Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180392 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

#156943 Oct 16, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you do have to consider the effects on the environment. And yes, that means the whole universe. Now, that is usually fairly simple once you consider the energy crossing the boundaries, etc, but it *does* have to be taken into account.
So no, it is NOT just the location of the particles of the raw material that needs to be considered: it is the *total* effect.
No. The environment is irrelevant. The isothermic system at measurement is in equilibrium. That is stipulated. You are either confabulating or intentionally obstructing by creating distractions.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#156944 Oct 16, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Ah. What you mean to say is I have had the requisite education and knowledge to employ facts to blow through the smokescreens your cult "scientists" have employed to pull the wool over your eyes and you hate that.
Whether its you trying to claim that a calcified hat is indistinguishable from a fossil,
I never claimed any such thing about hats. And I have asked you several times who you were and what you did and you said you could not do that. So I have no idea who you are. You seem to have done some reading but I don't if you even went to college. I told I had a career in the National Weather Service and had to take all the engineering physics, calculus, thermodynamics, etc. Look at any university curriculum for meteorology. So I doubt you are going to "blow me away" with your secret education/career that you can't disclose. I'll tell you what I think you are: Probably a junior high school teacher. Probably teach English or history. Those are the ones that match your level of snarky arrogance. Big mouth and very little substance.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#156945 Oct 16, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah. What you mean to say is I have had the requisite education and knowledge to employ facts to blow through the smokescreens your cult "scientists" have employed to pull the wool over your eyes and you hate that.
Whether its you trying to claim that a calcified hat is indistinguishable from a fossil, that an intrusion falsifies all radiometric dating, that spiral arms make an old galaxy impossible, that research on fluctuations of a single magnetic reversal can be falsely applied to entire reversals, that the genetic clock should put a modern reptile closer to a modern amphibian than a modern horse....the endless list of BS that you parade out here and I, and others, demolish with nothing more than conventional science is endless
And now we have you making your most foolish claims yet and you hate the fact that Poly and I (and others) just havent let you get away with your despicable attempts to mock science with your garbage. Now you want to pretend that that microstates 'are' entropy of a kind applicable to the second law, and again, you just dont get away with that. Might work on a blunderheaded bunch of creatards but not on anyone who understands the science.
No I wont be around much for the next few days. But its really quite extraordinary to see how you delude yourself (that is the charitable interpretation) and then attempt to project your own faults onto your opponents. I can safely say that in a room full of 100 physicists 99 would laugh at Creager's paper and the other one would be the group clown. Perhaps other scientists should take note that the forces of medieval darkness and stupidity that you represent are against them all, and evolutionary science was only the canary in the coal mine.
But here you go again. You don't discuss the science or any thing relevant or any specifics. Instead, all you can do is trash-talk.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#156946 Oct 16, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Is there any before and after in E = MC^2? No!, the two sides equate to each other simultaneously. They are two corresponding properties of the same thing both present at the *same time*, i.e., they are always both present in the same (constant) proportion to each other. It's not E at time zero plus X amount time passing finally becomes MC^2! E simply equals...simply *is* MC^2.
There is a before and after with the raw materials and either the robot or the bomb before each, respectively, acts on the raw materials. But we are assuming that the robot has more order than the bomb. Perhaps that is confusing you.
Say you had a twin brother and both of you were overweight and went on a month-long diet. If you want to find who lost the more weight, you or your twin brother and you both weighed exactly the same before going on a diet (say 200 lbs), then at the end of the month, you would each get on the scale and get weighed. And then you would compare the two measurements. You weigh-in at 180 and your brother weighs-in at 190. Obviously you were more successful at your diet because you weigh 10 lbs less than your brother. You could calculate the weight loss of each brother but without knowing what each of you weighed at the end of the diet you wouldn't be able to know who lost the most weight.
So when we measure the difference between two different macrostates of equilibrium (the house or the debris), we take two separate measurements and compare them. What has more microstates, the house or the debris? Obviously the debris does.(We assumed that robot has far fewer microstates than the bomb does.) It wouldn't matter if we took the difference in microstates between the raw materials before and the microstates of the house or debris after. You have to take two separate measurements. One for the house and one for the debris. Obviously the debris has the higher amount of microstates.
Why? because applying energy in an organized manner will decrease entropy while energy applied in a random manner will increase entropy.
But entropy IS about before and after.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#156947 Oct 16, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Energy is neither created nor destroyed. Any energy that has left the system is still out there doing sommething somewhere. If the air is no longer heated the energy has moved on even further and become more dissipated still, which does not help your argument at all. It just means even more entropy increase has occurred. Anywhere in the whole universe, yes its part of the equation if it has been affected in any way by the events at the building site. That is fundamental.
And once again we are back to the simple 'day one' rebuttal of Creager that it is only the ability of a system to process and dissipate energy that can lead to a local reduction in entropy, and not the 'entropy of the applied energy' which is a meaningless statement anyway that ignores the mismatch in the dimensions of energy vs the dimensions of entropy. And localised entropy reduction comes at the expense of a greater entropy increase elsewhere, somewhere in the universe. When you want to correctly account for the total entropy change of any process, you must include all effects.
You are still discussing this as if it were thermodynamic entropy. This is a different subject. Statistical entropy. It deals in probabilities. We are taking statistics on microstates. There is no temperature differences because it is stipulated that when we count the microstates the system is at equilibrium. When we count the microstates it is in a nanosecond point in time. If you want to discuss Creager's, would you please at least stay on the same subject?

