Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180300 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.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#157772 Nov 11, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
OK, I'll re-word for you. EVEN BETTER:
Why can't one species mate with another? There are at least 3 big reasons:
1. Species-specific sperm chemotaxis. Only the same species sperm can successfully navigate/arrive to the target ovum.
2. Incompatible ovum-sperm protein-receptor combination. Lock and key situation. Only the correct protein shape will fit.
3. Incompatible chromosome count for zygote division.
So if evolution occurs in a species individual or individuals, and sexually altering mutation(s) occur, how do those mutations get incorporated by natural selection into the population if these 3 mechanisms are there to prevent it?
Just to be clear. Mutations would occur. If natural selection favors those mutations, then evolution occurs. Cart before the horse as you have it laid out.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#157773 Nov 11, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
....Because it works the other way around. A new species occurs when a subgroup of a breeding population LOSES the ability to produce offspring with the original breeding group.
So there's no worry about frogs and dogs getting together and producing a frodog. Or and eagle and a beagle. Or a cat and a rat. That covers the three reasons you gave.
But a subgroup of any of the above might lose contact with their larger breeding group for a long enough time to lose the ability to reproduce with them. At that point they would be on a separate evolutionary path.
That seems to be the case with African cichlids. An isolated population in an environment with a vast number of unoccupied niches and you go from a few to close to 500 species in some cases.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#157774 Nov 12, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
How could speciation occur if the mechanisms are there to prevent it? Show me the logical steps. I don't see it. OK, a mutation occurs that alters the mechanisms I listed. Who would it be able to mate with?
Those mechanisms aren't there to prevent speciation. They exist to prevent interbreeding between species. They developed through evolution because natural selection weeded out those that could freely interbreed. Their fitness would be reduced because such mating would not result in offspring or in sterile offspring.

Those mechanism prevent existing species from interbreeding and wasting their reproductive time and energy on useless pursuits. Mechanisms that would slow or halt evolution include highly stable environments, reduction in selection pressure or extinction.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#157775 Nov 12, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Just to be clear. Mutations would occur. If natural selection favors those mutations, then evolution occurs. Cart before the horse as you have it laid out.
And to complete the science, as one isolated population continued to accumulate unique mutations not shared with the other population, they would reach a point eventually where interbreeding compatibility was compromised and then impossible.

After several hundred thousand years, if intermediate examples like the horse / donkey and lion / tiger are anything to go by.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#157776 Nov 12, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no clue. This *IS* hopeless. You are a deceitful LIAR!
"House" is not a macrostate. Its a bunch of macrostates that you have grouped by some arbitrary human function into the "same thing". There are millions of potential macrostates that we would call a house.

"Debris field" is not a macrostate. Its a bunch of macrostates that you have grouped by some arbitrary human function into the "same thing". There are millions of potential macrostates that we could call a debris field.

Entropy can be defined as the ln of the number of possible microstates that can conform to ONE MACROSTATE.

Different macro-states do not suddenly become micro-states just because you decided to arbitrarily group them in a particular way.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#157777 Nov 12, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And to complete the science, as one isolated population continued to accumulate unique mutations not shared with the other population, they would reach a point eventually where interbreeding compatibility was compromised and then impossible.
After several hundred thousand years, if intermediate examples like the horse / donkey and lion / tiger are anything to go by.
Perhaps incompatible through one of the mechanisms mention by UC or through some other.

Among insects, as molecular techniques become more available and sophisticated we are finding that there are some taxonomy that needs to be changed, but more interesting perhaps is how much classical taxonomy holds up. Especially as you get into the higher taxa, but generic and species concepts are often bolstered by this new evidence.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#157778 Nov 12, 2013
I must be getting tired. That last paragraphs looks like my last common ancestor with chimpanzees wrote it.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#157779 Nov 12, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"House" is not a macrostate. Its a bunch of macrostates that you have grouped by some arbitrary human function into the "same thing". There are millions of potential macrostates that we would call a house.
"Debris field" is not a macrostate. Its a bunch of macrostates that you have grouped by some arbitrary human function into the "same thing". There are millions of potential macrostates that we could call a debris field.
Entropy can be defined as the ln of the number of possible microstates that can conform to ONE MACROSTATE.
Different macro-states do not suddenly become micro-states just because you decided to arbitrarily group them in a particular way.
Totally wrong.(In our example) Until you understand what microstates are you going to be totally lost.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#157780 Nov 12, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
A breeding population maybe several hundred animals that have become separated from the main herd/flock/tribe etc. These animal mutate a little together , but differently than the original group.
Eventually the speciate and can no longer breed with the original group.
No, but what I am after is how those 3 mechanism could have changed originally with the first animal. First, you would need the genetic mutations to occur in one individual, and then that individual would have to mate with another that had the same mutation! This is impossible!

