Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179748 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 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#158394 Nov 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
“The logarithm of that number of ways is the entropy.”
-Richard Feynman
“Notice that Feynman does not use Boltzmann's constant. He assigns no physical units to this kind of entropy, just a number (a logarithm.)”
-Harold Morowitz
And previously what units did Feynman say entropy has? Why do you ignore this simple question? Oh yes, because it would show that you are lying again.

But it is nice of you to point out that Morowitz makes the same error that you do.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#158395 Nov 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
What they stated was clear-cut and impossible to misunderstand; yet you succeeded in misunderstanding them and lied about it.

Ah, more projection.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#158396 Nov 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't feel the need to defend Creager. His work appears correct to me. Besides, it would be a waste of time explaining it to people who don't understand it.

It appears correct to someone who can't get the basics of entropy right. Well that is a resounding statement.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#158397 Nov 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
“The logarithm of that number of ways is the entropy.”
-Richard Feynman
“Notice that Feynman does not use Boltzmann's constant. He assigns no physical units to this kind of entropy, just a number (a logarithm.)”
-Harold Morowitz

Morowitz demonstrates that entropy in no way limits life or evolution.

http://absoluteengg.webs.com/enggnotes.htm

Did you miss that part?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#158398 Nov 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Morowitz demonstrates that entropy in no way limits life or evolution.
http://absoluteengg.webs.com/enggnotes.htm
Did you miss that part?
Selective reading.

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#158399 Nov 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't feel the need to defend Creager. His work appears correct to me. Besides, it would be a waste of time explaining it to people who don't understand it.
You are a complete waste of time... and it doesn't matter what the subject is.

TYVM mister, jmho.

You are a person who does not want to find truth, rather you are a person who wants to prove the truth is wrong. Why I have no udea, but it is your life's work.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#158400 Nov 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't feel the need to defend Creager. His work appears correct to me. Besides, it would be a waste of time explaining it to people who don't understand it.
Funny, those would be the people that need to have it explained.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#158401 Nov 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, Morkowitz gets some things wrong here. Quantum mechanics *does* give a natural 'scale' from which to determine entropy. If you are doing classical mechanics, such a scale was not prese8nt and a number of tricks were invented to circumvent that issue. But under QM, it is actually possible to count the number of micro-states and thereby get a natural scale.
The classical description is usually done in six dimensional phase space (three dimensions of space and three for momentum). Since both distance and momentum are continuous variables, the 'number' of micro-states would be infinite. What is done in classical physics is to replace this count by the phase-space volume. The problem is that this volume does not have a natural scale in classical physics.
But in quantum mechanics, it *does* have a natural scale: each distance multiplied by a momentum has to be larger than Planck's constant because of the uncertainty principle. It turns out that the count of micro-states determine in QM by a simple count of solutions to Schrodinger's equation corresponds to the classical result when this scale is adopted.
So Morowitz is wrong on this score.
he is also wrong about his version of the Feynman lectures: Feynman was well aware that the entropy of statistical mechanics is the same as that from thermodynamics and that Boltzmann's constant is required for a precise definition of entropy in physics. The information theory version of entropy *is* different, but that is not the entropy for statistical mechanics.
Yet Morowitz does say that thermodynamic entropy has a natural packet size ie molecular while "other" kinds of entropy require the arbitrary definition of packet size. And this is why td entropy is objective while otjer measures of disorder are subjective, including Feyman's black and white dot example.

Its xlear tjat he sees Feynman talking about disorder more in abstract and informational entropy terms with his example, while sticking to the rigorous td version throughout the rest of the lecture series.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#158402 Nov 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't feel the need to defend Creager. His work appears correct to me. Besides, it would be a waste of time explaining it to people who don't understand it.
Perhaps its no coincidence that Creager appears correct to you while at the same time you are not dealing with the simplest specific examples of entropy and entropy change that apply to real physical systems.

The coin toss sequence is an information entropy example where there is no volume, energy or mass involved.

But in physical systems, the statistical state arises directly from the volume, mass, and energies of the system. As Morowitz pointed out, that is why statistical thermodynamic entropy is an objective measure and we DON'T get to choose packet size. The real physical system has already determined that!

That is ALSO WHY the statistical and the classical versions of thermodynamics are interchangeable and should provide the SAME measure of entropy, dimensions and all.

You don't get to arbitrarily ignore parts of the system or energy levels or exchange, or change the scale of the "microstate" from molecules to bricks. Because if you do, you might be talking about "order" in some fashion but you are not talking about the order associated with real energy flows and the entropy of molecular systems such as life. And that is what Creager is talking about, after all.