This is as if we have to walk up 5 flights of stairs to reach our destination and you can't even take the first step.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#156948 Oct 16, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No. The environment is irrelevant. The isothermic system at measurement is in equilibrium. That is stipulated. You are either confabulating or intentionally obstructing by creating distractions.
I still do not understand the purpose of this conceptual problem that cannot apply to the universe that we live in.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#156949 Oct 16, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
But entropy IS about before and after.
Not necessarily. The change can be calculated but it can also be measured instantaneously. The formula for that is S = k Log W and that is not the change. dS = k log W2/W1 is the change. There are many, many forms that it can take.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#156950 Oct 16, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
To the contrary it is something that was realized ...long ago.
That there is a relationship between them, no matter how you figure it. So I'm guessing that you haven't studied this with a professor
who was grading you tests.
Here is something I can share with you...if you really want to understand statistical mechanics , entropy and thermodynamics.
18+ hours of study, that could take years to comprehend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =H1Zbp6__uNwXX&list=SPB724 16C707D85AB0&index=1
Did you listen to what the professor said? Statistical mechanics has many applications. They use it in science, medicine, and even in finance, in information, in many areas. Listen to him in Lesson 1:

He said "statistical mechanics is a mathematical structure which has many applications". "In a nutshell, statistical mechanics is simply probability theory, which can be applied to many different circumstances."

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#156951 Oct 17, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you listen to what the professor said? Statistical mechanics has many applications. They use it in science, medicine, and even in finance, in information, in many areas. Listen to him in Lesson 1:
He said "statistical mechanics is a mathematical structure which has many applications". "In a nutshell, statistical mechanics is simply probability theory, which can be applied to many different circumstances."

No this is where you're wrong. Statistical mechanics uses probability and mathematical equations to define what is going on at the particle/molecular level of a larger system. To answer question's like what happens to the atoms in H2O as it is heated to boil, or cooled to freeze.

