alone, then it would be closed and not isolated, so we have to consider the energy transfers into and out of the system before we apply the SLoT.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#154634 Sep 24, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
To put them in plain terms.
1) Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
3) Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.
4) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5) Honour thy father and thy mother.
6) Thou shalt not kill.
7) Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8) Thou shalt not steal.
9) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
10) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour.
So to answer your question about 9, I have never knowingly and willfully lied against anyone.
Really? Give it time.

It took Urb, HTS and Kleinman less than 2 minutes.(shrug)

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#154635 Sep 24, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I am going to say this then I am going to bed. A meteor of 5 foot will burn up in our atmosphere but yet you believe smaller dust gets by.
When a meteor 'burns up', it doesn't just disappear. The matter that made up the meteor is still there and it does fall to earth as dust.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#154636 Sep 24, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me be a little more clear with you. I have tried to follow the word of God
Don't worry about it. The Word of God really is, quite literally, anything you want it to be.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#154637 Sep 24, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<
If we raised one tonne of wall by two meters on average, how much energy have we "put into the wall" in an ordered state by doing that?
We can approximate that by the amount of kinetic energy that would be created if a 1 tonne block falls 2 meters and its 0.5 * 1000 * 2 * 2 approx or 2000 joules. A workman's donut.
This is wrong. Kinetic energy isn't .5*m*x^2, it is .5*m*v^2. What you want here is the *potential* energy of the tonne at a height of 2 meters. The appropriate formula is m*g*h=1000*9.8*2=19,200 joules.
A crane with a 10KW engine, spending only one minute raising that block, chugged out 600,000 joules at the same time. 598,000 joules of that energy ends up as heat!
Not quite as dramatic with the correct numbers, but it still proves your point.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#154638 Sep 24, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Whoops. Raising that tonne took 20, 000 not 2000 joules. Still dwarfed be the crane though!
Sorry, I didn't see your correction.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#154639 Sep 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
There is no distinction between macro-entropy and micro-entropy.
Macro-entropy is impossible, we only observe MICRO-ENTROPY!!!

>:-(

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#154640 Sep 24, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Give it time.
It took Urb, HTS and Kleinman less than 2 minutes.(shrug)
It was a done deal when he showed up.
Chimney1

Dubai, UAE

#154641 Sep 24, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Macro-entropy is impossible, we only observe MICRO-ENTROPY!!!
>:-(
:-)
HTS

Mandan, ND

#154642 Sep 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And that is part of your difficulty. There is no 'entropy above the molecular level'. There is entropy.
<quoted text>
It can,*if* you include *all* micro-states. In other words, as long as you include *all* the entropy.
<quoted text>
And that is wrong. If you are going to use the SLoT, you have to include all of the entropy. That means delaing with all micro-states at the quantum level.
<quoted text>
And I thought we were talking only about the contribution to the entropy from the writing. The rest of the entropy comes into play if you want to use the SLoT in any way. There is no distinction between macro-entropy and micro-entropy.
<quoted text>
Which is, again, irrelevant for SLoT considerations. We were having an exercise abut how to compute entropy using bricks and houses as an analogy. But for the actual entropy of a situation, you have to consider what is going on at the molecular level. When you do that, the entropy of the two books is almost identical. And the entropy of the unbuilt house and the one fully constructed is almost identical. In all these cases, most of the entropy happens at the molecular level. The 'macro-entropy' is way, way, way smaller. I'm approximating that the factor is about a quintillion or so.
If you're using the unbuilt house as an analogy, then the analogy is false.
There are no non-intelligent electrical forces organizing house. No molecular entropy has been observed that results in complexity of arrangement, just order.

Maybe this question will compare apples to apples...
The snowflake analogy is often made by evolutionists, arguing that because a snowflake shows order, DNA can can be created by natural forces. A snowflake achieves its form by molecular forces. There are no known molecular forces that could result in a genetic code.

Relative to liquid water, I see a snowflake as very ordered in terms of numbers of microstates.
Relative to DNA, I see a snowflake as very disordered. Inconceivable numbers of microstates in a snowflake exist, and the properties of that snowflake (macrostate) will be the same.
Similar numbers of microstates of DNA that will result in the same properties of DNA (macrostate) do not exist.
Because of this, DNA is more ordered that a snowflake by many orders of magnitude.
You said crystals were highly ordered, and biological systems were moderately ordered. I don't see where you're coming from.

So, using the Boltzmann equation, what is the level of order of a snowflake vs DNA?(factoring in identical numbers of molecules.)
HTS

Mandan, ND

#154643 Sep 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And that is part of your difficulty. There is no 'entropy above the molecular level'.
<quoted text>
.
I think that we're arguing semantics. The word entropy is commonly used in that context.
Even the wiki definition is ambiguous... " In the language of statistical mechanics, entropy is a measure of the number of microscopic configurations corresponding to a macroscopic state."

