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.

HTS

Englewood, CO

#154729 Sep 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lack of mechanism. Remember that entropy considerations only say which direction is *allowed*, not whether it will actually take place. For example, entropy considerations alone would *allow* the spontaneous change from diamond to graphite, but that change is never observed because the *mechanism* for such an alteration has such a high transitional energy that the *rate* is vanishingly small.
Entropy only tells which reactions are allowed, not whether they happen at any measurable rate or whether there is a mechanism for them to happen.
If entropoy only tells which reactions are "allowed", then why does a diamond at zero degrees Kelvin have an entropy of zero? Why are you not considering that all of the atoms within a diamond could be rearranged many ways?(man microstates)
HTS

Englewood, CO

#154730 Sep 24, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, no Howard. DNA can be created by natural forces because natural forces creates DNA every day all over the planet.
<quoted text>
!!!
We're discussing abiogenesis, not replication of DNA from a pre-existing template. Do you think I don't know that DNA is replicated every day?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#154731 Sep 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Informtion has energy in the sense that it can be used to create order. In the house analogy
Do you ever have anything other than analogies?
HTS wrote:
No amount of solar energy could construct a house without the DNA which is directing man's intelligence.
That's okay, the analogy is flawed anyway. By the way, why is intelligence magically immune to the SLoT?
HTS wrote:
Students go to college to acquire information, so that they can create order more efficiently than trial-and-error.
I see you're trying the natural selection approach, so to speak.
HTS wrote:
If you believe in abiogenesis, then it must have required billiions of years of solar energy for the first DNA to have been created.
And it did. About ten billion.
HTS wrote:
What about the microstates of a snowflake vs DNA?
Which has lower entropy?
Snowflake. Although this was mentioned last week.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#154732 Sep 24, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
When you see your wrong scientifically you run back to philosophy and made up numbers.
Where in the heck did you get your numbers from anyway?
Do you understand your argument is reduced to philosophical ranting?
If you disagree with my numbers, then logically refute them one by one.
Your broad sweeping statements only tell me that you can't refute them.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#154733 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. Your logic is identical to supposing that because a monkey can be shown to type keys, that it has been demonstrated that a monkey has the capacity to type meaningful text.
1 - reality denial.

2 - flawed analogy.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#154734 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?
Simple. It doesn't.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#154735 Sep 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
Look at hemoglobin, which has 141 amino acids. How many microstates does that represent? How many variants of human hemoglobin are functional. Most, such as HgbS, HbC, thallasemia, etc, are dysfunctional.
Actually, this is wrong. There are over 1000 variants for human hemoglobin known and most of them are not associated with disease: they are functional.

Now, it is true that the variants that are most studied are those causing disease, but the reason for that is obvious: we want to cure disease.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#154736 Sep 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
If entropoy only tells which reactions are "allowed", then why does a diamond at zero degrees Kelvin have an entropy of zero? Why are you not considering that all of the atoms within a diamond could be rearranged many ways?(man microstates)
Because, as I have said before, such rearrangements are irrelevant because all carbon atoms are identical. Identical rearrangements are counted as one state.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#154737 Sep 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
We're talking about abiogenesis.
The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.

This MIGHT have been explained before...

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#154738 Sep 24, 2013
How much DNA do we share with a banana?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#154739 Sep 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
If DNA is not highly ordered, then why is the spontaneous generation of a genetic code from raw materials experimentally impossible?
Because creationism is BS.(shrug)

However if we take chemical processes building upon each other over billions of years and then multiply that natural experiment across countless trillions of planets across the entire universe...

... then yeah, one or two could well get life.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#154740 Sep 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand what you are doing.
When looking at order above the molecular level, you are now using not speaking of order, but are using one definition of "information" to justify your belief in evolution. You have not logically explained why the definition of order as defined in Boltzmann's equation cannot be extended to macromolecular systems.
DNA does not have a large degree of "disorder". The disorder of which you speak is irrelevant. That is like saying a 5 million dollar mansion has a high degree of disorder, because when you take a magnifying glass you can find imperfections (even though those imperfections are within acceptable standards).
You have yet to document the "high degree of disorder" of DNA of which you constantly refer. I'm speaking of disorder beyond the level of molecules vibrating on fixed points.
You need to stop confusing entropic order with the creationist definition of "order" (invisible Jewmagic).
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#154741 Sep 24, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's go further. Most of the amino acids in Cyt-C are coded by more than one codon. So the variations in the DNA are larger than this.
Finally, and this is the hard and relevant question: how many different functional proteins are there with a length of 100 amino acids? And how many different DNA strands will potentially code for them?
I would expect most of the proteins with 100 amino acids to have a similar functional variability to Cyt-C. If anything, the constraints on Cyt-C are greater than for the average protein.
And let's face it, the number of functional proteins of 100 amino acids must be truly immense. If nothing else, look at all the ones we *know* about. And there is no reason to think that living things on earth have found all the *possible* functional proteins of length 100.
If we increase the number of amino acids, the number of functional proteins only increases. At the DNA level, we also have the possibility that a single strand will code for more than a single protein. Because of this, the number of functional DNA strands of any length will be incredibly large.
So if we go with MY analogy this time... there's more than one way to skin a cat.

