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.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#156680 Oct 14, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
You do realize that the micro-state includes the momentum, right?
Wrong! We are not measuring the particle's momentum! We are COUNTING THE EQUIVALENT MICROSTATES OF EACH PARTICLE. THis count is done in an instant of time. Furthermore, in our example of the house or the debris. Everything is at rest. The house is finished. The debris field lies still.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#156681 Oct 14, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Three wrongs dont make a right, UC. In statistical thermodynamics you count available microstates and convert the figure into entropy by applying Boltzmann's constant to the ln of the number of available microstates.
In other words number of microstates is NOT entropy. ENTROPY is what you get by the above conversion ln (W) x k (J/K) and the result is the SAME as if you had used the original thermodynamic calc with temperature etc.
And no, that is NOT a coincidence either, which you might grasp if you studied the basics. K
We've been through this already. Wrong, wrong, wrong! Boltzmann's constant is not even needed! At least Poly gets this aspect.
Believer

Manchester, TN

#156682 Oct 14, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually you and your fellow fundies have far far less. All you know is following orders of the Big Guy. Doesn't matter if what He thinks is "nice" or "fair" or "just". It is ONLY because He says so. No other reason.
That's why the God of the OT was a total jackazz and you will STILL call it righteous. That's because you have no concept of morality.
<quoted text>
Yes they are. That means the rest of us are capable of analysing morals.
<quoted text>
As far as can be objectively determined there is zero evidence to presume any of this exists. Ergo you have no platform to get on your imaginary high horse.
You are the perfect example of one who cannot understand anything about the Christian Faith. You are spiritually blind.

God says we are not to judge. He is the judge! He tells us, though, that " he who says in his heart there is no God is a fool." God said it. I'm just reminding you go what He says about people like you.
God loves you every bit as much as He loves any Christian. You disrespect that love and the grace and forgiveness that goes with it. Therefore, you have no clue of the spiritual supernatural warfare that is going on around you.

You like all other atheists I've encountered like to always refer to the Old Testament scriptures to try to show that God was cruel and unjust. If you understood the Christian Faith, Christ and what He did and why He came, all of that would make some sense to you. You do not understand any of it because you have rejected the opportunity that was and may still be available to you. It is your choice. It is my choice. It is God's Plan!

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#156683 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.
In a closed system, a brick wall and a brick floor are identical, as gravity is an outside force. There is no more potential for Urb's wall to 'fall down' than there is for a floor to 'stand up'.
Put that way, maybe that is the lesson to be gleaned from all of this.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#156684 Oct 14, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the perfect example of one who cannot understand anything about the Christian Faith. You are spiritually blind.
God says we are not to judge. He is the judge! He tells us, though, that " he who says in his heart there is no God is a fool." God said it. I'm just reminding you go what He says about people like you.
God loves you every bit as much as He loves any Christian. You disrespect that love and the grace and forgiveness that goes with it. Therefore, you have no clue of the spiritual supernatural warfare that is going on around you.
You like all other atheists I've encountered like to always refer to the Old Testament scriptures to try to show that God was cruel and unjust. If you understood the Christian Faith, Christ and what He did and why He came, all of that would make some sense to you. You do not understand any of it because you have rejected the opportunity that was and may still be available to you. It is your choice. It is my choice. It is God's Plan!
Why do you keep writing "God says" when what you mean is "the Bible says"? You should be more discerning in your statements.
Believer

Manchester, TN

#156685 Oct 14, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Considering you post on these forums you really haven't poked your head up outside very often over the past few decades, have you?
Considering your faith is Ina few rocks that explain what you want them to explain. No real proof of anything!
I have been dealing primarily with hurting people in the last few decades. I have learned to look at the lives and feelings of people in a way you obviously never have.

Maybe get your head out of your science textbooks and websites and theories of men with limited understanding of everything and think about what is going on around you in the world and what your science can explain to you about it all.

At least my faith has an answer to the most basic question of where, how, and why man exists today and the purpose for this life we find ourselves struggling through. Knowledge is a wonderful blessing that is part of that life and purpose.

The true purpose and the Truth we are all searching for will not be found in science. The real Truth is found in Christ.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#156686 Oct 14, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong! We are not measuring the particle's momentum! We are COUNTING THE EQUIVALENT MICROSTATES OF EACH PARTICLE. THis count is done in an instant of time. Furthermore, in our example of the house or the debris. Everything is at rest. The house is finished. The debris field lies still.
And like I said, a micro-state includes the momentum: different momentum, different micro-state.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#156687 Oct 14, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
We've been through this already. Wrong, wrong, wrong! Boltzmann's constant is not even needed! At least Poly gets this aspect.
Setting Boltzmann's constant to 1 means using a different temperature scale. But the thermodynamic entropy and the statistical mechanics entropy will be the same thing.

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#156688 Oct 14, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
In a closed system, a brick wall and a brick floor are identical, as gravity is an outside force. There is no more potential for Urb's wall to 'fall down' than there is for a floor to 'stand up'.
Put that way, maybe that is the lesson to be gleaned from all of this.

