Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180279 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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#157423 Oct 30, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
Interesting and plausible fleshing-out of abiogenesis hypothesis....
http://phys.org/news/2013-10-paleontologist-l...
Paleontologist presents origin of life theory
October 29th, 2013 in Space & Earth / Space Exploration
Paleontologist presents origin of life theory
Meteorite bombardment left large craters that contained water and chemical building blocks for life, which ultimately led to the first organisms.
It has baffled humans for millennia: how did life begin on planet Earth? Now, new research from a Texas Tech University paleontologist suggests it may have rained from the skies and started in the bowels of hell.
Sankar Chatterjee, Horn Professor of Geosciences and curator of paleontology at the Museum of Texas Tech University believes he has found the answer by connecting theories on chemical evolution with evidence related to our planet's early geology.
"This is bigger than finding any dinosaur," Chatterjee said. "This is what we've all searched for – the Holy Grail of science."
Thanks to regular and heavy comet and meteorite bombardment of Earth's surface during its formative years 4 billion years ago, the large craters left behind not only contained water and the basic chemical building blocks for life, but also became the perfect crucible to concentrate and cook these chemicals to create the first simple organisms.
He will present his findings Oct. 30 during the 125th Anniversary Annual Meeting of the Geological Society of America in Denver.
As well as discovering how ancient animals flew, Chatterjee discovered the Shiva Meteorite Crater, which was created by a 25-mile-wide meteorite that struck off the coast of India. This research concluded this giant meteorite wreaked havoc simultaneously with the Chicxulub meteorite strike near Mexico, finishing the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.
Ironically, Chatterjee's latest research suggests meteorites can be givers of life as well as takers. He said that meteor and comet strikes likely brought the ingredients and created the right conditions for life on our planet. By studying three sites containing the world's oldest fossils, he believes he knows how the first single-celled organisms formed in hydrothermal crater basins.
<<Truncated for brevity. More at link above>>
Good stuff! Thanks.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#157424 Oct 30, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You're just as corrupt as Chimney is. More so...you're a fraud.
BONG!!! Leave the irony meters alone, Urb.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#157425 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.
Actually I have a smooth tongue. But that's a topic for another forum.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#157426 Oct 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I remember the comedy of errors that constitute your coverage.
And at the end of the day, Poly or I and no doubt some others here can answer all the questions I asked you specifically and consistently. You cannot because you are still making basic errors of understanding that prevent you learning anything. Proof of the pudding, you evade every question and resort to ad hom in trying to deflect.
You still don't know what statistical entropy is or how it is calculated. You still haven't learned that statistical entropy is statistical in nature. You still haven't learned that the number of equivalent microstates is a real, dimensionless number. You still haven't learned that the Log of the microstates *IS* the entrpy, even after Richard Feynmann stated as such. You still misunderstand how to use Boltzmann's constant. You don't understand anything about it. All you do is make up crap and spin and weave made up stories about it and corrupt it and confuse it with other applications such as thermodynamics and information theory. You are totally lost on the subject.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#157427 Oct 30, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Chimney a question. You said "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"
In these two pictures.
A neat stack of bricks (in reference to a tidy room)
http://rodriguez9-7.pbworks.com/f/brick-002-7...
A messy pile of bricks (in reference to a messy room)
http://mnprairieroots.files.wordpress.com/200...
Which one, if either have higher entropy?
The one with more bricks has the higher entropy. That is because entropy is an extensive property: double the amount of material and the entropy doubles.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#157428 Oct 30, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You still don't know what statistical entropy is or how it is calculated. You still haven't learned that statistical entropy is statistical in nature. You still haven't learned that the number of equivalent microstates is a real, dimensionless number. You still haven't learned that the Log of the microstates *IS* the entrpy, even after Richard Feynmann stated as such. You still misunderstand how to use Boltzmann's constant. You don't understand anything about it. All you do is make up crap and spin and weave made up stories about it and corrupt it and confuse it with other applications such as thermodynamics and information theory. You are totally lost on the subject.

You have made a convincing case as to whom is lost on the subject.

