Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 | Posted by: Cash | Full story: www.scientificblogging.com

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."
Comments
153,461 - 153,480 of 171,610 Comments Last updated 4 min ago

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157759
Nov 11, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You has not been able to provide a single example where the application of energy to a system reduces entropy. Entropy can only fall when the applied energy leaves the system, increasing entropy somewhere else by more.(A point made and not refuted since day ONE.)
This can be explained in either classical terms as heat flows, or statistical terms as increases and decreases in the number of available microstates. These two approaches are equivalent and interchangeable.
<quoted text>
When ANY energy is applied, the total entropy change is always >= 0. Never less than zero, no matter how "ordered the application". That IS the second law.
Entropy only falls (locally) when energy leaves the system - raising entropy elsewhere in the process.
<quoted text>
And this general concept is wrong. Even building a house or a glucose molecule generates more entropy than it reduces.
<quoted text>
And yet continuing application of that same "random energy" can enable a far less random system such as a chloroplast to produce glucose, by first RAISING the entropy, breaking chemical bonds as the molecules absorb energy, then DISSIPATING (emitting) that energy through a chain of reactions that produces glucose (reducing the entropy as HEAT generated in the re-formation of chemical bonds passes out of the system).
This alone makes a mockery of Creager's and your claim.
<quoted text>
Thank you Charles. Your valuable example has demonstrated how far creationists are willing to go to delude themselves into accepting ANY bad argument against evolution. This shows that any pretension to objectivity or rationality that they claim is a phony front.
Your panty-waist assistant here cannot even argue his case, preferring to call everyone a liar when his obvious errors of basic science are pointed out.
You've made a mockery of yourself. You still don't even know how statistical entropy works. You still don't even know what a microstate is or how to count them. You don't know how to use logarithms or dimensions in equations. You still don't know what Boltzmann's constant is for or why it is unnecessary in the calculation of statistical entropy. You can't even distinguish the different between counting (as in statistics) and measuring units of heat, etc. You're using incorrect definitions and measuring things that are irrelevant, and your mixing up of two definitions of entropy in the same problem is totally irrational and invalid. You never even got to the first step!

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157760
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.
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?

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157761
Nov 11, 2013
 
And I should add that:

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...and then they would be prevented from being reincorporated into the original group for any one (or all three) of the reasons that you gave.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157762
Nov 11, 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?
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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157763
Nov 11, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever happened to:
"We are going to do this with rational discourse."
I tried. By about the third response you were calling me a liar. I have only two cheeks to turn, then you can get stuffed.

Statistical and classic thermodynamics are merely two sides of the same coin and that in physical systems, the number of available microstates in a system is DETERMINED by the internal energy of that system, all else being equal. You have not yet made that connection.

Here is another simple question for you.

How do you DECREASE available microstates in a system without REMOVING energy from the system?

I said it cannot be done.

A simple example, from your Berkeley lecture. Now we want to push the gas back into one side, compressing it! That will reduce the positional microstates and reduce entropy, a reversal of the original case where he opened the valve.

Unfortunately, this "application of ordered energy" to compress the gas will cause the gas to HEAT UP, cancelling the reduction in positional microstates with an increase in the momenta of the particles. S>=0, as always.

The only way to get the entropy back down to the original level is to allow the gas to COOL to its original temperature. And this is a REMOVAL of energy, through a heat sink.

This local reduction of entropy in the gas was accomplished by the flow of energy THROUGH the system and out the other side. Do you see that? And if you don't arbitrarily ignore the energy flow, you will see that the TOTAL entropy change at every step including where the heat WENT is always >= 0.

Now, if you cannot even deal with this incredibly simple example, what makes you think you have the understanding to deal with anything as complex as a construction problem?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157764
Nov 11, 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?
Why can't a Frenchman understand an Italian? They used to speak the same language and for a thousand years every French son has understood his French father while every Italian son has understood his Italian father. So why can't the Italian sons understand the French sons?

Like languages, genomes change gradually by small increments.

