Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178661 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

#156266 Oct 8, 2013
one way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, the moron chimney claims,-- "spontanious reaction".
Look up the word spontanious. It proves that he and the other morons believe in the evo fairy.
Two faced purposeful liars.
No, in this case its the chemistry fairy.

A reaction can occur spontaneously if the Gibbs free energy is less than zero. That is basically:

-H-TS < 0

In real words, it means if the energy emitted by the reaction(enthalpy) is greater than the temperature times the entropy of the reactants.

Someone marginally more intelligent than you, say, UC, might take note that the units stack up in this well established equation (really an inequality, but nevertheless).

Feel free to look it up.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#156267 Oct 8, 2013
one way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, the moron chimney claims,-- "spontanious reaction".
Look up the word spontanious. It proves that he and the other morons believe in the evo fairy.
Two faced purposeful liars.
You might have a bit of trouble looking up the word spontaneous yourself, seeing as you do not seem to know how to spell it.

“What U Don't Know U Fear”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

What U Fear U will Never Know

#156268 Oct 8, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
What test?
This is interesting. Entropy, microstates and macrostates.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#156269 Oct 8, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be going from Fantasy-land to Oz via Wonderland.
If you want more than that then you have to try to make sense.
I'd say he is on a ride from Hades to the fourth circle of Hell.

Must be a terrible thing to be trapped in that mind.

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#156270 Oct 8, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really. Nothing has changed. You just keep trying to new ways to spin it so it doesn't hurt evolution.
Entropy does hurt evolution, however the thing that escapes your reasoning is this.
DNA is somewhat self correcting in two ways. The entropy in a dna strand becomes to high , and a weak or deformed animal is the result.
It dies off, it the entropy is really high , it never lives because it is stillborn.
NS at work, only the strong survive, the acceptable levels of entropy is variation and is seen overall as diversity.
So evolution is somewhat immune to entropy, but dependent on the biosphere. As poly said evolution creates entropy in the atmosphere , but it is just a contributor to the engine that drives itself.

The biosphere is an engine that runs off the chemical reactions
caused by the heat from the sun and heat from itself. Since life uses the most abundant and versatile atoms and compounds it is only vulnerable to it's weakest link, which is the Earths core.
The dynamo that makes all this possible. It controls the atmosphere and hence the biosphere.
I'm convinced any entropy that means anything to life, is directly related to this.
Of course there are other factors that are of equal importance, but they do not hold the aces. The dynamo does.

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#156271 Oct 8, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, not relevant.

LQQK

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

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Athens, OH

#156272 Oct 8, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The reactants are what constitutes the system *before* and the products are what constitutes the system *after*. In your equation, you have
Se-Ss=k*ln(We/Ws).
The problem is that the energy is NOT the product.
Instead, the required result is exactly what *I* gave:
Sf-Ss=k*ln(Wf/Ws).
Look who got it wrong yet again: you.
Oh, but you had to make up out of thin air some notion of "before and after". How cute. Notice that the article from UC Davis says this is wrong. Your wrong again.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Athens, OH

#156273 Oct 8, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The hammer and the RB machine.
What is the hammer and the RB machine? Do you mean Rube Goldberg, that would be RG? What is RB? This sloppiness is why you are so wrong.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#156274 Oct 8, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the hammer and the RB machine? Do you mean Rube Goldberg, that would be RG? What is RB? This sloppiness is why you are so wrong.
Must be wonderful to be so perfect.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Athens, OH

#156275 Oct 8, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, relevant. Because in a spontaneous reaction we can have a decrease in entropy of the reactants with NO input of "applied energy", but as with all situations, we only get a local reduction in entropy when energy is emitted (raising entropy elsewhere).
And because you were silly enough to raise the issue of chemical reactants in your continually flailing, misguided attempt to overturn a branch of science established and supported by a century and a half of rigorous testing, you can deal with it.
Except of course, you cannot.
As you cannot deal with the fact that the order you are talking about is not even a privileged type of order in information terms, which was your last bolthole to try and avoid the fact that k, in TD and statistical entropy terms, does have units and they are J/K
Every way you turn, the science contradicts you.
Chimney, all I need to do is stick with the established science and I demolish you everything easily. You keep twisting and turning and trying spin it this way and that. But you really haven't offered any serious challenge to standard statistical entropy. It is established science. Everywhere I look, whether it be Creager or UC Davis, or Wiki, they support exactly my position. This is 100% certain. I am 100% confident I have a firm grasp of statistical entropy, the formula, the principle, and its application. You have no clue.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Athens, OH