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#157781 Nov 12, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
In conclusion,
"It has been shown herein that when energy is applied to a system, the degree of randomness of the system moves toward the degree of randomness of the applied energy. When energy is applied in a manner more random than the system to which it is applied, the systemís entropy increases. When energy is applied in a manner less random than the system to which it is applied, the systemís entropy decreases. This represents a general concept of how applied energy affects a systemís entropy in any application of energy to any system. Furthermore, this provides a solid answer to the argument that a naturalistic origin of life is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics because the earth is an open system. The argument fails because that energy is applied in a manner far more random than the high degree of organized complexity of even the simplest living cell."
-Charles Creager Jr.
Thank you Charles. These evolutionists on this forum, even though they have had every opportunity and plenty of time, have completely failed to refute your findings. Your findings held up to the physics, the math, the real-world examples, and especially to logic and common sense.

Yea, we pretty much busted this down to a microstate.

Furthermore hie is arguing SLoT, not Statistical Entropy.

Double loss for you.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#157782 Nov 12, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever happened to:
"We are going to do this with rational discourse."

That was before your tirade in which you slammed the door on rational discourse.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Evotard lies,*bullshit*, and insults lose out yet once again. And again, and again, and again, etc.
Lessons learned: NEVER trust an evotard. Not ever!

It would not take a great brain to go through the posts and see that you are wrong and the rest of us all understand entropy far better than you do.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#157783 Nov 12, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Now to a new subject. Why can't one species mate with another? There are at least 3 big reasons:
1. Species-specific sperm chemotaxis. Only the same species sperm can successfully navigate/arrive to the target ovum.
2. Incompatible ovum-sperm protein-receptor combination. Lock and key situation. Only the correct protein shape will fit.
3. Incompatible chromosome count for zygote division.
So "even if" (and there's no evidence that it could) evolution were to occur in a species individual or individuals, and sexually altering mutation were to occur, how could it possibly be incorporated by natural selection into the population if these 3 anti-evolution mechanisms are there to prevent it?

None of the above are anti evolution. They are somewhat anti mutation, but that is not complete.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#157784 Nov 12, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Totally wrong.(In our example) Until you understand what microstates are you going to be totally lost.
Hahaha I have told you 20 times what a micro state is.

You did not even have the balls to confirm or argue the definitions I offered for both macro and micro states.

Hiding behind vagueness is all you can do.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#157785 Nov 12, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but what I am after is how those 3 mechanism could have changed originally with the first animal. First, you would need the genetic mutations to occur in one individual, and then that individual would have to mate with another that had the same mutation! This is impossible!

