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.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#157911 Nov 13, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree with the part about applying energy to the system. It DOES matter if the energy is coherent (ordered) or not.
Whether ordered or chaotic, energy will diffuse throughout the system until it reaches equilibrium.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#157912 Nov 13, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the one who keeps bringing up microstates, and you are the one who keeps getting slapped for it. You are the one who is inconsistent when confronted with addition or removal of energy/heat, with time, with distribution, even with what comprises ordered or random and a constant or a variable, static versus dynamic... then you accuse others of not being consistent. Tsk, tsk... You aren't even consistent about when you are proposing several open or one closed system.
I agree. Your personal preferences version of entropy is pure hogwash, as I've been trying to tell you for some time now. You can deny it, but you bounce around it like a badminton birdie over a net - it's central to your theme of ID. You have a personal preference that insists a unique pile shaped like a structure is 'superior' to a unique structure shaped like a pile. That's not my problem - it's yours and Creager's.
I have been consistent from the beginning. You are just another dishonest evotard muckying up the science in order to save your twisted ideology.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#157913 Nov 13, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite well.
No, you don't.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#157914 Nov 13, 2013
Illustration of statistical entropy using 4 tosses of a 2 sided coin for all possible outcomes:

Macro = 4H;
Micro = HHHH;
4!/(4!0!)= W = 1;
S = ln 1 = 0

Macro = 3H1T;
Micro = THHH, HTHH, HHTH, HHHT;
4!/(3!1!)= W = 4;
S = ln 4 = 1.38

Macro = 2H2T;
Micro = HHTT,HTHT,HTTH,THTH,TTHH,THHT;
4!/(2!2!)= W = 6;
S = ln 6 = 1.79

Macro = 3T1H;
Micro = HHHT, THTT, TTHT, TTTH;
4!/(3!1!)= W = 4;
S = ln 4 = 1.38

Macro = 4T;
Micro = TTTT;
4!/4!0!)= W = 1;
S = ln 1 = 0

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#157915 Nov 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I have been consistent from the beginning. You are just another dishonest evotard muckying up the science in order to save your twisted ideology.
You've been persistent, not consistent. Nothing by any application of the SLoT prohibits Creationism, ID, abiogenesis or evolution. The argument is misapplied, mistaken and a dead end from the very beginning. You have nothing to show for all of these pages except a leap to a conclusion after a fundamental error and your devotion to confirmation bias.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#157916 Nov 13, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
You've been persistent, not consistent. Nothing by any application of the SLoT prohibits Creationism, ID, abiogenesis or evolution. The argument is misapplied, mistaken and a dead end from the very beginning. You have nothing to show for all of these pages except a leap to a conclusion after a fundamental error and your devotion to confirmation bias.
Wrong. I have shown absolute mathematical and physical proof that is consistent with intuition, logic and common sense that abiogenesis and evolution are impossible.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#157917 Nov 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. I have shown absolute mathematical and physical proof that is consistent with intuition, logic and common sense that abiogenesis and evolution are impossible.
Well, sure you did... at least for your intuition part.(Did I mention confirmation bias?) As for the rest... <shrug> not so much. There is no logical or common sense application when neither you nor Creager have evinced any.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#157918 Nov 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Illustration of statistical entropy using 4 tosses of a 2 sided coin for all possible outcomes:
Macro = 4H;
Micro = HHHH;
4!/(4!0!)= W = 1;
S = ln 1 = 0
Macro = 3H1T;
Micro = THHH, HTHH, HHTH, HHHT;
4!/(3!1!)= W = 4;
S = ln 4 = 1.38
Macro = 2H2T;
Micro = HHTT,HTHT,HTTH,THTH,TTHH,THHT;
4!/(2!2!)= W = 6;
S = ln 6 = 1.79
Macro = 3T1H;
Micro = HHHT, THTT, TTHT, TTTH;
4!/(3!1!)= W = 4;
S = ln 4 = 1.38
Macro = 4T;
Micro = TTTT;
4!/4!0!)= W = 1;
S = ln 1 = 0
Just taking the second one as an example; S = 1.38 what? What are the units of Statistical Entropy.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#157919 Nov 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
We do not know *how* the mechanism works but we know that it *does* work. Actually, there is 4th mechanism that I didn't mention because at first I didn't think it was relevant to evolution but actually it still is: Cortical/acrosome reaction is the dual functionality that prevents more than one sperm from fertilizing the egg. So you have four tasks that must be completely error-free: 1. chemotaxis, 2. protein-receptor, 3. cortical-acrosome reaction, and 4. chromosome count. If any of these species-specific functions fails, fecundity is compromised.
You ask how do I know a single point mutation in any one of these genes is enough to prevent fertilization? Based on the fact that even when all these mechanisms are functioning the possibility of fertilization is still very low and that many couples cannot have children even when science cannot determine if there is anything wrong. On the other hand, we do know of many genetic diseases that result in sterility. It is clear that it is a prerequisite that these four mechanisms work perfectly before there is the possibility of (natural) fertilization to occur.
So tell me what this less than "wholesale" change would be? Even when things are perfect it doesn't always work. Any errors in the instructions; any misshapen protein or incorrect control gene would render it inoperable.
The answer is pretty simple. There is NO evidence that these four mechanisms MUST work perfectly. Rather, what evidence does exist points to the probability that the genes controlling fertilization, though highly conserved, have a range of flexibility...as most genes have a range of flexibility. "Good enough" for survival is the rule rather than the exception for natural selection.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#157920 Nov 13, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
Any mutation that prevents the sperm or egg fertilising will of course fail and so be deleted.
Any mutation that doesn't prevent the sperm and egg fertilising will survive and be passed on. It might even become dominant.
After many such mutations they might be enough to prevent successful fertilisation with the original egg or sperm but by then there would be two separate populations.
Your mistake is to presume every mutation would result in the failure to breed.
Not exactly. Urb is assuming that only some specific genes that control fertilization of the egg are not subject to genetic drift.

