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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#157283 Oct 27, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
What a bunch of idiotic hypocritical hogwash. You sure must live a boring existence to have to spend time gossiping about someone you've never even met and know nothing about. Just like your pseudoscience, you just make stuff up as you go.(Picture Chimney as the mime trapped in the invisible box placing his hands against the walls. <:o

You have a vivid imaginary life.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#157284 Oct 27, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Take what you posted and substitute your name for Chimneys and I would say you completely sum yourself up. Transference runs amuck on this forum.

Projection. Not transference.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#157285 Oct 27, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Projection. Not transference.
I always mix those two up.

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#157286 Oct 27, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Real cowboys laugh at the idea of an "urban cowboy".
Outside the movie , I've no idea what that is.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#157287 Oct 27, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems to be a feature of Urb's psyche to unconditionally support whoever he perceives is "on his team", and to see anyone not on his team in the blackest of terms. I noted his indignance at the rather funny attacks on Palin though he shows no restraint when attacking someone like Dawkins or Obama.
Likewise I remember pointing out the obvious dishonesty and quote mining when creationists misused the work of Coe and Prevot to try and argue that it supports the notion of rapid daily reversals in the magnetic field...something Coe himself responded to as obvious quotemining of his work. But no, Urb will defend the worst argument to the end if it supports his position.
This extreme degree of partisanship has no place in science and is not even useful in politics. But Creager could have said the earth is flat and Urb would defend his "team mate". It does not seem to matter to Urb how valid or honest an argument against evolution is, it seems to be his sworn duty to defend it simply because its an attack on evolution. He does not seem to realise that indiscriminately supporting any and all attacks on evo merely make it less likely that anyone is going to listen if he ever comes up with a good one.
You should check out a late relative of mine, Thomas Jefferson Jackson See. He was an astronomer/astrophysicist with some promise in his youth, but he apparently worried more about being right and his own intellect and notoriety than concern for the science and credibility. He died ignored in obscurity. He was an opponent of Einstein, I think more out of spite than any real issue. See's condition was more extreme than Urb's because See whittled his side down to just himself. However, it is an example happening in science and example that isn't needed.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#157288 Oct 27, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I always mix those two up.

No point deducted for the first offense.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#157289 Oct 27, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
No point deducted for the first offense.
I have to admit, I don't think it is my first offense, but thanks for the warning this time.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#157290 Oct 27, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
What a bunch of idiotic hypocritical hogwash. You sure must live a boring existence to have to spend time gossiping about someone you've never even met and know nothing about. Just like your pseudoscience, you just make stuff up as you go.(Picture Chimney as the mime trapped in the invisible box placing his hands against the walls. <:o
Who have I been gossiping about, you lying moron. Go back to the Palin bit and you will discover that I did not contribute one word to that discussion.

You can keep throwing mindless slurs at me but its still noted that you cannot answer the simplest specific questions in support of Creager's erroneous views. Or perhaps you can tell me how adding energy to a particle can reduce its number of available microstates. No? Thought not.

Perhaps you are not to chickenshit finally to admit that ANY particular lottery sequence is exactly as likely as any other, even though one might "look" more ordered than the other.

See you are all sound and bluster, and no substance. And that applies to every argument ypu have ever made in support of your insane ideas.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#157291 Oct 27, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You should check out a late relative of mine, Thomas Jefferson Jackson See. He was an astronomer/astrophysicist with some promise in his youth, but he apparently worried more about being right and his own intellect and notoriety than concern for the science and credibility. He died ignored in obscurity. He was an opponent of Einstein, I think more out of spite than any real issue. See's condition was more extreme than Urb's because See whittled his side down to just himself. However, it is an example happening in science and example that isn't needed.
I googled See. Seems he was a man before his time. He could have been a sensation on internet forums.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#157292 Oct 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have to show papers/passport/proof of identity before you leave? If yes then your freedom is limited. Which means they let you leave, you just can't leave.
Yes I have to show a passport before I leave just as I have had to in every one of the 40+ countries I have travelled to. Including the US and including leaving my own country.