I defer to the data.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#157429 Oct 30, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The one with more bricks has the higher entropy. That is because entropy is an extensive property: double the amount of material and the entropy doubles.
I just read this. It is an extensive property but often viewed as an intensive property. Now I have more concepts to wrap my head around.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#157430 Oct 30, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you are right on that. I was thinking of the term "genetic entropy" very loosely.
Genetic entropy has been refuted. There is no indication that such a phenomenon is exists in biology. Neutral or nearly neutral mutations occur in the genome, but they have no impact on fitness and are outside of selection. Negative mutations would be weeded out by selection and not be some metaphorical debris field in the genome.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#157431 Oct 30, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You still don't know what statistical entropy is or how it is calculated. You still haven't learned that statistical entropy is statistical in nature. You still haven't learned that the number of equivalent states is a real, dimensionless number. You still haven't learned that the Log of the microstates *IS* the entrpy, even after Richard Feynmann stated as such. You still misunderstand how to use Boltzmann's constant. You don't understand anything about it. All you do is make up crap and spin and weave made up stories about it and corrupt it and confuse it with other applications such as thermodynamics and information theory. You are totally lost on the subject.
You claim all this wrongly, yet I know how to make sense of real, specific examples in entropy. Strangely, despite you assertions of your own expertise, you are hopeless at dealing with any actual examples.

This would tell anyone sane that I understand more than you do about this subject.

So Urb, you have avoided the question because either you dont know the answer or you know the answer exposes your ignorance about the difference between macro and micro states. Which is more likely in a lotto draw:
1 2 3 4 5 6

Or

2 11 13 24 30 36

And of course:

Explain specifically how applying energy to a particle can reduce its available number of microstates. This is Creager's core claim and you dont know the answer.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#157432 Oct 30, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I was quoting the Khan Academy lecture, an excellent one discussing reconciling thermodynamic and state definitions of entropy. One that Urb originally brought up but apparently does not understand.
The messy bookshelf has the same entropy as the tidy one so long as they have the same materials and temperature etc.
Entropy in physics is not about the "messinesd" of the particular macrostate, which is a highly subjective judgement anyway.
Its about the possible positions and momenta of the atomic and molecular particles that can lead to an identical state at the macro level. Now take a messy bookshelf. Its books are still in a particular arrangement and yoi cannot change the position of a book without changing the macrostate.
But we want to know what can change WITHOUT changing the macro state! The particles in the book can vibrate in different ways. In a liquid they can roll around each other freely but your glass of water looks just the same. So thw number of available microstates is foing to depend on the types of materials and their bonds etc and their twmperature.
When we have calculated the number of available microstates that make no difference at the macro level, we can convert that to a measure of entropy using the formula
Entropy = ln (number of microstates)× 1.4 x 10^-23 Joules / Kelvin
Thanks Chimney. Between you and Poly you both are clearing up a lot of my questions of why I didn't fully understand.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#157433 Oct 30, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The one with more bricks has the higher entropy. That is because entropy is an extensive property: double the amount of material and the entropy doubles.
That clears up a lot of my thoughts. Between you and Chimney you both are clearing up a lot of my questions of why I didn't fully understand. Thanks

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#157434 Oct 30, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The one with more bricks has the higher entropy. That is because entropy is an extensive property: double the amount of material and the entropy doubles.
I assumed the same number of bricks at the same temperature because Replay's question was directed at the arrangement of the bricks. That followed from Khan Academy's explicit statement that messy/tidy rooms were not a valid example of more/less entropy.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#157435 Oct 31, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Genetic entropy has been refuted. There is no indication that such a phenomenon is exists in biology. Neutral or nearly neutral mutations occur in the genome, but they have no impact on fitness and are outside of selection. Negative mutations would be weeded out by selection and not be some metaphorical debris field in the genome.
Loss of fitness over generations when natural selection is suspended has been established experimentally. So genetic entropy can happen.

However recovery of fitness by those same degraded populations ensues over generations when natural selection is reintroduced. Meaning natural selection can reverse genetic entropy.

The creationist followers of Sanford eagerly accept the first part but ignore that the second part completely refutes any notion that genetic entropy is inevitable and irreversible.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#157436 Oct 31, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Your way "works" because you corrupt it and change it and make up false analogies. It might "work", but it isn't reality and it isn't science.
Tell you what, go back and research my coverage on each point. My presentation was supported and yours was not. Waste energy? There's no energy at all, period, with microstates and statistical entropy. This just proves you are clueless. I took the time to explain in detail with numerical examples -right out of university text book on statistical entropy, microstate, macrostate, log, entropy. I presented Richard Feynman's own words defining what they are. And yet, you still are lost in La-La land.
A crane producing masses of waste heat
A muscle powered by glucose
Entropy changes producing or burning glucose
A moving object being stopped meaning removing energy (or adding entropy)
A bomb requiring less fuel than a construction crew
A particular debris site haviing a specific configuration
The entropy effect of applying any energy to any system
The entropy effect of removing any energy from any system

If you understood entropy you would know that these are not analogies. They are actual specific situations that you should be able to apply your knowledge of entropy to.