The problem with this is that there is no evidence to support the assumption.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#157921 Nov 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Until you can show me where a mutation of the 4 mechanisms genes does not derail the process, it is a show-stopper.
No. It is you who is making the claim. Other genes have a range of viability, so why should these be different?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#157922 Nov 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I have been consistent from the beginning. You are just another dishonest evotard muckying up the science in order to save your twisted ideology.

This is not true at all.

In the beginning you were all hot for SLoT and would not even look at information I provided you on Shannon entropy.

You have changed your position, but not for the better. You still don't understand microstates.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#157923 Nov 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Illustration of statistical entropy using 4 tosses of a 2 sided coin for all possible outcomes:
Macro = 4H;
Micro = HHHH;
4!/(4!0!)= W = 1;
S = ln 1 = 0
Macro = 3H1T;
Micro = THHH, HTHH, HHTH, HHHT;
4!/(3!1!)= W = 4;
S = ln 4 = 1.38
Macro = 2H2T;
Micro = HHTT,HTHT,HTTH,THTH,TTHH,THHT;
4!/(2!2!)= W = 6;
S = ln 6 = 1.79
Macro = 3T1H;
Micro = HHHT, THTT, TTHT, TTTH;
4!/(3!1!)= W = 4;
S = ln 4 = 1.38
Macro = 4T;
Micro = TTTT;
4!/4!0!)= W = 1;
S = ln 1 = 0

Oh bother.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#157924 Nov 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. I have shown absolute mathematical and physical proof that is consistent with intuition, logic and common sense that abiogenesis and evolution are impossible.

No, you have done nothing of the sort. You have made wild assertions which are demonstrably wrong. Frankly you have laid so many eggs that I have trouble taking any new idea you pose seriously. Especially when you radically change your views and don't admit it.

Do you deny acknowledging "micro" evolution up to the genus level?

What's up with that?

You have been getting more crazed and wild eyed. The JRE is strong with you.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#157925 Nov 13, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Just taking the second one as an example; S = 1.38 what? What are the units of Statistical Entropy.

I missed that. Very nice catch.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#157926 Nov 13, 2013
Dogen wrote:
I missed that. Very nice catch.
UC's still not gonna get it.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#157927 Nov 13, 2013
I propose that the unit of Statistical entropy be the Urb.

1 Urb = 600 Bricks per Cul-de-sac.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#157928 Nov 13, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Just taking the second one as an example; S = 1.38 what? What are the units of Statistical Entropy.
As was shown here numerous times from lectures, textbooks, and university websites, S is a dimensionless pure, non-zero positive number. If you want to express it in terms of Joules per Kelvin, you can multiply it by Boltzmann's constant. You can't argue with math!
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#157929 Nov 13, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
I propose that the unit of Statistical entropy be the Urb.
1 Urb = 600 Bricks per Cul-de-sac.
I understand little evotard fella, it's a lot easier to just mock me rather than having to use your brain and try to learn a new concept.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#157930 Nov 13, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
And your point is....?
Just a summation of the longwinded previous discussion.

As in 2nd law is not relevant since we consider also a molecule as a gas in a box.(mol weight, S, P, T needs to be established)that is at rest, where only temperature changes matter and allow us to quantify changes in biological systems. From Stasis point to stasis point.

There are some more steps but i think this sufficed.

And i see no reason why this could not be taught to a slightly younger groups.
It might depend on the presentation, as a connection to biology might make it less dry.

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) 1 min Dogen 57,933
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Hedonist Heretic 27,252
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr MADRONE 159,234
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 8 hr Subduction Zone 1,782
News Intelligent Design Education Day Sun replaytime 2
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Sun replaytime 219,597
News Betsy DeVos' Code Words for Creationism Offshoo... Feb 16 scientia potentia... 1
More from around the web