Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180393 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

#156638 Oct 13, 2013
Spain was still part of Osama BL's "claims" of Muslim territory.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#156639 Oct 13, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I just went through Khan Academy's excellent tutorial on "Reconciling Thermodynamics and State Definitions of Entropy" for the second time.
I suggest you watch it again if you have not done so already, and quit with your idiotic nonsense. Try listening to what he says this time - all of it.
And you are the one illegally substituting terms.
- You are the one who cannot reconcile the simplest real world examples with how TD actually works and how "application of ordered energy" does not.
- you are the one who thought, as per Creager, that cooling something reduces entropy (correct)- therefore (guffaw) the application of ordered energy reduces entropy.(!!) It does not follow, and only a stranger to the simplest logic could believe that it does.
Funnily enough, it was a Physics PhD major who not only confirmed what I said but took it a lot further and you STILL don't get even the basics. You are so dogmatic that you insist HE is the one getting it wrong. Because you are actually not listening to anything we say. Just parroting Creager, usually word for word.
You still do not have a clue about energy flow and transfer.
Here is another SIMPLE example for you. A stirling heat engine - a real life useful object - takes the most random energy input imaginable, pure heat, and can transform a portion of it into ordered non-random kinetic energy (so long as it has a heat sink as well). This pathetically simple example alone shows that Creager is clueless.
I don't blame you for wanting to change the subject, after you scored a solid F in the Second Law.
That was just more philosophical word wrangling and confusion. You are the one who has no clue whatsoever what is going on. I suggest that the PhD who advised you ask for his money back because he certainly failed you. I don't know Creager personally and don't have any bias towards his work. It just happens to be correct and spot on and very brilliant in the way it both conforms to thermodynamic *and* statistical entropy principles.(Two applications that you can't seem to differentiate.) It explains real-world examples that we are familiar with but could not previously enumerate mathematically. I understand that you precious religion has taken quite a blow from all this but it is what it is.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#156640 Oct 13, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Spain was still part of Osama BL's "claims" of Muslim territory.
Wow, I know there is still a big Muslim city there, but I didn't know Bin Laden was claiming Spain.
That nut was trying to take over the world.
I hear Al Qaeda is back in Iraq as big as ever, they have feeed all the Al Qaeda prisoners there and are blowing stuff up 50 car bombs a week now. Must be hard to be an Iraqi.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#156641 Oct 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
That was just more philosophical word wrangling and confusion. You are the one who has no clue whatsoever what is going on. I suggest that the PhD who advised you ask for his money back because he certainly failed you. I don't know Creager personally and don't have any bias towards his work. It just happens to be correct and spot on and very brilliant in the way it both conforms to thermodynamic *and* statistical entropy principles.(Two applications that you can't seem to differentiate.) It explains real-world examples that we are familiar with but could not previously enumerate mathematically. I understand that you precious religion has taken quite a blow from all this but it is what it is.

Are you Steven Jones?
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#156642 Oct 13, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Not that you are actually able to point out a single example of any of the above.
Perhaps you could start with by explaining the following three simple points:
(1)
How does the statement that:
"cooling a system produces a DS < 0 " (correct)
logically lead to the following claim by you and Creager supposedly based on that groundwork:
"The general application of energy TO a system in a manner less random than that system will decrease the entropy of that system."
(pure bunkum)
Do you do not even understand that cooling something involves removing heat (random kinetic energy)FROM it, not "applying less random energy" TO it?
Again, you are mixing up two different applications of the same principle. You have to take his illustration how the formula is consistent with thermodynamic entropy in just that context - as an illustration. What you are constantly doing is rejecting the idea in a prejudiced manner before trying to understand. This is a mental block for you, and I don't know if there is any way to get through if you are simply rejecting it out of fear or hatred or whatever.

You see, what you claim is not true. When Creager presented the section on cooling and heating, is intention was not that it lead to any result for statistical entropy (which comes later), his intention was to clearly illustrate that the principle is consistent with thermodynamic entropy.

If what you are concerned about is how he gets to the predictions, you need to read the section where he derives formula (7).

I think you are putting all your energy into hating the idea rather than carefully reading and understanding, because you keep getting things mixed up, calling me and Creager all manner of childish names, and basically treating it with extrene prejudice.

