Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 20 comments on the Feb 24, 2008, www.scientificblogging.com story 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

#157444 Oct 31, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
None of those are statistical entropy so your points are moot.

Let's put it another way. That is entropy as it can be applied to living systems.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#157445 Oct 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
All of these are entropy. All entropy is statistical entropy, including thermodynamic entropy. That IS what Boltzmann demonstrated. Therefore if you understand statistical entropy, you should be able to use it to solve these problems.
You cannot. Poly can. I can.
And if these issues did not apply, then nothing Creager said applies to any physical systems anyway. Including the chemistry of life.
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot get it right ANY way.

BINGO!

I found this link to be interesting as well;
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30...

The last sentence, while obvious, was hysterical.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#157446 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.
Simply false. When energy is applied to a system, the internal energy of that system increases. Now, the temperature of a system is the rate of change of entropy with respect to internal energy. So, unless you are working with a system at negative absolute temperatures, this means the entropy increases and the number of available micro-states increases.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#157447 Oct 31, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Simply false. When energy is applied to a system, the internal energy of that system increases. Now, the temperature of a system is the rate of change of entropy with respect to internal energy. So, unless you are working with a system at negative absolute temperatures, this means the entropy increases and the number of available micro-states increases.

Even if that system is a rock.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#157448 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.
I completely forgot about all the previous discussions on here about Lenski and the E. coli experiment. I knew better. Thanks for reminding me.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#157449 Oct 31, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you are right on that. I was thinking of the term "genetic entropy" very loosely.
AB, sorry for the incorrect response regarding genetic entropy being refuted. Chimney pointed it out and I think it was the second time I have committed that error in recent weeks. This even after old discussions on here about genetic entropy. If you haven't already seen them, there are a couple of papers in Science regarding genetic entropy and Lenski's E. coli experiment. Let me know and I will post the citations.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#157450 Oct 31, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
None of those are statistical entropy so your points are moot.
All entropy is statistical entropy so your evasion is clueless.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#157451 Oct 31, 2013
Proof of God.

Stephen Hawking:

" It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before"

BS the laws of physics don't break down. That's why they are called laws.

" at this point was the beginning to the universe, and of time itself,"

YES he cannot explain time within reality.

"Many people were unhappy with the idea that the universe had a beginning, because it seemed to imply the existence of a supernatural being who created the universe. They preferred to believe that the universe, and the human race, had existed forever"

These "many people were unhappy with the idea that the universe had a beginning" would be Atheist.

Science has to stop all the laws of physics for them to explain time. Yup no laws of the universe could existence for time to start. No laws no universe. Science is basically claiming that time came from outside of the universe.

Definition of universe: ALL that is known or postulated

Looks like there is no outside of the universe with that true and current definition.

That just leaves Science MAGIC or GOD the creator.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-ti...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#157452 Oct 31, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Proof of God.
Stephen Hawking:
" It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before"
BS the laws of physics don't break down. That's why they are called laws.
" at this point was the beginning to the universe, and of time itself,"
YES he cannot explain time within reality.
"Many people were unhappy with the idea that the universe had a beginning, because it seemed to imply the existence of a supernatural being who created the universe. They preferred to believe that the universe, and the human race, had existed forever"
These "many people were unhappy with the idea that the universe had a beginning" would be Atheist.
Science has to stop all the laws of physics for them to explain time. Yup no laws of the universe could existence for time to start. No laws no universe. Science is basically claiming that time came from outside of the universe.
Definition of universe: ALL that is known or postulated
Looks like there is no outside of the universe with that true and current definition.
That just leaves Science MAGIC or GOD the creator.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-ti...

Clueless.
Mugwump

Consett, UK

#157453 Oct 31, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Proof of God.
Stephen Hawking:
" It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before"
BS the laws of physics don't break down. That's why they are called laws.
" at this point was the beginning to the universe, and of time itself,"
YES he cannot explain time within reality.
"Many people were unhappy with the idea that the universe had a beginning, because it seemed to imply the existence of a supernatural being who created the universe. They preferred to believe that the universe, and the human race, had existed forever"
These "many people were unhappy with the idea that the universe had a beginning" would be Atheist.
Science has to stop all the laws of physics for them to explain time. Yup no laws of the universe could existence for time to start. No laws no universe. Science is basically claiming that time came from outside of the universe.
Definition of universe: ALL that is known or postulated
Looks like there is no outside of the universe with that true and current definition.
That just leaves Science MAGIC or GOD the creator.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-ti...
if that's the best proof you have , i suspect you should be at least the deputy chairman of the Athesist Guild

(Ok, technically agnostic guild, but they are having issues with trademarks, and it's not as if TAZ has a clue what he is talking about)