What laws of mathematics prevent a monkey from typing a Shakespearean play?
Is a Shakespearean play more "ordered" [not referring to molecular entropy] than random letters and why?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#154644 Sep 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
If you're using the unbuilt house as an analogy, then the analogy is false.
There are no non-intelligent electrical forces organizing house. No molecular entropy has been observed that results in complexity of arrangement, just order.
Maybe this question will compare apples to apples...
The snowflake analogy is often made by evolutionists, arguing that because a snowflake shows order, DNA can can be created by natural forces. A snowflake achieves its form by molecular forces. There are no known molecular forces that could result in a genetic code.
Relative to liquid water, I see a snowflake as very ordered in terms of numbers of microstates.
Relative to DNA, I see a snowflake as very disordered. Inconceivable numbers of microstates in a snowflake exist, and the properties of that snowflake (macrostate) will be the same.
Similar numbers of microstates of DNA that will result in the same properties of DNA (macrostate) do not exist.
Because of this, DNA is more ordered that a snowflake by many orders of magnitude.
You said crystals were highly ordered, and biological systems were moderately ordered. I don't see where you're coming from.
So, using the Boltzmann equation, what is the level of order of a snowflake vs DNA?(factoring in identical numbers of molecules.)
Now this is getting interesting because I dont see how thermodynamics would differentiate between the same sized DNA molecule whether it coded a useful protein or was pure junk.

And even if it does differentiate, the information represented by the good DNA compared to the junk is miniscule by comparison to the total order that both molecules contain purely in terms of their chemical and physical properties. Just as I noted above, the energy bound up in a wall being vertical versus just lying on the ground is tiny compared to the change in energy content of just warming the wall by one degree. Do you see my point?

And to ask a strange question, does a byte of "pure information" have an energy content independent of the substrate such as ink or DNA, that is carrying it?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#154645 Sep 24, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Read the science link then tell your opinion.
In contrast to an isolated system is a closed system, of which Earth is an approximation. Despite its name, a closed system permits the exchange of energy with the environment but does not allow matter to pass back and forth between the external environment and the system. Thus, Earth absorbs electromagnetic energy, radiated from the Sun, yet very little matter enters or departs Earth's system.
Earth more closely resembles a closed system than it does an open one—that is, a system that allows the full and free exchange of both matter and energy with its environment.
Either way all you are doing is saying Science is wrong!!!! Hmmm
Within the biosphere are countless open and closed systems.
The fundamental point remains that in terms of creation over evolution, the SLoT is at best irrelevant and at typical misapplied.
Whether HTS's pile of bricks is random, herringbone, running bond or stacked on end only reflects his (and others') predilection for aesthetics and misunderstanding of "order", not work, not heat transfer, not entropy, not potential energy - and certainly not logic!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#154646 Sep 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that we're arguing semantics. The word entropy is commonly used in that context.
Even the wiki definition is ambiguous... " In the language of statistical mechanics, entropy is a measure of the number of microscopic configurations corresponding to a macroscopic state."
What laws of mathematics prevent a monkey from typing a Shakespearean play?
Is a Shakespearean play more "ordered" [not referring to molecular entropy] than random letters and why?
And once again you conflate entropy with your perceived order.

When they talk about entropy and "order" it does not mean "organized thought" or other such forms of what seem to be order to you. Ultimately entropy is all about energy available for work.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#154647 Sep 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And once again you conflate entropy with your perceived order.
When they talk about entropy and "order" it does not mean "organized thought" or other such forms of what seem to be order to you. Ultimately entropy is all about energy available for work.
Creation science is a steam engine with 14.7 psi in the boiler.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#154648 Sep 24, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Now this is getting interesting because I dont see how thermodynamics would differentiate between the same sized DNA molecule whether it coded a useful protein or was pure junk.
And even if it does differentiate, the information represented by the good DNA compared to the junk is miniscule by comparison to the total order that both molecules contain purely in terms of their chemical and physical properties. Just as I noted above, the energy bound up in a wall being vertical versus just lying on the ground is tiny compared to the change in energy content of just warming the wall by one degree. Do you see my point?
And to ask a strange question, does a byte of "pure information" have an energy content independent of the substrate such as ink or DNA, that is carrying it?
Informtion has energy in the sense that it can be used to create order. In the house analogy, No amount of solar energy could construct a house without the DNA which is directing man's intelligence. Students go to college to acquire information, so that they can create order more efficiently than trial-and-error.

If you believe in abiogenesis, then it must have required billiions of years of solar energy for the first DNA to have been created.

What about the microstates of a snowflake vs DNA?
Which has lower entropy?

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 Chimney1 40,451
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Thinking 15,993
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 1 hr Reno Hoock 101
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Chimney1 201,232
News Book aims to prove existence of God (Nov '09) 3 hr LOU BARRETO 94
Scientists create vast 3-D map of universe, val... 5 hr One way or another 10
The conscious God or the inanimate nature 13 hr Fear-God 11
More from around the web