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

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#156952 Oct 17, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you listen to what the professor said? Statistical mechanics has many applications. They use it in science, medicine, and even in finance, in information, in many areas. Listen to him in Lesson 1:
He said "statistical mechanics is a mathematical structure which has many applications". "In a nutshell, statistical mechanics is simply probability theory, which can be applied to many different circumstances."
The formulas can be used to calculate other things that use very large numbers. But.... We have a winner! Probability theory is um....
drum roll ..........Tah Dah....Probability theory
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#156953 Oct 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
It was your assertion that you don't believe things not supported by physical and tangible evidence. I didn't impose it upon you. Apparently, you do believe such things if you believe you're a Christian, but can't support that belief with physical and tangible evidence.
Aw crap! It got a transfer.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#156954 Oct 17, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
The formulas can be used to calculate other things that use very large numbers. But.... We have a winner! Probability theory is um....
drum roll ..........Tah Dah....Probability theory
That's not what he said smart-ass. He said statistical mechanics is probability theory, which of course includes Boltzmann's formula. You guys hate all this stuff (real science) because it so obviously means the end of the ideological "common descent" evolution.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#156955 Oct 17, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Is there any before and after in E = MC^2? No!, the two sides equate to each other simultaneously. They are two corresponding properties of the same thing both present at the *same time*, i.e., they are always both present in the same (constant) proportion to each other. It's not E at time zero plus X amount time passing finally becomes MC^2! E simply equals...simply *is* MC^2.
But if you are interested in the conservation of energy, you need to compare the energy at two different times.
There is a before and after with the raw materials and either the robot or the bomb before each, respectively, acts on the raw materials. But we are assuming that the robot has more order than the bomb. Perhaps that is confusing you.
Why would that be confusing?
Say you had a twin brother and both of you were overweight and went on a month-long diet. If you want to find who lost the more weight, you or your twin brother and you both weighed exactly the same before going on a diet (say 200 lbs), then at the end of the month, you would each get on the scale and get weighed. And then you would compare the two measurements. You weigh-in at 180 and your brother weighs-in at 190. Obviously you were more successful at your diet because you weigh 10 lbs less than your brother. You could calculate the weight loss of each brother but without knowing what each of you weighed at the end of the diet you wouldn't be able to know who lost the most weight.
But you would NOT simply look at how much weight their livers gained or lost. You would have to consider the whole system.
So when we measure the difference between two different macrostates of equilibrium (the house or the debris), we take two separate measurements and compare them. What has more microstates, the house or the debris?
Good question. How do you go about counting them?
Obviously the debris does.
Are you sure?
(We assumed that robot has far fewer microstates than the bomb does.)
Why do you think that is relevant? Is the robot part of the system? Is the bomb?
It wouldn't matter if we took the difference in microstates between the raw materials before and the microstates of the house or debris after. You have to take two separate measurements. One for the house and one for the debris. Obviously the debris has the higher amount of microstates.
Please provide details for this claim.

Next, and once again, you have ignored the effect of this application of energy on the environment. How did the number of micro-states in the environment change? And yes, that is a crucial aspect of all of this.
Why? because applying energy in an organized manner will decrease entropy while energy applied in a random manner will increase entropy.
And I have shown specific examples where this is wrong. I have shown that the 'ordered' application of energy can increase entropy. There are also examples where the disordered application can decrease entropy.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#156956 Oct 17, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No. The environment is irrelevant. The isothermic system at measurement is in equilibrium. That is stipulated. You are either confabulating or intentionally obstructing by creating distractions.
Suppose we took two huge boxes which does not let out heat or matter. We put the raw materials into each box along with a bomb and a robot. So the materials in each box are identical. Then, in one box we set off the bomb and in the other box we let the robot build a house. We then wait until the contents of both boxes are at equilibrium. How does the entropy of one box compare to the entropy of the other box?

The answer? They are the *same*.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#156957 Oct 17, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not what he said smart-ass. He said statistical mechanics is probability theory, which of course includes Boltzmann's formula. You guys hate all this stuff (real science) because it so obviously means the end of the ideological "common descent" evolution.
The basic ideas of probability theory can be applied to information theory and to statistical mechanics. The formulas are even very similar, so the calculations are very close.

There are *four* types of entropy that can be considered:

1. Information theory. We have a probability distribution with probabilities p_i. The entropy of the distribution is then given by S=-sum p_i log(p_i). Typically, the logarithm used is to the base 2, but that is not a central requirement.

2. Non-equilibrium statistical mechanics. Here, we look at the probability distribution associated with a particular macro-state. The entropy is now
S=-k*sum p_i ln(p_i). There are two differences with the information thoery version of entropy. First, the logarithm is always the natural logarithm (base e). Second, we always multiply the result by Boltzmann's constant.

3. Equilibrium statistical mechanics. Here, we count the number of micro-states (meaning the distinct quantum states), W. Then the entropy is given by S=k*ln(W). Again we use Boltzmann's constant. This is consistent with the second version of entropy because in equilibrium all micro-states are equally probable, so each p_i=1/W.

4. Thermodynamic entropy. Here, we define the entropy of a pure crystal at zero kelvins to be 0. And then we define the change in entropy through dS=dQ/T where dQ is the reversible heat change in the system. The second law of thermodynamics is about this version of entropy. It says that the entropy of an isolated system will increase over time.

