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.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#158666 Nov 25, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
How is this result not perfectly consistent with "my hypothesis"? The sunlight is much less ordered than the DNA it is being applied to. The DNA, as a result of the less ordered sunlight, develops mutations and loses information, becoming less and less ordered. The organism ages and ultimately dies. Look at anyone who has spent a significant amount of time in the sun during their lifetime compared to someone who hasn't. The effects are obvious. In fact, everything left out in the sun too long is damaged because it is a lot of disorganized energy being applied.

Just a few things wrong with your post.

Mutations are not specifically what causes aging.
Mutations are not a loss of energy.
Skin aging is not fully due to mutations.
Skin aging is not body aging.
Trees are left out in the sun all day, every day and grow and thrive as do most of the organisms on earth (plants outnumber animals).
Solar energy is not disorganized. Solar energy, for example, would not be possible if it was.
Neither would photosynthesis.

All life on earth that we know of owes its existence to the sun.

If mutations killed people off like you say species would last one generation and all life would be gone now.

But, in facts, our DNA is very robust, even more so than early humans. We can survive exposure to things that would have (and did) kill them off.

There are a lot more errors if I look at your implications, but lets start with these.


“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#158667 Nov 25, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Ridiculous! The number of equivalent microstates of a debris field is vastly more than that of an ordered house. There are only so many ways to arrange the materials that make up a house whereas there are virtually unlimited ways to arrange a debris field! For you to make such as asinine statement proves you don't understand how this works!

You are still making the same error of confusing microstates with rather small macrostates.

You are not getting it. The entropy is unchanged.

Let me try one more time to explain. How many ways are there to arrange one particular debris field?

So how is the house other than one versions of a debris field?

See how simple it is?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#158668 Nov 25, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Bub, your lies have been exposed again. You and I and everyone else knows that a house is going to have a far fewer number of equivalent microstates than that of a debris field!
Count them! In a debris field, the mess can be arranged in any number of ways and guess what? It's still a debris field! But an orderly house, built precisely according to blueprint plans, has only very few possible ensembles that can be arranged and it still be in compliance with the plans.

MORON!

This is getting old. I am tired of you adding 2+3 and getting purple.

There is ONLY ONE possible debris field for ANY GIVEN debris field.

HELLOOOO!

IS THIS THING ON????

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#158669 Nov 25, 2013
Can I declare this argument over so we can move on to something else.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#158670 Nov 25, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your mistake has been explained to you repeatedly. You are getting boring
I'm not making a mistake, you are. And it's a whopper! No, correction, you aren't making a mistake, you're just lying.

The house is like flipping a coin and getting all heads while the debris field is like having an equal number of heads and tails. I have shown you numerous examples of how this works so you are out of excuses.

If your position is that a house has the same number of equivalent microstates as a debris field, you are just either extremely retarded or a lying scumbag.

End of story.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#158671 Nov 25, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
I'm not making a mistake, you are. And it's a whopper! No, correction, you aren't making a mistake, you're just lying.
The house is like flipping a coin and getting all heads while the debris field is like having an equal number of heads and tails. I have shown you numerous examples of how this works so you are out of excuses.
If your position is that a house has the same number of equivalent microstates as a debris field, you are just either extremely retarded or a lying scumbag.
End of story.
A PARTICULAR debris field would be much less likely to occur than a house. There are fewer arrangements of materials that could be considered a house than could be called a debris field.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#158672 Nov 25, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
A PARTICULAR debris field would be much less likely to occur than a house. There are fewer arrangements of materials that could be considered a house than could be called a debris field.
This is besides the point; it's not whether a particular debris field is likely - its the number of equivalent debris fields and there would be millions of them and it would still be just a debirs field.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#158673 Nov 25, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Ridiculous! The number of equivalent microstates of a debris field is vastly more than that of an ordered house. There are only so many ways to arrange the materials that make up a house whereas there are virtually unlimited ways to arrange a debris field! For you to make such as asinine statement proves you don't understand how this works!
Using this logic, with ambiguously defined microstates, what would be the problem with defining the house as equivalent to a pre-order of viable existence, and the many possible debris fields as as viable variations of existence, with natural selection as a determining factor?

