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: Mar 12

Location hidden

#157386 Oct 30, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
If you wanted a demolished house (a very specific demolished house), it would take about the same effort to produce it as it would to produce a whole house.
<<Hey, I think some of this stuff is getting through my skull.>>
Bingo!

"I don't want you to think that a messy room has more entropy than a tidy one, which some people use as an example. That's not the case"

Khan Academy
"Reconciling thermodynamic and state definitions of Entropy"

This shows that representations of tidy or messy rooms (or bombsites), etc, as are sometime used at introductory level, were only ever meant to be analogies to explain what happens at the micro-scale, not taken literally to apply to the macro-scale.

Creager has mistaken the analogy for the thing, and that is just one of his errors.(Ignoring the entropy created in building the house - which is still out there in some part of the system - is another, major one!)
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#157388 Oct 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Bingo!
"I don't want you to think that a messy room has more entropy than a tidy one, which some people use as an example. That's not the case"
Khan Academy
"Reconciling thermodynamic and state definitions of Entropy"
This shows that representations of tidy or messy rooms (or bombsites), etc, as are sometime used at introductory level, were only ever meant to be analogies to explain what happens at the micro-scale, not taken literally to apply to the macro-scale.
Creager has mistaken the analogy for the thing, and that is just one of his errors.(Ignoring the entropy created in building the house - which is still out there in some part of the system - is another, major one!)
Chimney, you have managed to completely corrupt every aspect of statistical entropy. Either you feel you are at liberal to change whatever to save your ideology or just lie. The microstates, the macrostates, confusing statistical with thermodynamics, the log, Boltzmann’s constant, the statistics …everything. You even had the audacity to correct Richard Feynman! There is nothing – nothing honest that comes from your words. I asked whether you were really this stupid or just plain lying. I believe you known exactly what you are doing. You’re an intentional liar and with your smooth tongue, your evotard minions follow along with you. You are a bad man Chimney. A very, very bad man.(Index finger held up and moving from side to side.) >:(

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#157389 Oct 30, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Chimney, you have managed to completely corrupt every aspect of statistical entropy. Either you feel you are at liberal to change whatever to save your ideology or just lie. The microstates, the macrostates, confusing statistical with thermodynamics, the log, Boltzmann’s constant, the statistics …everything. You even had the audacity to correct Richard Feynman! There is nothing – nothing honest that comes from your words. I asked whether you were really this stupid or just plain lying. I believe you known exactly what you are doing. You’re an intentional liar and with your smooth tongue, your evotard minions follow along with you. You are a bad man Chimney. A very, very bad man.(Index finger held up and moving from side to side.) >:(
No Urb, you have confused all these things and we have merely tried to set you straight. Your claim that I have a smooth tongue is merely you seeing that what I say is logical and consistent and in line with the actual science.

You cannot refute the content so you attack the man.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#157390 Oct 30, 2013
[QUOTE "Urban Cowboy"]<quoted text>
Chimney, you have managed to completely corrupt every aspect of statistical entropy. Either you feel you are at liberal to change whatever to save your ideology or just lie. The microstates, the macrostates, confusing statistical with thermodynamics, the log, Boltzmann’s constant, the statistics …everything. You even had the audacity to correct Richard Feynman! There is nothing – nothing honest that comes from your words. I asked whether you were really this stupid or just plain lying. I believe you known exactly what you are doing. You’re an intentional liar and with your smooth tongue, your evotard minions follow along with you. You are a bad man Chimney. A very, very bad man.(Index finger held up and moving from side to side.) >:([/QUOTE]
You claim I corrected Feynmann but actually I only corrected YOU

"Chimney1"

The crux of Feynmann's statement: "so that they look the same". Macroscopically a gas volume does look the same however it is arranged microscopically at a given momemt.
But one debris pile does not look the same as another. Each is macroscopically unique. Your grouping all debris piles as the same is subjective. Yet if you trip on a brick in a debris field that wasnt in the previous debris field, you will learn that each is unique. "

That is what I wrote.
See once again Feynmann is talking about different microstates all equating to the same macrostate while you are taking different macrostates and pretending they are all "the same". I think that we have established by now that each debris pile is a different macro state so you are still not getting it. I would have thought the direct contradiction of your position by the Khan lecture might help. Obviously not. Minute 27.00 check it .

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#157391 Oct 30, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but any species that loses a critical population amount may be subject to genetic entropy. There are many species that are endangered and may become extinct.
That would be a bottleneck that leaves a small number of members of a population that have only a portion of the genetic variability of the original population. Cheetahs for instance. The population after the bottleneck event have not accumulated mutations that have degraded the genome, they just no longer have all the alleles available from the original population. Only a subset. It would be a major drift.