Now, it turns out that the Thermodynamic entropy and the equilibrium statistical mechanics entropy are *exactly* the same. That is part of the whole point of statistical mechanics as a branch of physics. So any conclusions you can get from the thermodynamic entropy will *also* hold for the equilibrium statistical mechanics entropy.

The information theoretic version of entropy is clearly related, but different than the others. All of the others have dimension of energy/temperature.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#156958 Oct 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Suppose we took two huge boxes which does not let out heat or matter. We put the raw materials into each box along with a bomb and a robot. So the materials in each box are identical. Then, in one box we set off the bomb and in the other box we let the robot build a house. We then wait until the contents of both boxes are at equilibrium. How does the entropy of one box compare to the entropy of the other box?
The answer? They are the *same*.
That is wrong. If you count the equivalent microstates of each, the debris will have a very high number and the house will have a very low number. Obviously the house will have much lower entropy than the debris.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#156959 Oct 17, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
No this is where you're wrong. Statistical mechanics uses probability and mathematical equations to define what is going on at the particle/molecular level of a larger system. To answer question's like what happens to the atoms in H2O as it is heated to boil, or cooled to freeze.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_mech...
This totally contradicts the lessons that you just provided and contradicts what the lecturor said.(And contradicts every other text book on the subject and all of science.)

Did you even watch your own videos?
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#156960 Oct 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
But if you are interested in the conservation of energy, you need to compare the energy at two different times.
<quoted text>
Why would that be confusing?
<quoted text>
But you would NOT simply look at how much weight their livers gained or lost. You would have to consider the whole system.
<quoted text>
Good question. How do you go about counting them?
<quoted text>
Are you sure?
<quoted text>
Why do you think that is relevant? Is the robot part of the system? Is the bomb?
<quoted text>
Please provide details for this claim.
Next, and once again, you have ignored the effect of this application of energy on the environment. How did the number of micro-states in the environment change? And yes, that is a crucial aspect of all of this.
<quoted text>
And I have shown specific examples where this is wrong. I have shown that the 'ordered' application of energy can increase entropy. There are also examples where the disordered application can decrease entropy.
The environment is irrelavent because the fundamental postulate of statistical mechanics requires the system to be in equilibrium.

I've only pointed this out about 2 dozen times now.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#156961 Oct 17, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are still discussing this as if it were thermodynamic entropy. This is a different subject. Statistical entropy. It deals in probabilities. We are taking statistics on microstates. There is no temperature differences because it is stipulated that when we count the microstates the system is at equilibrium. When we count the microstates it is in a nanosecond point in time. If you want to discuss Creager's, would you please at least stay on the same subject?
This is as if we have to walk up 5 flights of stairs to reach our destination and you can't even take the first step.
Creager doesn't stay on the same subject. At 2:14 he diverts completely away from the SLoT to La-La land.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#156962 Oct 17, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The environment is irrelavent because the fundamental postulate of statistical mechanics requires the system to be in equilibrium.
I've only pointed this out about 2 dozen times now.
And you are wrong each time. The environment *is* relevant because energy goes into the environment. When discussing changes in entropy, the number of micro-states in the environment needs to be dealt with.

You continually make the following mistakes:

1. Claiming the environment is irrelevant. Any energy or matter going out into the environment needs to be accounted for. The fact that the system is isothermal doesn't mean the environment can be ignored.

2. Not acknowledging that thermodynamic entropy and the entropy of statistical mechanics are the same thing. This is a large part of what Boltzmann showed and is crucial for the understanding of both subjects.

3. Not understanding that the entropy of statistical mechanics has the units of J/K. That is one way it differs from the entropy of information theory. But it is also why it gives the same answers as the thermodynamic entropy.

4. Not understanding that a micro-state is a quantum state. The number of quantum states in your debris field is almost identical to the number of quantum states in your house.

5. Not acknowledging the counter-examples to your predictions. I have shown several which you continue to ignore.

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 Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 6 min yehoshooah adam 3,853
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 58 min marksman11 161,478
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Nohweh 30,608
Do alleged ERVs confirm common descent? 4 hr Dogen 110
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr Dogen 70,561
G-d versus Evolution? 11 hr Dogen 35
News Episode 2: The Birth of Climate Denial 12 hr Subduction Zone 7
More from around the web