I will leave it to you to understand the connection in these examples, although after the entropy discussion I see connecting the dots is not your strong suite.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157765
Nov 11, 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?
The mechanisms you listed would prevent an eagle and a beagle from producing viable flying dogs.

And while a speciation event might be extremely remotely possible starting with one individual within a group, the general rule is that speciation occurs in a breeding subgroup of a population.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157766
Nov 11, 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. The subject debris field is the macrostate. Forget the macrostate for a moment. And another problem. The movement of atoms in each brick is irrelevant. 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. There's no measurement of energy or work or heat. It is just a count. We are just dealing with a debris field and all the possible arrangements of bricks that are possible for it to remain as such. Each rearrangement of the bricks in the debris field is a microstate. All these rearrangements are equivalent if the debris field remains a debris field. 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. We take the natural log of that to get the entropy. 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!
"A debris field" is an arbitrary grouping of different macrostates that you have subjectively decided are indistinguishable from each other. Yet a photographer or a forensic scientist could show you the differences from one to the next.

The possible microstates of the molecules in a brick really can be in trillions of different states but the outside effect REALLY IS indistinguishable between one microstate and the next. Its not an arbitrary grouping.

You are confusing your arbitrary groupings with objective reality, misapplying what Feynmann and others were trying to tell you.

That is your mistake. For the 20th time. Feymann is dead (more is the pity), so you cannot ask him. But the Kahn Academy lecture did point this out to you.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157767
Nov 11, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why can't a Frenchman understand an Italian? They used to speak the same language and for a thousand years every French son has understood his French father while every Italian son has understood his Italian father. So why can't the Italian sons understand the French sons?
Like languages, genomes change gradually by small increments.
I will leave it to you to understand the connection in these examples, although after the entropy discussion I see connecting the dots is not your strong suite.
...Which gets me thinking about those Frenchies. You'd think that with all they claim to have given to civilized manners, they'd eventually learn to fully enunciate their words.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157768
Nov 11, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
WOW! You evotards really are sick in the head. I'm thoroughly disgusted. F.U. and the horse you road in on you POS Evotards!
yep.

the sound of a dishonest man whose back is against the wall and has no rational argument to offer.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157769
Nov 11, 2013
 
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
...Which gets me thinking about those Frenchies. You'd think that with all they claim to have given to civilized manners, they'd eventually learn to fully enunciate their words.
Streamlining is elegant if its done right...

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157770
Nov 11, 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?
Those or reproductive barriers between species and not mechanism to prevent evolution. Reproductive barriers are not limited to those you mention and include ecological, morphological and geographical barriers among others.

For instance in the scarab genus Phyllophaga the aedeagus of the male is a highly diverse structure that varies significantly between species. While in the buprestid genus Agrilus the male aedeagus is very similar in structure between different species. Morphology is a greater reproductive barrier between species of Phyllophaga, while the barrier for Agrilus is ecological and temporal to a greater extent. These are fairly large and widely distributed genera. In North America alone, there are close to 250 species of Phyllophaga.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157771
Nov 11, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, I'll re-word for you.
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 anti-evolution mechanisms are there to prevent it?
What do you mean sexually altering?

I'll take a shot. If a mutation results in an individual that can no longer mate with members of its own species, then natural selection is weeding it out. It is a negative mutation because it has reduced the fitness of the individual to 0.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157778
Nov 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

I must be getting tired. That last paragraphs looks like my last common ancestor with chimpanzees wrote it.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

12 Users are viewing the Evolution Debate Forum right now

Search the Evolution Debate Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 14 min The Dude 113,280
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 29 min DanFromSmithville 134,662
Why do half of Britons not believe in evolution? 3 hr The Dude 74
The Universe is fine-tuned for life 3 hr The Dude 481
art & intelligence (Mar '11) Thu THE LONE WORKER 68
Evolution debate vote (Mar '09) Thu THE LONE WORKER 3,391
GOP House candidate Bob Frey believes dinosaurs... Thu The Dude 25
•••
•••