And its never taken more than a moment to go through passport control in Dubai. On the other hand there are many a nighmarish story about people held up as US immigration for hours or days. Now with HS on the rampage, a president who signed off on the non judicial drone assassination of a US citizen, and Guantanamo, I think you guys should be more vigilent about protecting your own freedoms than preaching about foreign lands.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#157293 Oct 27, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I have to show a passport before I leave just as I have had to in every one of the 40+ countries I have travelled to. Including the US and including leaving my own country.
And its never taken more than a moment to go through passport control in Dubai. On the other hand there are many a nighmarish story about people held up as US immigration for hours or days. Now with HS on the rampage, a president who signed off on the non judicial drone assassination of a US citizen, and Guantanamo, I think you guys should be more vigilent about protecting your own freedoms than preaching about foreign lands.
Our freedoms to a point here in the US suck. I will admit that.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#157294 Oct 27, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I googled See. Seems he was a man before his time. He could have been a sensation on internet forums.
Maybe, he reportedly had a temperament similar to some on here.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#157295 Oct 27, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
What a bunch of idiotic hypocritical hogwash. You sure must live a boring existence to have to spend time gossiping about someone you've never even met and know nothing about. Just like your pseudoscience, you just make stuff up as you go.(Picture Chimney as the mime trapped in the invisible box placing his hands against the walls. <:o
However you want to picture me, I have words enough to eviscerate your mindless YEC ranting.

You call me a hypocrite while defending the quote miner and liar Snelling against the hard working real scientists Coe and Prevot (paleomagnetics). And quote miner Sanford against the real scientists Kimura, Haldane, Muller, Crow, Kondrashov (so called genetic entropy). Not to mention creationist quote miners and distorters of Darwin, Dawkins, Gould, Denton, even Einstein...all of which you parade here in an embarrassing display of your shallow ignorance.

In terms of the science you equate a calcified hat with a fossil, Mt St Helen's with the Grand Canyon, and now tidying a room with entropy, a concept you still completely fail to grasp.

You make the illogical claim that young objects in the universe (like comets) prove a young universe.

All junior schoolboy level (mis)understanding of science, while claiming you know better than experts in physics, geology, biology, and astronomy.

Tiktaalik, dino soft tissue, H erectus, the Grand Canyon, plate tectonics, vulcanism, sedimentation, radiometric dating, the list of your errors and your need to imagine secular conspiracies to justify your errors is endless.

And lastly, you cannot defend Creager but insist that it is me, and Polymath, not to mention Dogen, Aura, and others, who are lying and distorting. The fact that his silly and illogical paper has not overturned physics mean nothing to you - you invent a vast conspiracy of "secular science" in every field to bolster your ridiculous opinions. You make the utterly ridiculous claim that physicists think Creager is right but defer to the "evolutionists" and maintain a false picture of thermodynamics deliberately.