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#158674 Nov 25, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Bub, your lies have been exposed again. You and I and everyone else knows that a house is going to have a far fewer number of equivalent microstates than that of a debris field!
Count them! In a debris field, the mess can be arranged in any number of ways and guess what? It's still a debris field! But an orderly house, built precisely according to blueprint plans, has only very few possible ensembles that can be arranged and it still be in compliance with the plans.
Ok, so let's call the bomb blast of the house "abiogenesis", and the debris field DNA. To rule that out you have to rule in more factors than you have accounted for.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#158675 Nov 25, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not making a mistake, you are. And it's a whopper! No, correction, you aren't making a mistake, you're just lying.
The house is like flipping a coin and getting all heads while the debris field is like having an equal number of heads and tails. I have shown you numerous examples of how this works so you are out of excuses.
If your position is that a house has the same number of equivalent microstates as a debris field, you are just either extremely retarded or a lying scumbag.
End of story.
Simplistic an incorrect comparison of house/debris field with coin toss. Explained 20 times with no logical refutation from you, just stupid accusations of lying.

No explanation from you as to why a chloroplast and DNA are affected in completely opposite ways by the same "entropy" sunlight.

No example yet of the application of energy to a system decreasing entropy. Meanwhile many examples provided showing entropy decreasing as energy leaves the system. Plus the scientific underpinnings of this.

You are wrong, and you are boring, and Creager's foolish paper will never be more than a laughing point to physicists, starting at about the swcond sentence.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#158676 Nov 25, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Simplistic an incorrect comparison of house/debris field with coin toss.
No, the coin toss example was shown to you directly from several physics text books as an example of statistical entropy! I just showed it to you again! You're just lying, that's all. End of story. You're brainwashed. Evotard.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#158677 Nov 25, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not making a mistake, you are. And it's a whopper! No, correction, you aren't making a mistake, you're just lying.
The house is like flipping a coin and getting all heads while the debris field is like having an equal number of heads and tails. I have shown you numerous examples of how this works so you are out of excuses.
If your position is that a house has the same number of equivalent microstates as a debris field, you are just either extremely retarded or a lying scumbag.
End of story.

LOL. You are a cartoon.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#158678 Nov 25, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
This is besides the point; it's not whether a particular debris field is likely - its the number of equivalent debris fields and there would be millions of them and it would still be just a debirs field.

This is the point we are trying to make to you.

debris fields will have the same number of microstates as the original house (maybe a few less, thermodynamically speaking).

The house is just as likely as ANY given debris field.

DO YOU GET THAT MUCH?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#158679 Nov 25, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the coin toss example was shown to you directly from several physics text books as an example of statistical entropy! I just showed it to you again! You're just lying, that's all. End of story. You're brainwashed. Evotard.

You are dodging the issue again.

Can you use statistical entropy for a bomb blast (even by your definition of it)? Let's see, certain things must be constant to use statistical entropy. Are those things held constant in a bomb blast?