Where do you get this nonsense? You are not creative enough to come up with this psychosis. What creotard site or publication are you stealing it from?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#157786 Nov 12, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no clue. This *IS* hopeless. You are a deceitful LIAR!
No, he was being completely honest and was also correct. Your claiming he is lying doesn't add to the discussion and is only showing your anger when your mistakes are pointed out.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#157787 Nov 12, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
In conclusion,
"It has been shown herein that when energy is applied to a system, the degree of randomness of the system moves toward the degree of randomness of the applied energy. When energy is applied in a manner more random than the system to which it is applied, the systemís entropy increases. When energy is applied in a manner less random than the system to which it is applied, the systemís entropy decreases. This represents a general concept of how applied energy affects a systemís entropy in any application of energy to any system. Furthermore, this provides a solid answer to the argument that a naturalistic origin of life is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics because the earth is an open system. The argument fails because that energy is applied in a manner far more random than the high degree of organized complexity of even the simplest living cell."
-Charles Creager Jr.
Thank you Charles. These evolutionists on this forum, even though they have had every opportunity and plenty of time, have completely failed to refute your findings. Your findings held up to the physics, the math, the real-world examples, and especially to logic and common sense.
Wrong. We have even supplied simple examples showing Creager is wrong. Whenever energy is added to an isolated system at a positive temperature, the entropy goes up. Period. It doesn't matter how the energy is applied.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#157788 Nov 12, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but what I am after is how those 3 mechanism could have changed originally with the first animal. First, you would need the genetic mutations to occur in one individual, and then that individual would have to mate with another that had the same mutation! This is impossible!
They did not change at the same time all in ine animal. They changed degree by degree over many generations in populations. No abrupt change, a gradual one.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#157789 Nov 12, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever happened to:
"We are going to do this with rational discourse."
Evotard lies,*bullshit*, and insults lose out yet once again. And again, and again, and again, etc.
Lessons learned: NEVER trust an evotard. Not ever!
You dropped rational discourse a LONG time ago.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#157790 Nov 12, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The lie is because I correct you over and over with examples and references and you keep ignoring me and presenting false premises.
One last time: Each different arrangement of the bricks in the debris pile is a microstate.
Wrong. Each arrangement if a macro-state.
The subject debris field is the macrostate.
Wrong. it is a vague description of the situation.
Forget the macrostate for a moment. And another problem. The movement of atoms in each brick is irrelevant.
Not if you are talking about statistical mechanics.
The scale needs to be fixed. There is no movement period. IT is a point in time. Everything is frozen when we count the number of equivalent microstates.[QUOTE]
This is even wrong classically, let alone for the quantum version. In classical physics, the micro-state is determined by the position and momentum of every molecule in the sample. If everything were at rest, the number of micro-states would be 1 and the entropy would be 0 and the system would be at absolute zero temperature.

Quantum mechanically, it can be a bit different because of degeneracy of quantum states and the fact there is *always* motion at the atomic level.

[QUOTE] There's no measurement of energy or work or heat. It is just a count.[QUOTE]
Not if you are doing statistical mechanics. The count in statistical mechanics is done at a particular energy level and a particular number of particles and a particular macroscopic state.

[QUOTE]We are just dealing with a debris field and all the possible arrangements of bricks that are possible for it to remain as such.
Not if you are doing statistical mechanics, you aren't. The motion of the molecules is the main contribution to entropy.
Each rearrangement of the bricks in the debris field is a microstate.
Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true.
All these rearrangements are equivalent if the debris field remains a debris field.
Wrong, and perhaps the core of your misunderstanding. The particular macroscopic arrangement is the macro-state. Two different arrangements are macroscopically distinguishable, so are different macro-states. Saying it is a 'debris' field is NOT a physical description, but a rather vague statement.
This is what we are after. How many rearrangements of the bricks can we count where they all still are a debris field. That is the W.
Wrong. The W is the number of different possible quantum states for the given macroscopic arrangement.
We take the natural log of that to get the entropy.
We are not tlaking about the entropy of information theory. We are talking about the entropy of statistical mechanics. And *that* entropy has the logarithm multiplied by Boltzmann's constant.
You've had months and months to learn this and yet you can't seem to get it? And you are apparently not retarded or insane (well, that's debatable.)? Well, you asked me; that's the lie part!
We aren't 'learning it'. We are pointing out that it is WRONG.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#157791 Nov 12, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Totally wrong.(In our example) Until you understand what microstates are you going to be totally lost.
And I would say the same about you. The difference is that all the graduate physics I have taken agrees with what I say.

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
What's your religion? (Sep '17) 42 min was auch immer 1,142
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Critical Eye 93,314
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr Aunty Christ 167,854
The Design of Time is Prophecy and is absolute ... 5 hr Aunty Christ 6
How can people believe the Buy-bull? 12 hr Rose_NoHo 1
Did we evolved from Canadians? 13 hr Mystical science 1
Tennepithecus Americanus 15 hr Mystical science 1