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

#157058 Oct 22, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Any physics, engineering, or chemistry student would quickly correct you. You haven't done your homework yet. This is not your cup of tea Chimney. Stick to teaching English to 5th graders or whatever you do over there.
I have studied - and passed at high level - more physics than you have had hot breakfasts. Clearly - less than Poly, who has taken it to post grad level.

But none of this is post grad stuff.

Now, stop slinging BS and answer the question. How does the particle's available microstates get reduced by ADDING energy?

Just answer the question.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#157059 Oct 22, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have studied - and passed at high level - more physics than you have had hot breakfasts. Clearly - less than Poly, who has taken it to post grad level.
But none of this is post grad stuff.
Now, stop slinging BS and answer the question. How does the particle's available microstates get reduced by ADDING energy?
Just answer the question.
But Urb has had a second semester physics class that discussed thermodynamics and statistical mechanics! That *must* mean he understands everything there is about this subject.

</sarcsasm>

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#157060 Oct 22, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
As noted last time you mentioned it. I do not think its worth adding here, as it will simply complicate a situation already too complex for Urb to comprehend. Its a very particular case and "negative absolute temperature" is certainly not something applicable to blowing up a house!!!
Agreed. I simply try to refrain from general statements that have some very interesting exceptions. I'd probably say something like 'in any normal situation (like positive absolute temperatures), an addition of energy increases the number of available micro-states.' That way what I say is correct and acknowledges the exceptions that do exist.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#157061 Oct 22, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
ln(w) x k
you take the log of the microstates and multiply by k, which has dimensions.
What an idiot you are when your back is to the wall.
And still no solution to the question asked...propose to me how you can reduce available microstates by the addition of ordered energy to a particle. You claim that is how entropy is reduced. Show it.
You can't take the log of a number with units and a logs always give dimensionless numbers. The number of equivalent microstates is a real number either zero or positive without any units attached to it. In our example, it is a probability or the number of locations possible for a particular particle. Just remember that K is simply a conversion factor that converts the log of the microstates into a dimension compatible with the thermodynamic entropy. Also, the system must be in equilibrium so that each microstate has an equal probability in the macrostate.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#157062 Oct 22, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
Urb is still contending that physics defines a 3 story mud hut as inferior to a 3 story brick outhouse. <shrug> It still doesn't have anything at all to do with abiogenesis, but he seems happily confused whether 3 miles per nothing loses energy more evenly than nothing miles per nanosecond.
I notice you've changed your pic, Dogen. Might I presume that you have been in a discussion regarding Prince Vlad championing the Christian causes?

Just like to change it up now and again. Keeps it fun.

Vlad is an interesting character. Part folk hero, part robin hood, part Christian crusader, part iron fisted ruler, part man of the people, part tyrant and largely a bloodthirsty monster.

I love the story of him inviting the rich and powerful to a fancy dinner, boarding them in and burning down the building. Sort of restores ones faith in humanity.

:0)

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#157063 Oct 22, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't take the log of a number with units and a logs always give dimensionless numbers. The number of equivalent microstates is a real number either zero or positive without any units attached to it. In our example, it is a probability or the number of locations possible for a particular particle. Just remember that K is simply a conversion factor that converts the log of the microstates into a dimension compatible with the thermodynamic entropy. Also, the system must be in equilibrium so that each microstate has an equal probability in the macrostate.

To you definition list please add the words:

"compatible"
equilibrium


I am very interested in you completing this exercise as it may provide substantial insight into what you are doing/thinking wrong.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#157064 Oct 22, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't take the log of a number with units and a logs always give dimensionless numbers. The number of equivalent microstates is a real number either zero or positive without any units attached to it.
When did either Chimney or I suggest anything different?
In our example, it is a probability or the number of locations possible for a particular particle.
No, the number of micro-states is NOT a probability. A probability is always at most one and the number of micro-states is always at least one. It is also never the number of *positions* of any particle. It is the number of micro-states of the system. In classical computations, a micro-state gives the position *and momentum* of every molecule in the system. For quantum computations, a micro-state is a quantum wave function for the *entire* system. And the wave function encodes *everything* about the system: positions, momenta, energies, etc.
Just remember that K is simply a conversion factor that converts the log of the microstates into a dimension compatible with the thermodynamic entropy.
No, it is NOT simply a 'conversion factor'. It is the link between the average kinetic energy of the molecules in the system and the temperature of that system. That is why it has dimensions of energy/temperature. if you decide to set it equal to 1, then you automatically measure both energy and temperature in the same units.
Also, the system must be in equilibrium so that each microstate has an equal probability in the macrostate.
This is a matter of computational simplicity rather than a necessity in the definition. It is quite possible to define entropy for non-equilibrium systems. That S=k*ln(W) only works for systems in equilibrium, though.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#157065 Oct 22, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
When did either Chimney or I suggest anything different?
Yes he did. He is insists that microstates have the same dimenstions as entropy. Go back and read his comments. Obviously that's nonsense. I tried to explain to him that you cannot take the log of a number with units and expect anything other than a nonsensical result. I tried to explain to him that when you take the log of a number, the answer is always dimensionless. Could you please talk some sense into him?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#157066 Oct 22, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have studied - and passed at high level - more physics than you have had hot breakfasts. Clearly - less than Poly, who has taken it to post grad level.
But none of this is post grad stuff.
Now, stop slinging BS and answer the question. How does the particle's available microstates get reduced by ADDING energy?
Just answer the question.
It doesn't get reduced you moron. It is less when part of house than if it were located randomly in a debris field. Why can't you understand this simple concept?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#157067 Oct 22, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't get reduced you moron. It is less when part of house than if it were located randomly in a debris field. Why can't you understand this simple concept?
no, it seems that you can't. Random debris is every bit as structured and unique as your house is. The only thing that is different between the two systems is your aesthetic bias.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#157068 Oct 22, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't get reduced you moron. It is less when part of house than if it were located randomly in a debris field. Why can't you understand this simple concept?
And of course, the opposite of random is 'intelligence', yes?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#157069 Oct 22, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
no, it seems that you can't. Random debris is every bit as structured and unique as your house is. The only thing that is different between the two systems is your aesthetic bias.
You'd have to be insane to believe that.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#157070 Oct 22, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You'd have to be insane to believe that.
I've said repeatedly that the statistical odds of 2 random piles being exactly the same is equal to a debris pile and a house. A system does not care if there are pink shutters and daisy print curtains. The only thing that makes the house "more unique" is your aesthetic bias, and throughout this discussion, your aesthetic bias is the only thing that defines "order". You just can't see that, it has no bearing on abiogenesis and again - I never said you were sane. I SAID you were probably from Bithlo.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#157072 Oct 22, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
no, it seems that you can't. Random debris is every bit as structured and unique as your house is. The only thing that is different between the two systems is your aesthetic bias.

Goes back to his fundamental misunderstanding.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#157073 Oct 22, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You'd have to be insane to believe that.

No, he has to understand entropy. Something which you cannot fathom. At least to this point.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#157074 Oct 22, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I've said repeatedly that the statistical odds of 2 random piles being exactly the same is equal to a debris pile and a house. A system does not care if there are pink shutters and daisy print curtains. The only thing that makes the house "more unique" is your aesthetic bias, and throughout this discussion, your aesthetic bias is the only thing that defines "order". You just can't see that, it has no bearing on abiogenesis and again - I never said you were sane. I SAID you were probably from Bithlo.

I keep asking him to define "ordered", but he keeps refusing.

You see why.

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#157075 Oct 22, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
As noted last time you mentioned it. I do not think its worth adding here, as it will simply complicate a situation already too complex for Urb to comprehend. Its a very particular case and "negative absolute temperature" is certainly not something applicable to blowing up a house!!!
The exact conditions of micro-states are too complex for anyone to comprehend really.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#157076 Oct 22, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes he did. He is insists that microstates have the same dimenstions as entropy. Go back and read his comments. Obviously that's nonsense.
Please give the post number where is says this. He has said repeatedly that entropy has units of energy/temperature, which is correct. He has said that Boltzmann's constant has dimensions of energy/temperature, which is also correct. However, the entropy is NOT the same as the number of micro-states, but he never claimed it was (you have come close).
I tried to explain to him that you cannot take the log of a number with units and expect anything other than a nonsensical result. I tried to explain to him that when you take the log of a number, the answer is always dimensionless. Could you please talk some sense into him?
I would guess you misunderstood what he said. From what I have read, he did not say that the number of micro-states has a dimension. he *has* said that the entropy does.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#157077 Oct 22, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't get reduced you moron. It is less when part of house than if it were located randomly in a debris field. Why can't you understand this simple concept?
It is not a matter of understanding. It is a matter of knwoing this is wrong.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#157078 Oct 22, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You'd have to be insane to believe that.
A particular arrangement of the 'random debris' is a *macro-state*, not a *micro-state*. A dust particle is a *macroscopic* object when dealing with statistical mechanics.

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 min Marksman11 142,489
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving in... 6 min Strel 5
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 11 min dirtclod 171,619
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 35 min THE LONE WORKER 226
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Paul Porter1 20,514
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? 1 hr Paul Porter1 30
Darwin, Marx, and Freud 2 hr Paul Porter1 6
More from around the web