You are right, though. This can lead to extinction.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#157392 Oct 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No Urb, you have confused all these things and we have merely tried to set you straight. Your claim that I have a smooth tongue is merely you seeing that what I say is logical and consistent and in line with the actual science.
You cannot refute the content so you attack the man.
I have not been a "minion" before. What does that pay? Are the benefits good?

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#157393 Oct 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You COULD but its very unlikely. This is why entropy is a phenomenon of the law of large numbers. If you had only 10 helium atoms in a warm jar, there will be moments when they are all grouped in a corner and that would be a spontaneous (and temporary) departure from equilibrium. But the chances of 100 trillion helium molecules spontaneously grouping in the corner are infinitesimal.
However,remember here we are talking about microstates. Unless we wait for 1000 ages of the universe, we are almost certainly likely to find 100 trillion helium molecules more or less uniformly spread through the jar and their collective properties as a gas (pressure, temperature etc) will be the same whenever we look. All the microstates will produce ONE macrostate, the pressure and temperature.
Urb is confusing microstates and macrostates. He is claiming one debris field is like any other, in the same way one helium atom configuration is just like another. But one debris field has observable unique differences from any other debris field.
So considering each macro state is unique, to find the entropy of each we have to look at what the materials and temperatures throughout the debris field and the house. And so long as an explosion has not caused significant chemical changes or changes in total mass, and the temperature is the same in each case, the debris field will have the same entropy as the house.
But remember also, in determining which produced the most entropy - building or blowing up a house, we also have to look at the entropy created in the actual process of building and exploding the house. If it takes 1000 litres of fuel to build the house, and only 50 litres of the same fuel to blow it up, then building the house has created far more total entropy in the form of waste heat.
Thanks. It is getting a little clearer.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#157394 Oct 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No Urb, you have confused all these things and we have merely tried to set you straight. Your claim that I have a smooth tongue is merely you seeing that what I say is logical and consistent and in line with the actual science.
You cannot refute the content so you attack the man.
Wrong. I have corrected you and pinned you down on every point and still you resist and wriggle free and continue to corrupt everything.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#157395 Oct 30, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Chimney, you have managed to completely corrupt every aspect of statistical entropy. Either you feel you are at liberal to change whatever to save your ideology or just lie. The microstates, the macrostates, confusing statistical with thermodynamics, the log, Boltzmann’s constant, the statistics …everything. You even had the audacity to correct Richard Feynman! There is nothing – nothing honest that comes from your words. I asked whether you were really this stupid or just plain lying. I believe you known exactly what you are doing. You’re an intentional liar and with your smooth tongue, your evotard minions follow along with you. You are a bad man Chimney. A very, very bad man.(Index finger held up and moving from side to side.) >:(
Chimney did not correct Feynman. He corrected your misunderstanding of Feynman. Those are *very* different things!

In each particular that you gave in your list of 'faults', it is Chimney that is correct and has the backing of the actual science and you are the one twisting the words to agree with your preconceived doctrines.

So the question for *us* becomes whether *you* are really this stupid or are you lying? My view is that you live in a world that is so twisted by your religion that you simply cannot see how the real world works. Whether that is stupidity or not is another discussion, but it is certainly ignorance in the sense that you *ignore* whatever disagrees with your dogma.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#157396 Oct 30, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. I have corrected you and pinned you down on every point and still you resist and wriggle free and continue to corrupt everything.
No, you have not pinned anyone down on any point. You repeatedly misunderstand basic ideas and when we attempt to correct you, you ignore the facts for your dogma.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#157397 Oct 30, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. I have corrected you and pinned you down on every point and still you resist and wriggle free and continue to corrupt everything.
You are simply insane if you believe what you are saying. You have got nothing right, your understanding is flawed, you cannot deal with the simplest counterexamples of what your hypothesis predicts, nor answer any specific questions.

So how does that same "disordered sunlight" that wrecks DNA also power the synthesis of glucose?

How does the addition of energy to a particle reduce its number of available microstates?

If you trip in a brick in a debris field will you admit that its macrostate would be different if that brick was somewhere else?

If I we apply exactly the same ordered energy with a hammer, why does a nail go into wood but a glass breaks?

When a chemistry book states that the standard molar entropy of glucose is 2800 J/K does it care whether the mole of glucose is in a tidy block or scattered over the kitchen floor?

Entropy is reduced by the processing and removal, not the addition of energy. Until you understand that, you understand nothing. Now if you cannot stop calling me a liar and start showing some understanding, you will deservedly be a laughing stock for exposing how you will insanely cling to any argument against evolution, no matter how idiotic.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#157398 Oct 30, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I have not been a "minion" before. What does that pay? Are the benefits good?
I'm Poly's minion on this one.

Truth is nobody is a minion in scientific knowledge...its available to anyone who is willing to think it through. Then you own it.