This is what you do anytime something threatens your beliefs. So my guess is, you will never understand this, no matter how hard I try to explain to you. Your mind is made up, and that's that!
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#156643 Oct 13, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah I said sapin by mistake...mobile again!
Not nearly either - they controlled it all for nearly 4 centuries were slowly driven out over the next 4. And when Columbus sailed they had only been fully expelled for 50 year or so.
No wonder the Spanish Inquisition were such zealots...kinda puts it in perspective.
The way you guys tout the Spanish Inquisition as if....please keep things in perspective, will you?

"The generally accepted number burnt at the stake by the Inquisition (including all categories such as Protestants, blasphemers, bigamists and crypto-Jews) is below 5,000."

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

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#156644 Oct 13, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
(2)
Now the simplest of questions. You denied that the energy powering a man hand-building a cabin with an axe came from the glucose burning in his muscles. Where do YOU propose it came from instead?
You are playing a child's game of "what comes before that?", "and then what comes before that?"

Chimney we already established that we have identified the energy and the system. There is no need to keep going back in time for sources of energy. The path is independent.

If you like, how about we have the energy applied by a nuclear-powered robot that runs on uranium. The bomb is a thermonuclear weapon that also gets its energy from uranium. Both amount of enriched fuel is exactly the same used by both the robot and the bomb. We have our raw materials (lumber and nails, etc.) Now you compare the difference in entropy for the robot building a house (with nothing but hand tools), and the bomb blowing up the raw materials to smithereens. It works!

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#156645 Oct 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The way you guys tout the Spanish Inquisition as if....please keep things in perspective, will you?
"The generally accepted number burnt at the stake by the Inquisition (including all categories such as Protestants, blasphemers, bigamists and crypto-Jews) is below 5,000."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisit...
But it was hundreds of thousands counting all of them as it spread country to country.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#156646 Oct 13, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
(3)
If "The simplest possible system to analyze is one consisting of a single particle, that is moved to a targeted location by the applied energy", how is the particle STOPPED at the targeted location?(hint - you have to remove its kinetic energy, and that energy has to go somewhere else).
OMG give me patience. Chimney, the particle is not stopped. It is counted at an instant in time like a snapshot taken at an infinitely fast shutter speed.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#156647 Oct 14, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are playing a child's game of "what comes before that?", "and then what comes before that?"
Chimney we already established that we have identified the energy and the system. There is no need to keep going back in time for sources of energy. The path is independent.
If you like, how about we have the energy applied by a nuclear-powered robot that runs on uranium. The bomb is a thermonuclear weapon that also gets its energy from uranium. Both amount of enriched fuel is exactly the same used by both the robot and the bomb. We have our raw materials (lumber and nails, etc.) Now you compare the difference in entropy for the robot building a house (with nothing but hand tools), and the bomb blowing up the raw materials to smithereens. It works!
No, it was relevant in the context of my very first claim that building a house creates more TOTAL disorder than bombing one, but that in the case of the house the disorder goes harmlessly into the air.(And note that both bombing and building a house create more TOTAL disorder than doing nothing).

We can see this illustrated by the fact that it takes far less fuel to blow a house up than to build one. And the total energy employed DOES matter. And how much of that energy really goes into created order?

I showed you that erecting a wall raised the non-entropic gravitational potential energy of the wall by a mere 20,000 joules, while easily creating 600,000 joules of waste heat in the process of erecting it wiht a crane.

In the more energy efficient case of hand building, glucose must be burned in muscles. A portion of the energy from glucose will go into erecting the wall and adding order, but still some of it will end up as heat. The energy that goes into the wall as g-potential has not been converted into heat but neither does it reduce TD entropy. The energy that goes into heat DOES add to total entropy.

Like it or not, that is how thermodynamics works.