You are not even a joke any more. You are just the headless monster of anti-reason, exactly the person that one of your heroes, the atheist Ayn Rand, warned us about.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#157296 Oct 28, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Who have I been gossiping about, you lying moron. Go back to the Palin bit and you will discover that I did not contribute one word to that discussion.
You can keep throwing mindless slurs at me but its still noted that you cannot answer the simplest specific questions in support of Creager's erroneous views. Or perhaps you can tell me how adding energy to a particle can reduce its number of available microstates. No? Thought not.
Perhaps you are not to chickenshit finally to admit that ANY particular lottery sequence is exactly as likely as any other, even though one might "look" more ordered than the other.
See you are all sound and bluster, and no substance. And that applies to every argument ypu have ever made in support of your insane ideas.
Who have you been gossiping about you ask? Are you kidding? I answered your question clearly and concisely but because it is the simple truth, you can't handle it so have to lie about it. You have to lie about what microstates are and what Botlzmann's constant is and how it is used because you know that is your downfall. You lie and assume and make up false premises so often that it has become your habit and your nature. You live a lie. You wouldn't know reality if it bit you on the butt. In your imaginary world of evotardian make-believe, up is down; down is up; left is right and right is left; order is disorder and disorder is order; simple is complex; and complex is simple; etc., etc. And You "can't" tell us anything "private" about your precious life? What a load of bullcrap. You mean because if you did that, it would be a lie too? You are complete fraud Chimney. You are that sad painted mime trapped inside your little invisible box. You'll get no respect from me as long as you keep lying and behaving like a little retarded gossip. So go ahead and gossip away about me with your little gossipy evotard friends.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#157297 Oct 28, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
However you want to picture me, I have words enough to eviscerate your mindless YEC ranting.
You haven't eviscerated anything. You haven't even demonstrated the correct understanding yet. You have no substance. All you have is BS. Demonstrate a correct understanding of 1. microstates, and 2. Boltzmann's constant as used in statistical entropy, and maybe we can have a rational discussion. But right now you're off in La-La land.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#157298 Oct 28, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
And lastly, you cannot defend Creager but insist that it is me, and Polymath, not to mention Dogen, Aura, and others, who are lying and distorting.
OH NO!!! You've got me there! LOL!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#157300 Oct 28, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Who have you been gossiping about you ask? Are you kidding? I answered your question clearly and concisely but because it is the simple truth, you can't handle it so have to lie about it.
You have not answered it at all. How does a particle absorbing energy reduce its number of microstates? Specifically? If it absorbs a photon of energy, the available microstates obviously increases. If it absorbs kinetic energy or gravitational potential energy, its available microstates are either unchanged or increased. Not decreased. Entropy falls in an object as energy leaves an object, not as its applied to one.(And that energy raises entropy elsewhere). As I have said since day one.

You still cannot provide an example where that is false. I am waiting.
You have to lie about what microstates are and what Botlzmann's constant is and how it is used because you know that is your downfall.
Microstates are the available momenta and positions of the particles. Adding energy can only increase the number of available microstates or at best leave them unchanged. You can even see that, which is why you are avoiding answering the question and resorting to pathetic ad hominem about "gossip" etc.

Boltzmann's constant is 1.4 x 10^-23 J/K.

Nothing has changed, including the fact that it is a measure of energy / temperature as the units you will see in ANY DEFINITION of Boltzmann's constant will show.
You lie and assume and make up false premises so often that it has become your habit and your nature.
Nothing I have written is false. None of my premises were false. Every example I have provided you have been attempts to explain something to you.

On the other hand you resort to empty ad hominem attacks about gossip or where I live or what I do...when you are trying to avoid answering a simple question that exposes the error of your position.

Wake up you fool. You have this completely wrong, and everyone but you knows it. This determined stupidity does not assist your cause.

I see you refuse to answer the even simpler question, about the lotto numbers.

Pathetic.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#157301 Oct 28, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't eviscerated anything. You haven't even demonstrated the correct understanding yet. You have no substance. All you have is BS. Demonstrate a correct understanding of 1. microstates, and 2. Boltzmann's constant as used in statistical entropy, and maybe we can have a rational discussion. But right now you're off in La-La land.
Hilarious.

For more precise definitions of microstates and Boltzmann's constant than I just gave refer to the following.

momentum is mass x velocity (the latter being SPEED in a particular direction, a vector). Speed = distance / time.

So when we talk of the available microstates of a particle, we are necessarily talking about its possible positions, speeds, directions, and masses. Real stuff, not fairy dust.

In the classical case where motion and position etc are seen as continuous, this gives an infinite result. In quantum mechanics, this is resolvable basically because quanta (the smallest packets of energy available) are a discrete, not a continuous variable, thus we can reduce the number of available microstates to a finite quantity.

And this quantity can be converted into a measure of ENTROPY by the application of

ENTROPY = ln(W) x 1.4 x 10^-23 J/K

the last part of that expression, 1.4 x 10^-23 J/K, conveniently shortened to k for brevity.

So we are saying that ln(x number of microstates) is EQUIVALENT to y J/K of ENTROPY. Microstates are unitless, but ENTROPY has units.

Perhaps in your massless, directionless, distanceless, timeless world, none of these specifics matter. In the world of physics, they do.

