Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180388 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: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#157814 Nov 12, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Well it is true that you don't want us to answer the question, you just want to hear us repeat what you believe. However, you are confused on a number of things and it is clear that you need to be straightened out. Can't have you wondering around willy-nilly spreading ignorance.
Why don't you relax and pull away from this for a while and give it a think. These subjects obviously seem to enrage you and one can't think when one is that angry.
What a load of crap.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#157815 Nov 12, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
(Creager) understands it perfectly.
A physics explanation according to UC / Creager.

"Applying ordered energy can reduce the entropy of a system. You know, like when you use your energy to tidy a room, and you arrange the pillows nicely, then it’s like, a lower entropy room (hand wave), cos the room is no longer a messy microstate of the macrostate “messy room”, its like, now a microstate of the macrostate called “tidy room”, which is a less likely macrostate (hand wave).

We can say that the entropy of your applied energy was lower than the room’s, so, like, they average out and some of your low entropy energy has entered the objects in the room (handwave), lowering their entropy too, and it can only happen because you applied the energy in an intelligent, ordered way.

Intelligent application of energy is, like, the only thing in the universe that can reverse the second law, as the room example shows. Otherwise, its well known that systems left to themselves will always have an increase in entropy.

I will ignore the fact that a simple cooling cup of coffee violates what I just said, because when I say "a system" I get to arbitrarily switch from an open system to an isolated one without ever bothering to point that out. Even though my example of reduction of entropy through the placement of a particle in a target location is clearly an open system in which case the rule that entropy must increase locally does not apply, I will ignore that trivial detail because it contradicts what I am trying to say.

I also don't care what happens to the energy after its applied, because its obviously gone into reducing the entropy as low entropy energy does.

This is true because S = k ln(W) J/K and the connection is obvious so I won’t spell it out. I will just rattle off Boltzmann's equations so that it looks like I know what I am talking about"

This is what you, UC, think is a scientific explanation.

And that is all that Creager's paper says.

And I don't know whether Creager is a liar or just dumb, but he makes absolutely no sense and gets NOTHING right except for copying down Boltzmann's equations (which he then mis-applies).

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#157816 Nov 12, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you spend time telling me what I want? Why don't you just give the solution?

You never like the solution.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#157817 Nov 12, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
What a load of crap.

Again, a proposed solution makes you angry.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#157818 Nov 12, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The first step could not happen because we those 3 mechanism are there to prevent it.
The only way this is possible is if two or more individuals incur the exact same multiple genetic mutations and then find each other and mate. This is not possible.
You keep saying it occurs in tiny steps but show the first step. Show the first step.
If it's a different species, the sperm will not find it's way to the ovum; the sperm will no be able to enter the egg; and the chromosome count will be different preventing cell division.
Wrong again.

Its starts at two populations of the same species, just separated.

Tiny differences in the sperm/egg etc accumulate in each population, never enough in one go to prevent fertilisation. They are spread through one population but not the other due to the isolation. Then another change. Then another. Over many generations.

Then the populations come back together. But through innumerable tiny accumulated changes, they no longer have genetic compatibility.

This is so trivial and well understood that you would not even get a Master's degree modelling it today.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#157819 Nov 12, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again.
Its starts at two populations of the same species, just separated.
Tiny differences in the sperm/egg etc accumulate in each population, never enough in one go to prevent fertilisation. They are spread through one population but not the other due to the isolation. Then another change. Then another. Over many generations.
Then the populations come back together. But through innumerable tiny accumulated changes, they no longer have genetic compatibility.
This is so trivial and well understood that you would not even get a Master's degree modelling it today.
You completely skipped over the critical part. That's no explanation at all. How could it orginate in the first place? Any slight change change in either of the three mechanisms would prevent fertilization.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#157820 Nov 12, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
OK focus on the initial mutation. Anything short of changes in all 3 mechanism I listed occurring at the same time in the same generation in the same population would not work. Mutations occur one individual at a time. If an individual were to be born with those genetic mutations that affect species-specific fecundity (1. chemotaxis, 2. fertilization (sperm/ovum compatibility), and 3. chromosome count), that individual would need to mate with another one with the *same exact* mutation. And then their offspring would have to mate with an individual with the same 3 compatible mechnisms (with who, the parents?) The orgin of such speciation...the initial...the first.
No. Many mutations are passed on to SOME of the offspring, but not all, when only one individual starts with that mutation. How fast it spreads or how soon it is eliminated depends on how helpful or harmful it is.

The form of evolution you are referring to would be called genetic drift. This is somewhat different than the kind of evolution that happens when a subgroup of a population gets separated from its originating population.