And path independency is not what you think it is. Comparing a static erect wall to one lying down is path independent, but if more energy has been expended in the whole system, not just the wall, in erecting it, then you have to look at the end state of every part of the relevant system. Including how much heat you poured into the air, and ITS end state compared to its initial state, too. ANY physicist or engineer will tell you that.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#156648 Oct 14, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG give me patience. Chimney, the particle is not stopped. It is counted at an instant in time like a snapshot taken at an infinitely fast shutter speed.
Creager said "place a particle in a particular location". When erecting a house, do the walls and windows just keep flying in the general direction you threw them in? When you tidy a room and move a pillow, does it just keep flying? No, Something has to REMOVE the kinetic energy for them to be "ordered" as a house. If the pillow is put on a couch its kinetic energy is absorbed by the couch and will become random Ek i.e. HEAT which means added thermodynamic (or statistical, no difference) entropy.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#156649 Oct 14, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The way you guys tout the Spanish Inquisition as if....please keep things in perspective, will you?
"The generally accepted number burnt at the stake by the Inquisition (including all categories such as Protestants, blasphemers, bigamists and crypto-Jews) is below 5,000."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisit...
Actually in this case I was defending them.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#156650 Oct 14, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it was relevant in the context of my very first claim that building a house creates more TOTAL disorder than bombing one, but that in the case of the house the disorder goes harmlessly into the air.(And note that both bombing and building a house create more TOTAL disorder than doing nothing).
We can see this illustrated by the fact that it takes far less fuel to blow a house up than to build one. And the total energy employed DOES matter. And how much of that energy really goes into created order?
I showed you that erecting a wall raised the non-entropic gravitational potential energy of the wall by a mere 20,000 joules, while easily creating 600,000 joules of waste heat in the process of erecting it wiht a crane.
In the more energy efficient case of hand building, glucose must be burned in muscles. A portion of the energy from glucose will go into erecting the wall and adding order, but still some of it will end up as heat. The energy that goes into the wall as g-potential has not been converted into heat but neither does it reduce TD entropy. The energy that goes into heat DOES add to total entropy.
Like it or not, that is how thermodynamics works.
And path independency is not what you think it is. Comparing a static erect wall to one lying down is path independent, but if more energy has been expended in the whole system, not just the wall, in erecting it, then you have to look at the end state of every part of the relevant system. Including how much heat you poured into the air, and ITS end state compared to its initial state, too. ANY physicist or engineer will tell you that.
The *amount* of energy for the house and the bomb are exactly the same. The temperature everywhere is also exactly the same. You would have learned that from the Kahn Academy video. Again, this is statistical entropy, not thermodynamic entropy.(How many times do I have to say that?)
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#156651 Oct 14, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Creager said "place a particle in a particular location". When erecting a house, do the walls and windows just keep flying in the general direction you threw them in? When you tidy a room and move a pillow, does it just keep flying? No, Something has to REMOVE the kinetic energy for them to be "ordered" as a house. If the pillow is put on a couch its kinetic energy is absorbed by the couch and will become random Ek i.e. HEAT which means added thermodynamic (or statistical, no difference) entropy.
NO, there is no movement. It is a point in time, not a period of time. Please, finally!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#156652 Oct 14, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
That was just more philosophical word wrangling and confusion. You are the one who has no clue whatsoever what is going on. I suggest that the PhD who advised you ask for his money back because he certainly failed you. I don't know Creager personally and don't have any bias towards his work. It just happens to be correct and spot on and very brilliant in the way it both conforms to thermodynamic *and* statistical entropy principles.(Two applications that you can't seem to differentiate.) It explains real-world examples that we are familiar with but could not previously enumerate mathematically. I understand that you precious religion has taken quite a blow from all this but it is what it is.
The physics PhD student is Polymath. And he has a maths PhD. But you know better. When a man well qualified in both math and physics tells you the units matter, you think you know better.

If you understood how the statistical approach relates to the thermodynamic one, instead of foolishly claiming they refer to different things, you would no longer be making foolish claims like this. Khan should help. If you can actually watch and listen properly.

You think you know better than the Khan institute too: did you note in the presentation that he specifically said "tidying a room is NOT an example of reducing entropy". Right near the end, after he had explained everything else that seems to confuse you. Including the equivalency of the Clausius and Boltzmann approach to entropy - in the example, the equivalence of adding heat to push a piston out but leaving the gas at the same final temperature, versus simply doubling the volume of the gas by removing a barrier.

And no, not philosophical wrangling. Creager's paper uses TD as justification for his bogus 2 predictions - that is why he expounds Boltzmann at length in the background. Yet nothing in Boltzmann supports his predictions. Quite the opposite. Applied energy does NOT reduce entropy. The best it can do is not to increase it. Only energy leaving a part of a system can reduce entropy in that part of the system.