A Joule is the energy required to accelerate one kg of mass by one meter per second, for one second. Expressed as units kg x m^2 / s^2 i.e. mass x (distance x distance)/(time x time)

It is the same as the energy required to raise the temperature of 1 g of water by 0.24 K. One can see that in energy terms, the amount of energy required to increase the orderly kinetic energy of a moving mass, or the random kinetic energy of heating a stationary one, are precisely equivalent.

A Kelvin is 1/273rd of the interval between absolute zero and the temperature required to melt water at sea level.

To make it absolutely clear note that when we ADD A QUANTITY OF HEAT to an object (Joules) the amount of its ENTROPY increase will depend on the STARTING temperature of the object. You cannot ignore temperature.

This is no different from saying that the increase ln(number of available microstates) caused by the same QUANTITY OF HEAT (number of Joules) will depend on the object's starting temperature too!

Number of available microstates are clearly not a quantity that exist in a dimensionless vacuum. Changing the number of available microstates is precisely dependent on the addition or subtraction of energy. For example a substance can reduce its microstates by cooling (losing heat energy), or by entering into chemical bonds (with the resulting emission of energy as electrons fall into lower energy states), or by having work done on it such as compressing a gas quasi-statically (meaning the excess heat produced by the compression is EMITTED through a heat sink so the gas does not heat up)... and that energy leaving ALWAYS requires the increasing of entropy in some other part of the system. Not to mention any inefficiency in the work process (i.e. friction) also adds to total entropy.

Only in your lala land are the actual quantities and energies and temperatures irrelevant. The real world does not work that way.

I very much doubt whether you read half of this or understood it. But you asked for it, and there it is.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#157302 Oct 28, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't eviscerated anything. You haven't even demonstrated the correct understanding yet. You have no substance. All you have is BS. Demonstrate a correct understanding of 1. microstates, and 2. Boltzmann's constant as used in statistical entropy, and maybe we can have a rational discussion. But right now you're off in La-La land.
I have done my bit.

Now you define the total entropy effects and energy flows of moving a pillow from a messy spot to a tidy one.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#157303 Oct 28, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
So when we talk of the available microstates of a particle, we are necessarily talking about its possible positions, speeds, directions, and masses. Real stuff, not fairy dust.
In the classical case where motion and position etc are seen as continuous, this gives an infinite result. In quantum mechanics, this is resolvable basically because quanta (the smallest packets of energy available) are a discrete, not a continuous variable, thus we can reduce the number of available microstates to a finite quantity.
In the classical case, a micro-state is defined as the specific position and momentum of every molecule in the system. Since both position and momentum are continuous variables, the number of micro-states would be infinite in every case. In classical statistical mechanics, this was worked around by using integration in phase space (6 dimensions-3 for position, 3 for momentum) and a bit of hand waving. It was also found that identical particles needed an additional division by the factorial of the number of particles. There was no explanation for this in classical studies.

When quantum mechanics was discovered, it was found that there are two fundamental classes of particles: fermions and bosons and that they obey different statistics. Essentially, fermions cannot be in the same state as each other: this forces them apart. The fact that electrons are fermions is behind the stability of all the matter around us. Bosons, on the other hand, are more likely to be in the same state as not. This means that a collection of bosons will have a lower pressure than a similar collection of fermions.

In the quantum description, a micro-state is simply a quantum wave function that describes the entire system. In counting such functions, we look at a basis of the relevant space of wave functions. This gives a finite number when the total energy and volume of the system are specified. It is one of the assumptions in statistical mechanics that all micro-states are equally probable at equilibrium. This may fail out of equilibrium, however.

The upshot is that the number of available micro-states is determined by the total energy, composition, and volume of the isolated system. So a debris field and a house have the same number of micro-states at equilibrium.

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) 12 min IB DaMann 43,145
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 47 min Dogen 204,736
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr Chimney1 151,466
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 hr Thinking 18,492
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 6 hr It aint necessari... 912
Sun could not have formed as thought 8 hr Your Done 16
Current Education And Its Huge Flaws Mon Bren 1
More from around the web