And you cannot. Poly can. I can.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#157437 Oct 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I assumed the same number of bricks at the same temperature because Replay's question was directed at the arrangement of the bricks. That followed from Khan Academy's explicit statement that messy/tidy rooms were not a valid example of more/less entropy.
The other aspect here is that under constant pressure, it is the Gibb's free energy that is appropriate, not the entropy alone. Because of the reduced potential energy, the 'disordered' collection of bricks does have lower Gibb's free energy.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#157438 Oct 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Loss of fitness over generations when natural selection is suspended has been established experimentally. So genetic entropy can happen.
However recovery of fitness by those same degraded populations ensues over generations when natural selection is reintroduced. Meaning natural selection can reverse genetic entropy.
The creationist followers of Sanford eagerly accept the first part but ignore that the second part completely refutes any notion that genetic entropy is inevitable and irreversible.
In that case, I will have to redefine my understanding of genetic entropy.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#157439 Oct 31, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The other aspect here is that under constant pressure, it is the Gibb's free energy that is appropriate, not the entropy alone. Because of the reduced potential energy, the 'disordered' collection of bricks does have lower Gibb's free energy.
That was something I touched on when I was discussing the increase in order with raising a wall. Remember the 20, 000 Joules of added E grav potential I calculated?(While the crane produced 580, 000 joules of waste heat at the same time) I need a bit more work and thought to integrate your pointer into that. Cheers.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#157440 Oct 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You claim all this wrongly, yet I know how to make sense of real, specific examples in entropy. Strangely, despite you assertions of your own expertise, you are hopeless at dealing with any actual examples.
This would tell anyone sane that I understand more than you do about this subject.
So Urb, you have avoided the question because either you dont know the answer or you know the answer exposes your ignorance about the difference between macro and micro states. Which is more likely in a lotto draw:
1 2 3 4 5 6
Or
2 11 13 24 30 36
And of course:
Explain specifically how applying energy to a particle can reduce its available number of microstates. This is Creager's core claim and you dont know the answer.
When energy is applied in a manner more ordered than the system being applied the number of equivalent microstates is reduced and therefore entropy is reduced. Your example of lottery does not make any sense, i.e, presented that way it is just a random event. You have to set it up so that it has meaning. If you asked me to compare the difference between a random lottery result and "hitting" the lottery for all 6 numbers that is a completely different result. If I bought every possile number combination possible, I would certainly win. But what you said was just two random results which is meaningless. If you meant to say the difference between winning and a random drawing the different would be about 14 million to 1 and 1 to 1.

But a much better way to illustrate statistical entropy is what I presented with the flips of a coin illustration which is from a statistical mechanics text book. You can see easily exactly what the macrostate is, the number of microstates, the log, and the entropy. It was also in the Kahn Academy lesson.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#157441 Oct 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
A crane producing masses of waste heat
A muscle powered by glucose
Entropy changes producing or burning glucose
A moving object being stopped meaning removing energy (or adding entropy)
A bomb requiring less fuel than a construction crew
A particular debris site haviing a specific configuration
The entropy effect of applying any energy to any system
The entropy effect of removing any energy from any system
If you understood entropy you would know that these are not analogies. They are actual specific situations that you should be able to apply your knowledge of entropy to.
And you cannot. Poly can. I can.
None of those are statistical entropy so your points are moot.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#157442 Oct 31, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
When energy is applied in a manner more ordered than the system being applied the number of equivalent microstates is reduced and therefore entropy is reduced.
HOW, URB. HOW? Exactly?

I KNOW I can add energy to an electron and raise the energy shell it occupies in an atom. I KNOW this increases its range of possible momenta and positions ie. number of available microstates.

I KNOW that when the electron EMITS a photon, its energy state falls and its range of possible positions and momentum FALLS as it LOSES energy. Fewer microstates.

You talk in a vague way with zero application to anything in the world. You cannot put it into any perspective that applies to actual particles, motions, positions. You say "applied in a more orderly manner". Yet the bogus equation says the "entropy of the energy", not the manner of application. How do you quantify that? Its vague and meaningless. At best you are talking about WORK (force x distance) and that is not going to REDUCE entropy even if it does not raise it...until energy LEAVES the system.

How does the same sunlight produce order in glucose and disorder in DNA? You haven't got a clue. But those who understand that its about how the system processes and dissipates (EMITS) the energy received that matters.
Your example of lottery does not make any sense
No, you do not understand its meaning. Others got it.

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) 45 min Richardfs 52,087
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 hr Richardfs 157,668
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 5 hr Aura Mytha 1,158
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 6 hr Eagle 12 24,841
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 7 hr replaytime 218,799
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) Jan 19 scientia potentia... 98
News Darwin's Doubt: Giving a Case for Intelligent D... Jan 19 scientia potentia... 1
More from around the web