For example can we assume there is no heat or energy which would be confounding variables in your system of statistical entropy.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#158680 Nov 25, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not ignoring it; it is not part of the problem. We don't consider the air before or after; there is no bias.
This is wrong. The air has changed a great deal because of the heat put into it. its entropy has increased a LOT because of these changes. So you cannot simply ignore the air: it is a crucial part of the entropy equation.
We are only concerned with counting the number of available microstates and the system is the house.
No, the system is the house together with the surrounding air. The entropy of that system increases.
There is no measure of energy; statistical entropy forbids it! The fundamental postulate! It is clear you still don't understand this concept! You count the number of equivalent microstates and that's it! Finally, for the umpteenth time Chimney!
But the number of micro-states depends on the total energy of the system. Is that something you forgot to include?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#158681 Nov 25, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
This is besides the point; it's not whether a particular debris field is likely - its the number of equivalent debris fields and there would be millions of them and it would still be just a debirs field.
And this is where you go wrong. Saying you have a debris field is NOT selecting a macro-state. A macro-state would be to state the composition, pressure, and location of every macroscopic object in the system. So, to describe the macro-state of a debris field, you need to locate each and every rock and dust particle. THEN you find the number of micro-states. Different debris fields are different macro-states, not different micro-states.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#158682 Nov 25, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
We all know how basic thermodynamics works Chimney. I don't know why you feel the need to show off your newfound understanding of high school physics.
No one is doubting that heat is released in the process of either a bomb exploding or a construction crew working but this is irrelevant; the equivalent number of microstates are counted long after the heat has dissipated.
But the heat doesn't simply vanish. it goes into the air and changes the entropy of the air. To ignore that effect is to ignore a significant source of entropy for the overall system.
We all see this happen all the time in our daily lives; intelligent processes reducing entropy - albeit locally and temporarily.
And there are many situations where entropy decreases locally without the intervention of an intelligence. Freezing water, for example.
We also see how when energy is applied in a manner less organized than the system it is being applied causing disorder. This is validated millions of times on a daily basis. Creager's use of statistical entropy explains it in terms of math and physics.
Except that his 'explanation' shows no such thing. At best, it shows that the entropy is different when the number of micro-states is different. But it in no way shows how energy applied affects that entropy.
Who Knows

Lodi, OH

#158683 Nov 25, 2013
I think the key word is 'equivalent'. Equivalent microstates. A house may have the same number of microstates but it can't be as likely. If every trajectory was equally likely then yes, but particles start from different positions and end up in different positions. A blast would, in all likelihood, never result in a house being formed from it's debris field.

Of course, DNA may have been different; maybe it had a structural substrate? Unlikely, but who knows? Unlikely because by introducing a substrate or template you are only moving the goalposts; the question still remains, how did the template form?
I'm not up to date on the conversation, so, sorry if I'm missing something.

I don't think either side has a great argument because all we have are simple reasons to try explaining complicated phenomena. Like maybe it's possible that molecules were able to somehow form a strand of DNA. That seems very unlikely in itself, but even if given that, so what? It's just a strand of DNA. A debris field.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#158684 Nov 25, 2013
Who Knows wrote:
I think the key word is 'equivalent'. Equivalent microstates. A house may have the same number of microstates but it can't be as likely. If every trajectory was equally likely then yes, but particles start from different positions and end up in different positions. A blast would, in all likelihood, never result in a house being formed from it's debris field.
Of course, DNA may have been different; maybe it had a structural substrate? Unlikely, but who knows? Unlikely because by introducing a substrate or template you are only moving the goalposts; the question still remains, how did the template form?
I'm not up to date on the conversation, so, sorry if I'm missing something.
I don't think either side has a great argument because all we have are simple reasons to try explaining complicated phenomena. Like maybe it's possible that molecules were able to somehow form a strand of DNA. That seems very unlikely in itself, but even if given that, so what? It's just a strand of DNA. A debris field.
The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#158685 Nov 25, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
But the heat doesn't simply vanish.
There is no measurement of energy, work, or temperature in statistical entropy. The dissapated heat is real but is not part of the problem because it is not involved in the counting of equivalent microstates. It doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is the number of equivalent microstates.

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 15 min Dumoti 168,709
E equals MC squared 31 min Jim Ryan 1
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr blacklagoon 3 94,172
Why the Big Bang is ALL WRONG. 9 hr Endofdays 268
Altruistic Behaviour negates the theory of Evol... 9 hr Rose_NoHo 3
Evolution is boring as Hell (Nov '17) 9 hr Mad John Kidd 46
List what words of Jesus (the Creator) you evol... 11 hr Mad John Kidd 35