Watch Khan until it sinks in. I am sure you can handle simple maths and know what integration is. You will also note that he shows exactly the equation you thought had no "before and after" with graphical help to show start and end states (before and after). You have made some grand and silly claims UC. Show some truth and humility and learn something, for your own sake.

I have, for sure. But I knew enough before we even started to deflate Creager's bubble, and the argument has not needed to change.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#156653 Oct 14, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The *amount* of energy for the house and the bomb are exactly the same.
What is that supposed to mean?
The temperature everywhere is also exactly the same.
You would have learned that from the Kahn Academy video.
Khan discussed an isometric expansion of gas. He did not discuss an explosion. In an explosion, temperature can only return to baseline AFTER a huge amount of heat has escaped into the atmosphere.

In the case of an explosion we have to recognise that the energy entering the system has to LEAVE the system before the end point.

Likewise, in building, we have to recognise that if the combustion heat from the crane does not LEAVE the system, the whole place will soon enough melt.
Again, this is statistical entropy, not thermodynamic entropy.(How many times do I have to say that?)
You can keep saying it til the Second Coming, to the general mirth and ridicule of those who know what they are talking about.

Kahn showed exactly how and why they are the same thing and why the units matter. Did you actually watch the thing? THAT was the point he made that he repeated was going to "blow your socks off" but looks like yours are still firmly in place. We can EXPLAIN Clausius entropy with Boltzmann. Same thing, deeper understanding of WHY it occurs.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#156654 Oct 14, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
NO, there is no movement. It is a point in time, not a period of time. Please, finally!
He did not say "accelerate a particle in a precise direction"

He said "Place a particle in a target location".

And in reference to building houses and tidying rooms - HIS examples - the particle is clearly placed with a STOP. Or he would have said something different.

Now you are lying for Creager, hoping the vagueness of his claim can save him. Ironic, that his claim is vague while discussing precision. Give it up, you cannot save Creager.

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#156655 Oct 14, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I read somewhere that during the Crusades, Christian soldiers wiped out whole villages of people that were actually Christian. The Crusaders didn't understand their language, so just assumed them to be non-Christian.
But, I agree, we don't have to go far at all to see examples of man's inhumanity to man because of religious belief.
It wasn't language, it was faith. Other Christians were regarded as heretics by the Catholic church, that is why they were killed.

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#156656 Oct 14, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Its easy to forget the context of the crusades. Islam was expanding agressively and had swallowed up more that half the old Christian Roman Empire by then. We forget that all of north africa, egypt, palestine, syria, and turkey were in that sphere until the conquests of Islam. We also forget that sapin was under islamic control and they were still trying to push into europe via greece and the balkans too.
This was a counter offensive against an extremely agressive enemy. Still is. Islam is the enemy of the west whether christian or secular. Dont forget it.
Agreed. A lot of people love to ignore the Islamic jihad that preceded the crusades by at least 5 centuries.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#156657 Oct 14, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are playing a child's game of "what comes before that?", "and then what comes before that?"
Chimney we already established that we have identified the energy and the system. There is no need to keep going back in time for sources of energy. The path is independent.
If you like, how about we have the energy applied by a nuclear-powered robot that runs on uranium. The bomb is a thermonuclear weapon that also gets its energy from uranium. Both amount of enriched fuel is exactly the same used by both the robot and the bomb. We have our raw materials (lumber and nails, etc.) Now you compare the difference in entropy for the robot building a house (with nothing but hand tools), and the bomb blowing up the raw materials to smithereens. It works!
If the robot uses exactly the same amount of energy in building the house as the bomb, then it is either a very big house or a very small nuclear bomb. But a bomb small enough to destroy the house would increase the *total* entropy (house plus environment) than the robot just able to build the house.

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) 2 min Science 67,215
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Science 28,657
Curious dilemma about DNA 1 hr Confucius 368
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr Subduction Zone 160,955
What location did life started in? 2 hr Confucius 11
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 2 hr Confucius 1,766
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 hr Subduction Zone 221,262
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 12 hr replaytime 332
More from around the web