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#157454 Oct 31, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>AB, sorry for the incorrect response regarding genetic entropy being refuted. Chimney pointed it out and I think it was the second time I have committed that error in recent weeks. This even after old discussions on here about genetic entropy. If you haven't already seen them, there are a couple of papers in Science regarding genetic entropy and Lenski's E. coli experiment. Let me know and I will post the citations.
Yes, I've been following along. I had also forgotten about that previous discussion concerning loss of fitness due to removal of natural selection. My only differing opinion concerning Lenski's experiment is that I think natural selection is *always* in play, relative to the current environment. That is, when the environment is more forgiving, for any reason, less fitness is required. And when the environment is less forgiving, for any reason, more fitness is required.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#157455 Nov 1, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Proof of God.
Stephen Hawking:
" It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before"
BS the laws of physics don't break down. That's why they are called laws.
" at this point was the beginning to the universe, and of time itself,"
YES he cannot explain time within reality.
"Many people were unhappy with the idea that the universe had a beginning, because it seemed to imply the existence of a supernatural being who created the universe. They preferred to believe that the universe, and the human race, had existed forever"
These "many people were unhappy with the idea that the universe had a beginning" would be Atheist.
Science has to stop all the laws of physics for them to explain time. Yup no laws of the universe could existence for time to start. No laws no universe. Science is basically claiming that time came from outside of the universe.
Definition of universe: ALL that is known or postulated
Looks like there is no outside of the universe with that true and current definition.
That just leaves Science MAGIC or GOD the creator.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-ti...
What Hawking is saying is that the laws of physics are part of the universe after the big bang. The laws of physics that govern the universe could not have existed before the universe existed. That's pretty simple.

And you have it backwards, it's the creationists, as Hawking stated, who are unhappy with the idea that the universe had a beginning.

The universe had a beginning, therefore time-space had a beginning. It's pretty simple when you think about it.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#157456 Nov 1, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Clueless.
Truly.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#157457 Nov 1, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>Clueless.
That's too tough for you?
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#157458 Nov 1, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>if that's the best proof you have , i suspect you should be at least the deputy chairman of the Athesist Guild

(Ok, technically agnostic guild, but they are having issues with trademarks, and it's not as if TAZ has a clue what he is talking about)
You keep believing in your myth, that all the laws of physics broke down at the same moment (and the universe some how survived). And in came Time "Pop"

Then all the laws of the universe started up again. Amazing!!

That's science?

If it looks like horse dung and smells like horse dung and taste like horse dung, I'm going to call it horse dung. Your science explanation of the start of time is horse dung.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#157459 Nov 1, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>What Hawking is saying is that the laws of physics are part of the universe after the big bang. The laws of physics that govern the universe could not have existed before the universe existed. That's pretty simple.

And you have it backwards, it's the creationists, as Hawking stated, who are unhappy with the idea that the universe had a beginning.

The universe had a beginning, therefore time-space had a beginning. It's pretty simple when you think about it.
Creationist think the universe always existed? Would you Want to just try and think about that a little bit more?

Stephen say that some people are upset with the fact that the universe had a start because it suggest a creator!

"What Hawking is saying is that the laws of physics are part of the universe after the big bang. The laws of physics that govern the universe could not have existed before the universe existed. That's pretty simple."

No what Hawking said was "at this point all the laws of physics break down"

If there were no laws of physics then none would break down.

He needs to invoke magic and bring in time from outside the universe.

Nothing happens with out time
Nothing changes with out time
Nothing exist with out time

It requires time to create time unless there is a creator.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#157460 Nov 1, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>Truly.
Hi Mikey, how's it going for you today?

Have anymore blasphemy of the Holy Spirit to spout off with today?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#157461 Nov 1, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Mikey, how's it going for you today?
I'm good, thanks. You?
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Have anymore blasphemy of the Holy Spirit to spout off with today?
I did that earlier but thanks for asking.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#157462 Nov 1, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep believing in your myth, that all the laws of physics broke down at the same moment (and the universe some how survived). And in came Time "Pop"
Survived? What the hell are you talking about?

You seem to be missing the point entirely. What Hawking is saying is that our laws of physics - or rather our understanding of physics and, by extension, the universe - can not be applied until the universe began to form.
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Then all the laws of the universe started up again. Amazing!!
That's science?
Again? Big Bounce proponent, are you?
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
If it looks like horse dung and smells like horse dung and taste like horse dung, I'm going to call it horse dung. Your science explanation of the start of time is horse dung.
Yet you have nothing better to offer. Bummer.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#157463 Nov 1, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Creationist think the universe always existed? Would you Want to just try and think about that a little bit more?
Stephen say that some people are upset with the fact that the universe had a start because it suggest a creator!
"What Hawking is saying is that the laws of physics are part of the universe after the big bang. The laws of physics that govern the universe could not have existed before the universe existed. That's pretty simple."
No what Hawking said was "at this point all the laws of physics break down"
If there were no laws of physics then none would break down.
He needs to invoke magic and bring in time from outside the universe.
Nothing happens with out time
Nothing changes with out time
Nothing exist with out time
It requires time to create time unless there is a creator.
No offense , but your understanding of space/time is about the same as a gnats.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 6 min Agents of Corruption 160,994
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr Dogen 141,289
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 3 hr GTID62 13,671
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 hr DanFromSmithville 18,692
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 8 hr In Six Days 1,372
No Place For ID? 23 hr GTID62 1
Guadeloupe Woman Found (1812 (Mar '10) Apr 23 MikeF 73
More from around the web