#156276 Oct 8, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The hammer and the RB machine.
If you want another test, consider a laser. it is one of the most 'ordered' forms of energy we know about. The photons in a laser beam are not simply going in the same direction, they are also vibrating in phase. They are very, very 'ordered'.
Now, apply a high power laser beam to a piece of paper. The ordered energy of the beam will produce a very *disordered* effect on the system (the paper): the paper will burst into flames. That violates one of your predictions: that the ordered application of energy will decrease entropy.
If I said that, you'd say the flames are much more ordered! You guys are so FOS!

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#156277 Oct 8, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
It increases entropy of the atmosphere. All the heat and waste given off by all the organisms constitutes a LOT of entropy.
If the earth is at a constant temperature and receives heat from the sun, then it must also shed an equal or nearly equal amount of heat to space. Wouldn't that mean the earth has a roughly constant entropy? I have no more than a basic understanding of physics and may be off kilter on this speculation.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Athens, OH

#156278 Oct 8, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The hammer and the RB machine.
If you want another test, consider a laser. it is one of the most 'ordered' forms of energy we know about. The photons in a laser beam are not simply going in the same direction, they are also vibrating in phase. They are very, very 'ordered'.
Now, apply a high power laser beam to a piece of paper. The ordered energy of the beam will produce a very *disordered* effect on the system (the paper): the paper will burst into flames. That violates one of your predictions: that the ordered application of energy will decrease entropy.
So you agree that flames are very disordered. Great. How about the difference between a construction crew and flames on the materials. Gotcha!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#156279 Oct 8, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, but you had to make up out of thin air some notion of "before and after". How cute. Notice that the article from UC Davis says this is wrong. Your wrong again.

You are clueless.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#156280 Oct 8, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Chimney, all I need to do is stick with the established science and I demolish you everything easily. You keep twisting and turning and trying spin it this way and that. But you really haven't offered any serious challenge to standard statistical entropy. It is established science. Everywhere I look, whether it be Creager or UC Davis, or Wiki, they support exactly my position. This is 100% certain. I am 100% confident I have a firm grasp of statistical entropy, the formula, the principle, and its application. You have no clue.

This is getting funny.

Has Jimbo been giving you science lessons?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#156282 Oct 8, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
If I said that, you'd say the flames are much more ordered! You guys are so FOS!

Be serious.

A few days back I asked you a couple of basic definitional questions for you to answer. Are you unable to answer them?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#156283 Oct 8, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>If the earth is at a constant temperature and receives heat from the sun, then it must also shed an equal or nearly equal amount of heat to space. Wouldn't that mean the earth has a roughly constant entropy? I have no more than a basic understanding of physics and may be off kilter on this speculation.

You want to factor in global warming?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#156284 Oct 8, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
So you agree that flames are very disordered. Great. How about the difference between a construction crew and flames on the materials. Gotcha!

You gotcha nothing. You really are so confused that you need to start over.
Mugwump

Consett, UK

#156285 Oct 8, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You want to factor in global warming?
The one that UC insists is bobbins (English phrase - apologies) because volcanos produce a million more times CO2 than man ?

{snicker}

Been away with work for a while so catching up - what's new on the inevitable march of creation science?

See Jimbo is his usual whackadoodal self , UC is getting pissy but something must have changed in the last month.

(Though have to say, have learnt something regarding SLoT from the last 3 pages)

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#156286 Oct 8, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
The one that UC insists is bobbins (English phrase - apologies) because volcanos produce a million more times CO2 than man ?
{snicker}
Been away with work for a while so catching up - what's new on the inevitable march of creation science?
See Jimbo is his usual whackadoodal self , UC is getting pissy but something must have changed in the last month.
(Though have to say, have learnt something regarding SLoT from the last 3 pages)

We have learned that UC can be as dense about entropy as he is about everything else. In other words nothing new here.

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) 3 min Chimney1 20,626
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 17 min Chimney1 271
Dr. David Berlinski corrects himself on whale e... 30 min Chimney1 50
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Paul Porter1 171,927
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 9 hr Dogen 142,648
News Bobby Jindal: I'm fine with teaching creationis... (Apr '13) 15 hr Chimney1 248
evolution is correct. prove me wrong Fri Paul Porter1 9
More from around the web