Actually there is the potential for either of those things, however the probability is much higher that the wall will fall.
But that doesn't negate the fact it is possible the floor could stand. But the probability is that if the floor does stand , that the wall will indeed fall. This makes as much sense as Urbs excursion into entropy and micro-states and statistical mechanics.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-d-UsXlt4uoQ/T9_tmTK...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#156689 Oct 14, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
How does the statement that:
"cooling a system produces a DS < 0 " (correct)
Truthfully, even this isn't always correct.

In statistical mechanics, the temperature is defined as the rate of change of internal energy with respect to entropy at constant volume and constant number of particles.

So, for a positive temperature, an increase of internal energy leads to an increase of entropy. And for the *vast* majority of situations, temperature is positive.

But, it *is* meaningful to talk about situations where the temperature is *negative*. An example can be found when each molecule has, say, two possible energy levels. For a typical situation (positive temperature), the lower energy level is more populated and so an increase of internal energy leads to a wider energy distribution between levels and so an increased entropy.

But, it is possible to have situations where there is an 'energy inversion' where the upper energy level is more populated. In this case, adding energy means the energy goes into more upper levels, so the entropy actually decreases. In this situation, we say that the temperature is negative. This happens, for example, in the ruby crystal for a laser. The upper energy levels are more populated than the lower.

This occasionally hits the popular presses with stories about negative temperatures being achieved. Most are pretty poorly reported and the situation is well-known and well-understood. But it does have the strange aspect that a system at a negative temperature has higher energy than the system at a positive temperature.

Anyway, it is good to be careful of blanket statements.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#156690 Oct 14, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
We've been through this already. Wrong, wrong, wrong! Boltzmann's constant is not even needed! At least Poly gets this aspect.
If you set Boltzmann's constant equal to 1, then temperature will be measured in joules. So, even in this case, the entropy is measured as energy/temperature.
Believer

Manchester, TN

#156691 Oct 14, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you keep writing "God says" when what you mean is "the Bible says"? You should be more discerning in your statements.
Another great example of how little you know about the Christian Faith. Spiritual discernment is not within your ability to comprehend. I believe the Bible to be the Holy Spirit inspired word of God. I also understand possible misinterpretations in some words in translating from the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic by imperfect human beings also inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Find some fault in Jesus and you will get my attention. Otherwise just know I have faith that God knows all things, and if don't have to.

(Another example of how people without spiritual discernment but possibly with good intentions make (possibly) innocent mistakes in translations today: the fact that many times when I type the word "God" the autocorrect will throw in an "a" before the word God. So, I can only assume that someone did not understand that God typed with a capital letter would not have an "a" in front of it because I believe there is only one God. I am doing the typing, and should be able to refer to God without it being changed "for me.")

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#156693 Oct 14, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually there is the potential for either of those things, however the probability is much higher that the wall will fall.
But that doesn't negate the fact it is possible the floor could stand. But the probability is that if the floor does stand , that the wall will indeed fall. This makes as much sense as Urbs excursion into entropy and micro-states and statistical mechanics.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-d-UsXlt4uoQ/T9_tmTK...
CLOSED SYSTEM. No gravity except that intrinsic to the mass within the system, no orientation of up or down. "Stand" and "fall" are meaningless terms within that context.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#156697 Oct 14, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
Another great example of how little you know about the Christian Faith. Spiritual discernment is not within your ability to comprehend. I believe the Bible to be the Holy Spirit inspired word of God. I also understand possible misinterpretations in some words in translating from the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic by imperfect human beings also inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Find some fault in Jesus and you will get my attention. Otherwise just know I have faith that God knows all things, and if don't have to.
(Another example of how people without spiritual discernment but possibly with good intentions make (possibly) innocent mistakes in translations today: the fact that many times when I type the word "God" the autocorrect will throw in an "a" before the word God. So, I can only assume that someone did not understand that God typed with a capital letter would not have an "a" in front of it because I believe there is only one God. I am doing the typing, and should be able to refer to God without it being changed "for me.")
Do not presume to "know" what or how much I do or do not understand about faith and theology. Dogma, doctrine, mythos, "Truth" - by whatever term you wish to disseminate, describe or translate, belief is not comprehension.
GIGO is what it is.

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#156699 Oct 14, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
CLOSED SYSTEM. No gravity except that intrinsic to the mass within the system, no orientation of up or down. "Stand" and "fall" are meaningless terms within that context.
You can't have a wall or a floor under those conditions. You just have bricks floating around.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#156702 Oct 14, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
In a closed system, a brick wall and a brick floor are identical, as gravity is an outside force. There is no more potential for Urb's wall to 'fall down' than there is for a floor to 'stand up'.
Put that way, maybe that is the lesson to be gleaned from all of this.
Not quite. If the standing wall has an average height 2 meters further from the centre of the earth than when it was lying on the ground, it has been given some additional gravitational potential energy and that has had to come from somewhere. Some of the energy generated by the crane, or in men's muscles, has not been wasted as heat but is sitting there in gravitational potential energy.