The subgroup evolution does not require any initial mutations prior to separation. The first step is, obviously, the state of being separated from the originating group. Any mutations that they accumulate cannot be shared with the originating group for as long as they are separated. And if they are separated for a long enough time they may lose the ability altogether to reproduce with the originating group.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#157821 Nov 12, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>So a horse, a zebra and a donkey are all the same species because they can breed and produce offspring? Or is the horse passe.
They are each subspecies, with a common ancestor. They have not been separated long enough to make a complete species break.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#157822 Nov 12, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
...Any slight change change in either of the three mechanisms would prevent fertilization.
Your contention has no foundation unless you also claim that every individual within the species is identical. Is that your claim?

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#157823 Nov 12, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I would say that the first step likely involves proximity among different species. If two species do not encounter each other on a regular basis there is no selection pressure for more sophisticated species barriers developing.
You have found three mechanisms that block crossbreeding and mislabeled them as barriers to evolution and now you have stopped looking further. You need to dig deeper and gain a broader understanding of what you have found. Your gut wants this to be another solution to support your belief, but you need to bring this out of your gut and into your head.
In terms of natural selection, there would be no "selection pressure" for any species to avoid compatibility with any other species. They would simply be not compatible.

In math terms it's like saying that "2" has a mechanism for not being "3". In reality, it just isn't.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#157824 Nov 12, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Many mutations are passed on to SOME of the offspring, but not all, when only one individual starts with that mutation. How fast it spreads or how soon it is eliminated depends on how helpful or harmful it is.
The form of evolution you are referring to would be called genetic drift. This is somewhat different than the kind of evolution that happens when a subgroup of a population gets separated from its originating population.
The subgroup evolution does not require any initial mutations prior to separation. The first step is, obviously, the state of being separated from the originating group. Any mutations that they accumulate cannot be shared with the originating group for as long as they are separated. And if they are separated for a long enough time they may lose the ability altogether to reproduce with the originating group.
You are completely avoiding the origination problem. All you have done with the subgroup is kicked the can farther down the street. The subgroup has the exact same issue. If there is even a single point mutation that changes one of the three mechanisms in place, then there will be no fertilization possible.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#157825 Nov 12, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I would say that the first step likely involves proximity among different species. If two species do not encounter each other on a regular basis there is no selection pressure for more sophisticated species barriers developing.
You have found three mechanisms that block crossbreeding and mislabeled them as barriers to evolution and now you have stopped looking further. You need to dig deeper and gain a broader understanding of what you have found. Your gut wants this to be another solution to support your belief, but you need to bring this out of your gut and into your head.
I just reread your post and realized it did not need any correction or addition. It says the same thing I said, just differently. Sorry.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#157826 Nov 12, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are completely avoiding the origination problem. All you have done with the subgroup is kicked the can farther down the street. The subgroup has the exact same issue. If there is even a single point mutation that changes one of the three mechanisms in place, then there will be no fertilization possible.
No. As I have already stated, the subgroup does not require any mutations prior to separation. The first step, as I again have already stated, is the fact of being separated. While being separated, both the original group and the subgroup will gain mutations, sending each on different evolutionary paths. The final result, way, way, way down the evolutionary road, is speciation. Speciation is a LOSS, not a GAIN. It is the INABILITY to breed, not the ABILITY.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#157828 Nov 12, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No. As I have already stated, the subgroup does not require any mutations prior to separation. The first step, as I again have already stated, is the fact of being separated. While being separated, both the original group and the subgroup will gain mutations, sending each on different evolutionary paths. The final result, way, way, way down the evolutionary road, is speciation. Speciation is a LOSS, not a GAIN. It is the INABILITY to breed, not the ABILITY.
You said the first step is separation. So logically, on day one of separation the subgroup will have the exact same 3 species-specific fertilization mechanisms as the the primary group. So the problem is exactly the same as if they never separated! For those mechanisms to change requires mutation but as soon as either one of the individual's 3 mechanisms change, that individual would not be able to breed with another member of the subgroup species. The problem has not been helped by separation at all.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#157829 Nov 12, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Your contention has no foundation unless you also claim that every individual within the species is identical. Is that your claim?
Identical in what sense?
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#157830 Nov 12, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again.
Its starts at two populations of the same species, just separated.
Tiny differences in the sperm/egg etc accumulate in each population, never enough in one go to prevent fertilisation. They are spread through one population but not the other due to the isolation. Then another change. Then another. Over many generations.
Then the populations come back together. But through innumerable tiny accumulated changes, they no longer have genetic compatibility.
This is so trivial and well understood that you would not even get a Master's degree modelling it today.
The species-specific mechanism for sperm protein-egg receptor is virtually unknown.

"However, a clear understanding of the specificity of these interactions and the regulation of species specificity is not yet known (Primakoff and Myles 2002; He et al. 2003)."

http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/17/20/2502....