I'll leave it to faith based dogmatists to picture truth as a contest of prophets and their slaves.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#157399 Oct 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are simply insane if you believe what you are saying. You have got nothing right, your understanding is flawed, you cannot deal with the simplest counterexamples of what your hypothesis predicts, nor answer any specific questions.
So how does that same "disordered sunlight" that wrecks DNA also power the synthesis of glucose?
How does the addition of energy to a particle reduce its number of available microstates?
If you trip in a brick in a debris field will you admit that its macrostate would be different if that brick was somewhere else?
If I we apply exactly the same ordered energy with a hammer, why does a nail go into wood but a glass breaks?
When a chemistry book states that the standard molar entropy of glucose is 2800 J/K does it care whether the mole of glucose is in a tidy block or scattered over the kitchen floor?
Entropy is reduced by the processing and removal, not the addition of energy. Until you understand that, you understand nothing. Now if you cannot stop calling me a liar and start showing some understanding, you will deservedly be a laughing stock for exposing how you will insanely cling to any argument against evolution, no matter how idiotic.
No, you are insane if you believe what you've been saying! You completely corrupt the science. You have no clue and have no interest in doing it right.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#157400 Oct 30, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you have not pinned anyone down on any point. You repeatedly misunderstand basic ideas and when we attempt to correct you, you ignore the facts for your dogma.
The funniest part is its not even biblical dogma. Evo could be wrong, the bible could be 100% correct, the world could have appeared 6000 years ago, and Creager's paper would STILL be rubbish.

I think Urb is the Patron Saint of lost causes.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#157401 Oct 30, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you have not pinned anyone down on any point. You repeatedly misunderstand basic ideas and when we attempt to correct you, you ignore the facts for your dogma.
You're just as corrupt as Chimney is. More so...you're a fraud.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#157402 Oct 30, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Chimney1 wrote: Yet the result 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 is not more or less likely than any other particular result such as 3, 12, 13, 25, 29, 34.
Yes I called his numbers a straight. So to reword it, sequenced numbers are less likely than non-sequenced numbers when dealing with random numbers.
No. You artificially assign importance to the sequenced number set.
All else being equal, any two sets of numbers are equal. Whether they are a sequenced, even, odd, primes, multiples, birthday dates or >one< random set makes no difference. Naturally, if you compare one sequenced set to a hundred million random sets, you are comparing apples to orchards. This is what Urb does with his one purpose built house versus a cosmos full of debris piles. Don't be an Urb.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#157403 Oct 30, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You're just as corrupt as Chimney is. More so...you're a fraud.
Now now, Urb. Your accusations are ineffectual. Answers might work better in a scientific discussion. Now please run through the list of questions I raised above and provide scientifically meaningful specific answers. That you cannot do so should be telling you that your understanding is on the wrong track. I am comfortable answering any of them with specifics. Or ask a question of your own that you think can illuminate a point. Can you do that?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#157404 Oct 30, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you are insane if you believe what you've been saying! You completely corrupt the science. You have no clue and have no interest in doing it right.
And now we see what happens when you have no substantive arguments: you claim anyone who disagrees with you is corrupt. It is a massive conspiracy against your cherished beliefs.

In point of fact, it is you and other creationists like Creager that are corrupting and distorting the science. By refusing to make even basic definitions, computations of make any definite predictions (or ignore the exceptions when predictions are made), they deviate from the discipline required to do real science and, more basically, to find the truth.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#157405 Oct 30, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And now we see what happens when you have no substantive arguments: you claim anyone who disagrees with you is corrupt. It is a massive conspiracy against your cherished beliefs.
In point of fact, it is you and other creationists like Creager that are corrupting and distorting the science. By refusing to make even basic definitions, computations of make any definite predictions (or ignore the exceptions when predictions are made), they deviate from the discipline required to do real science and, more basically, to find the truth.
I already did that several times. There is no need for me to continue expaining the correct ways as they will fall on deaf, corrupt ears. The microstates, the macrostates, the logs, the Boltzmann constant, the entropy,...you and Chimney have completely corrupted it all and bastardized the science and turned it into an evotard farce.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#157406 Oct 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The funniest part is its not even biblical dogma. Evo could be wrong, the bible could be 100% correct, the world could have appeared 6000 years ago, and Creager's paper would STILL be rubbish.
I think Urb is the Patron Saint of lost causes.
Nope that would be St. Jude:

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

A fact I picked up from potholer54:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Potholer54

Who sadly retired his Golden Crocoduck of the Year award this year since he will be working in the real world too much to give this prestigious award the time and effort needed.

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
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 8 min Joncy David 110
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 21 min THE LONE WORKER 40,474
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr thetruth 16,001
The conscious God or the inanimate nature 2 hr THE LONE WORKER 14
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 hr THE LONE WORKER 201,234
News Book aims to prove existence of God (Nov '09) 8 hr LOU BARRETO 94
Scientists create vast 3-D map of universe, val... 10 hr One way or another 10
More from around the web