:-)

Believe me, I know.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#154742 Sep 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm aware of the redundancies in DNA.
I'm also aware that 99.9% of human DNA shares identical sequences. Chimp DNA is believed by some to share 98% concordance with human DNA.
It is an accepted fact that humans inherit between 100-300 mutations/generation.(for purposes of this discussion, let's say 200 mutations). If that has been going on for 8 million years, then (if you estimate 400,000 generations), that would be 80 million mutations per person. If 98% of human DNA is "junk" as is commonly stated, then 78 million of those mutations should still be in the human genome... but they are not.
Who said 98% was junk?

Bear in mind that you were already given the math for this a few weeks back.

It worked.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#154743 Sep 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, any "given" order of letters...
My question that I've repeatedly asked and no one answers...
What is the mathematical justification or law that prohibits a monkey from typing Shakespeare?
The probability that a monkey will type *some* sequence is very high. The probability that it will type a sequence of English is very low. Nothing else 'prevents' the monkey from typing in English.

But, let's consider a different scenario. Suppose we have a monkey randomly type. We throw away all the letters except for the first one of 'A Midsummer Night's Dream'. That letter we keep and then let the monkey type randomly, throwing away the letters until the second letter of the play is hit. And then we keep both the first and second letters. We keep doing this through all the letters of the play.

Now, with this variant, how long do you think it will take a monkey to pick out the whole play? I think you can agree that it would be much less than if the monkey randomly punched out a full play-length sequence and then threw away anything that wasn't the full play.

Now, let's do another variant. Suppose we let the monkey type out a full-length sequence of letters and keep those letters that are in the right places. We throw away those that are not and then let the monkey type those randomly again. Then, again, we keep those in the right place and throw away the rest. How long now would it take for the monkey to complete the piece?

And that is part of your problem. You think that a full-sized DNA strand was form de novo with no precursors. This is certainly not what actually happened. Far more likely is that semi-functional precursors in RNA were around, doing certain catalytic activity LONG before DNA came onto the scene. But even with the RNA, it wasn't a single long strand that was formed all at once with nothing preceding. It was several shorter strands, doing limited jobs that merged over time.
If I showed you a book and claimed that a monkey wrote it, would you believe me? Can you give me a mathematical reason why you wouldn't? I'm not trying to bait anyone... I want to have an understanding of terminology so we have some common ground.
If you said the monkey typed the whole play at one sitting with no modifications, then I would say the probabilities are too small to make that believable. If you said it was done by one of the procedures I stated above, I would say it was possible.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#154744 Sep 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're assuming that DNA wasn't intelligently designed.
Yet you cannot offer any scientific reason why I should believe that DNA was formed through "molecular forces".
Sure we can. You have never once came up with an example of a single life form appearing due to magical poofing.

By the way, science does not assume DNA wasn't intelligently designed.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#154745 Sep 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not trying to apply SLoT to macromolecular systems... only the Boltzmann equation. You're not disagreeing with that logic?
You can use the definition, sure. But then you won't be able to prove evolution is impossible via an application of SLoT.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#154746 Sep 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
We're discussing abiogenesis, not replication of DNA from a pre-existing template. Do you think I don't know that DNA is replicated every day?
Seriously? No.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#154747 Sep 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
If you disagree with my numbers, then logically refute them one by one.
Your broad sweeping statements only tell me that you can't refute them.
BONG!!!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#154748 Sep 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not trying to apply SLoT to macromolecular systems... only the Boltzmann equation. You're not disagreeing with that logic?
So are you giving up on the claim that SLoT and evolution are mutually exclusive? I thought that was the point of this whole discussion.

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) 1 min The Northener 34,000
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 39 min ChromiuMan 199,191
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 58 min Bob of Quantum-Faith 14,834
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr ChristineM 151,281
News ID Isn't Science, But That's the Least Of Its P... 4 hr DanFromSmithville 31
My Story Part 1 Fri JanusBifrons 1
Evolution in action Jun 20 Darth Robo 9
More from around the web