Think of statistical thermodynamics as a FORM of the broader information entropy where the variables such as packet size have been predetermined by the nature of real physical systems.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#158403 Nov 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
“The logarithm of that number of ways is the entropy.”
-Richard Feynman
“Notice that Feynman does not use Boltzmann's constant. He assigns no physical units to this kind of entropy, just a number (a logarithm.)”
-Harold Morowitz
And then he goes on to say, and this is critical:

"Notice another thing. The "number of ways" can only be established by first artificially dividing up the space into little volume elements. This is not a small point. In every real physical situation, counting the number of possible arrangements requires an arbitrary parceling.

As Peter Coveney and Roger Highfield say (7.5):

'There is, however, nothing to tell us how fine the [parceling] should be. Entropies calculated in this way depend on the size-scale decided upon, in direct contradiction with thermodynamics in which entropy changes ARE FULLY OBJECTIVE.'
"

You must divide the packets arbitrarily in information entropy, but NOT in statistical thermodynamic entropy - Because the parcels are ALREADY, OBJECTIVELY, determined by the nature of molecular systems!

And he goes on....

"Claude Shannon himself seems to be aware of these differences in his famous 1948 paper, "A Mathematical Theory of Communcation". With respect to the parcelling he writes, "In the continuous case the measurement is relative to the coordinate system. If we change coordinates the entropy will in general change" (p 37, Shannon's italics)."

But in measuring the order of real physical systems, which statistical thermodynamics does, you DON'T get to choose and this is what Shannon was pointing out too. We are looking for an OBJECTIVE and consistent measure of entropy in a physical system.

Now, when CREAGER talks about "the ordered application of energy to a particle" is he talking about information entropy or statistical thermodynamics? Ask yourself - energy and particles? YES.

Therefore its the statistical thermodynamic form of entropy he is using, not the informational one. Microstates of molecules, not bricks.
juddleman

Donora, PA

#158404 Nov 19, 2013
youtube.com/watch... ……
Dang no

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#158405 Nov 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet Morowitz does say that thermodynamic entropy has a natural packet size ie molecular while "other" kinds of entropy require the arbitrary definition of packet size. And this is why td entropy is objective while otjer measures of disorder are subjective, including Feyman's black and white dot example.
Agreed.
Its xlear tjat he sees Feynman talking about disorder more in abstract and informational entropy terms with his example, while sticking to the rigorous td version throughout the rest of the lecture series.
One thing that is good about Urb: he manages to get us to re-read classical material like the Feynman lectures and to brush up on stat. mech. I have gone back and worked through a number of examples that I did while in the grad classes. And that is always a good thing to do.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#158406 Nov 19, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed.
<quoted text>
One thing that is good about Urb: he manages to get us to re-read classical material like the Feynman lectures and to brush up on stat. mech. I have gone back and worked through a number of examples that I did while in the grad classes. And that is always a good thing to do.
Certainly. Ive learned a lot too, and you have been a big help there. Of course my day one objections to Creager still stand. I havent needed more to do that, but at least Urb's argumentativeness has prompted me to study further.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#158407 Nov 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Certainly. Ive learned a lot too, and you have been a big help there. Of course my day one objections to Creager still stand. I havent needed more to do that, but at least Urb's argumentativeness has prompted me to study further.
It is somewhat paradoxical that someone who is so consistently wrong can inspire others who know a subject to investigate it further.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#158408 Nov 19, 2013
And still neither one of you understand how it works.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#158409 Nov 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Certainly. Ive learned a lot too, and you have been a big help there. Of course my day one objections to Creager still stand. I havent needed more to do that, but at least Urb's argumentativeness has prompted me to study further.
You haven't learned anything; all you've done is reinforced more misinformation.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#158410 Nov 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
And still neither one of you understand how it works.
No, we understand that your version doesn't work at all.
Mugwump

Malvern, UK

#158411 Nov 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
And still neither one of you understand how it works.
URB , which seems more likely ?

That you have found a slam-dunk evidence that evolution is impossible that overturns the work of hundreds of thousands of scientists that have studied the subject over 150 years ?

Or

You are wrong

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#158412 Nov 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't learned anything; all you've done is reinforced more misinformation.
Wrong again. We have *countered* your misinformation and misunderstanding.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#158413 Nov 19, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
URB , which seems more likely ?
That you have found a slam-dunk evidence that evolution is impossible that overturns the work of hundreds of thousands of scientists that have studied the subject over 150 years ?
Or
You are wrong
The remarkable thing is that we haven't even gotten *close* to a discussion of evolution. We are still stuck at basic physics. That Urb and Creager are wrong in their predictions is easily seen. That Urb misunderstands statistical physics is also easily shown. But even if you accept their distorted viewpoints, it is still far away from anything to do with biology or evolution.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 22 min River Tam 23,590
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Aura Mytha 216,930
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr scientia potentia... 154,859
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr scientia potentia... 48,864
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 4 hr GoTrump 1,050
Evolution in action (May '16) Dec 7 Thick cockney cha... 36
Richard Dawkins tells the truth Dec 5 Timmee 9
More from around the web