If this wall weighs a tonne and a 10 kilowatt crane operates for one minute to erect it, then the "energy equation" would be

600,000 J of fuel -> 580,000 J HEAT and 20,000 J Pot. Energy (grav)

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#156703 Oct 14, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Truthfully, even this isn't always correct.
In statistical mechanics, the temperature is defined as the rate of change of internal energy with respect to entropy at constant volume and constant number of particles.
So, for a positive temperature, an increase of internal energy leads to an increase of entropy. And for the *vast* majority of situations, temperature is positive.
But, it *is* meaningful to talk about situations where the temperature is *negative*. An example can be found when each molecule has, say, two possible energy levels. For a typical situation (positive temperature), the lower energy level is more populated and so an increase of internal energy leads to a wider energy distribution between levels and so an increased entropy.
But, it is possible to have situations where there is an 'energy inversion' where the upper energy level is more populated. In this case, adding energy means the energy goes into more upper levels, so the entropy actually decreases. In this situation, we say that the temperature is negative. This happens, for example, in the ruby crystal for a laser. The upper energy levels are more populated than the lower.
This occasionally hits the popular presses with stories about negative temperatures being achieved. Most are pretty poorly reported and the situation is well-known and well-understood. But it does have the strange aspect that a system at a negative temperature has higher energy than the system at a positive temperature.
Anyway, it is good to be careful of blanket statements.
I read about that recently while looking into all this.
However, lets remember the context. Creager says correctly that cooling reduces entropy - normally, and in the world Bolzmann was familiar with, because he is using Boltzmann.

He then inexplicably concludes from the above that applying order increases order. I want him, or UC, to explain how the premise leads to the conclusion.

Note I have asked Urb several times and he has not ever answered that, just parroted that it does, that its correct, etc etc. You have done the same. Its a fuzz, a gloss over, and its how Creager pulls off the whole con trick.

As UC is so clearly getting confused over the simplest things, its clear he does not even understand the pre-Boltzmann version of TD and yet is running off into complexities to try and rescue Creager. Really, have you read that paper yet, that UC was copying verbatim (though not attributing to Creager - I did a search to discover that).

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#156705 Oct 14, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> You can't have a wall or a floor under those conditions. You just have bricks floating around.
BINGO. That is part of the point. The eye of the beholder. The world's tallest radio tower fell over and became the world's longest radio tower. Urb quibbles about microstates, yet each brick is a fixed ideal set, and combined they make up a hypothetical system. In the end, all he has established is that his quibbling ignores the fundamentals in favor of chosen details.
Motes stacked by intrinsic gravity, ion bonds, Van der Waal, electostatics, electromagnetics, etc., etc. which are >not< random but the result of known and deducible interactions, the complex yet predictable distinct and combined works of the 4 forces of nature - or the breath of order forced upon them through the hand of man or the mind of God (AKA Urb's image)? This is the creationist failure in misinterpreting the SLoT equations.
Toss a pile of bricks in a random pile. The pile will settle to a state of equilibrium. Do it again - is it the same random pile with exactly the same state of equilibrium? No. The odds are identical for the bricks falling in exactly the same formation as that of falling into a half basket weave pattern. The fundamental difference between the random herringbone floor and the random scattering of bricks is human preference.
The inherent deceit in these discussions is deliberately starting with the complex to deliberately conclude with the complex, jumping from counting on "God created fingers" to biochemistry and physics without any transition and then claiming it proof of Creation.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#156706 Oct 14, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
We've been through this already. Wrong, wrong, wrong! Boltzmann's constant is not even needed! At least Poly gets this aspect.
If you want to talk about entropy it is. The constant k consists of 2 parts, the scalar and the units. The scalar is set to the SI system of measures. A different scalar could set it to measures based on feet and pounds and a different temperature scale.

But the relationship would STILL be ENTROPY expressed in ENERGY / TEMPERATURE.

I could even invent a temperature or time and distance scales so that Boltmann's constant = 1, though either the first two would be so huge or the last, temperature, so tiny that these scales would not be much use for other things. meters, seconds, and kilograms did not fall from heaven or were engraved on golden tablets - they were chosen as human sized, useful measures.

Since physicists know this, they can for simplicity make k = 1 if they are conducting a theoretical exercise. But what they CANNOT do is forget that the thing measured, the entropy, is still ENERGY / TEMPERATURE.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#156710 Oct 14, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong! We are not measuring the particle's momentum! We are COUNTING THE EQUIVALENT MICROSTATES OF EACH PARTICLE. THis count is done in an instant of time. Furthermore, in our example of the house or the debris. Everything is at rest. The house is finished. The debris field lies still.
Momentum can be measured in an instant of time - that is what Newton invented calculus for. That is the sort of thing a derivative function does. And even in a house lying still, each particle in the structure right down at the electron level is still in motion.

If it was not, the temperature of your house would be ZERO K.

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) 10 min Richardfs 40,249
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 13 min THE LONE WORKER 201,041
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Richardfs 15,752
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 1 hr ChristineM 84
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 6 hr DanFromSmithville 151,414
Scientists create vast 3-D map of universe, val... 8 hr One way or another 6
The conscious God or the inanimate nature 19 hr Fear-God 8
More from around the web