You seem to just talk right out of your ass-all the time.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#157831 Nov 12, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You completely skipped over the critical part. That's no explanation at all. How could it orginate in the first place? Any slight change change in either of the three mechanisms would prevent fertilization.

One word refutation:

Ligars.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#157832 Nov 12, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are completely avoiding the origination problem. All you have done with the subgroup is kicked the can farther down the street. The subgroup has the exact same issue. If there is even a single point mutation that changes one of the three mechanisms in place, then there will be no fertilization possible.

Previously refuted.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#157833 Nov 12, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The species-specific mechanism for sperm protein-egg receptor is virtually unknown.
"However, a clear understanding of the specificity of these interactions and the regulation of species specificity is not yet known (Primakoff and Myles 2002; He et al. 2003)."
http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/17/20/2502....
You seem to just talk right out of your ass-all the time.

You make a random reference to a paper written 12 years ago. Nothing in that paper demonstrates your point, INCLUDING your quote.

Have you blown a gasket? You have gone from delusional to full blown psychotic. What is the deal? Is making sense no longer an issue for you?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#157834 Nov 12, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>If mutations are accumulated within a genome, they would either be neutral or beneficial. Negative mutations would be lethal or they would be weeded out by selection. There is no genetic entropy.
Sofar. Entropy.
A measure of the disorder of a system.

A measure of the amount of energy in a system that is available
for doing work; entropy increases as matter and energy in the
universe degrade to an ultimate state of inert uniformity.

Differentiation of Heat (Q), dQ, is not an exact differential and
therefore cannot be integrated. Therefore we introduce an
integration factor (1/T) such that dQ/T can be integrated. And this
dQ/T is called entropy.

So even though Log W=o the amount of energy expended could differ.

Establish the link between statistical entropy and physical
entropy.
Without additional information about the die, the most unbiased distribution is such that all outcomes are equally probable.

P(X =1)= P(X = 2)=...= P(X = 6)=1/ 6
Shannon’s Measure of Uncertainty
Shannon [1948] suggested the following measure of uncertainty, which is commonly known as the statistical entropy
1. H is a positive function of p1, p2,…, pn.
2. H = 0 if one outcome has probability of 1.
3. H is maximum when the outcomes are equally likely.
In the case of the die, you will find the maximum entropy to be
H = ln6
Stirling approximation: ln(N!)= N ln N - N, for very large N
Conclusion:
ln omega=NH
ln omega is linearly proportional to H. Therefore, maximizing the
total number of possible outcomes is equivalent to maximizing Shannon’s statistical entropy.
Statistical Entropy-> H = Const X ln omega <-# of possible outcomes

Entropy in Statistical Physics
Definition of physical entropy:

S = const X ln omega, omega =# of possible microstates of a close system.
A microstate is the detailed state of a physical system.
Example: In an ideal gas, a microstate consists of the position and velocity of every molecule in the system. So the number of microstates is just what Feynman said: the number of different ways the inside of the system can be changed without changing the
outside.
Principle of maximum entropy (The second law of thermodynamics)
If a closed system is not in a state of statistical equilibrium, its macroscopic state will vary in time, until ultimately the system reaches a state of maximum entropy.
Example:
S = Const x ln (# of Velocity States X # of Position States)
# of velocity states does not change.
# of position states does change

delta S = S2-S1 = const x {ln(2V)^N - lnV^N}= const X Nln2
Moreover, at equilibrium, all microstates are equally probable.
Temperature:
Temperature T is defined as

1/T = dS/dE . The temperatures of bodies in equilibrium with
one another are equal.
Since T is measured at a fixed number of particles N and volume V, a more stringent definition is

T =(dE dS)N,V .
Thus far, S is defined to be

S = const X ln (omega).
If S is a dimension-less quantity, T has the dimensions of energy (e.g. in units of Joules (J)).
But J is too large a quantity. Example:
Room temperature = 404.34 x 10-23 J !
What is the physical unit of T?
It is more convenient to measure T in degrees Kelvin (K). The conversion factor between energy and degree is the Boltzmann’s constant, kB = 1.38 X 10-23 J / K. Hence we redefine
S and T by incorporating the conversion factor.
S = kBln omega and T = T/ kB
Using the Boltzman factor:
Same change in entropy, but more energy is given away by the system initially with higher T. Hence temperature is a measure of the tendency of an object to spontaneously give up
energy to its surroundings.
cont.

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 3 min Science 180
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 min John 32,052
GOD-guided (Co)Evolution Theory 31 min BradWatson_Miami 1
How can we prove God exists, or does not? (May '15) 51 min Science 519
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 56 min 15th Dalai Lama 75,181
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr Nemesis 162,041
The Subduction Zone class on Evidence. (Jun '13) 3 hr pshun2404 141
More from around the web