Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179706 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.

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#160419 Dec 28, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Cart before the horse.
If a computer-robot could find an energy source and use that, build copies of itself, etc, then it would meet every objective definition of life we can muster. "To have evolved" is not a criterion for being alive, although the ability to evolve would make its resilience and persistence through time more likely.
It is however a stipulation of being a life form , but it isn't to have evolved..it is it that it must evolve.
But you still have a problem here, a computer was programed to do that stuff by an intelligent designer. Life gathered memory much slower , but its programing is to diversify. This is not a random action, life wants to keep on living. Had you been a hunter you would know this. There is a struggle to live and I truly think even the microscopic life has this consciousness. This is what all those researchers are saying , that cells communicate using biophotons.
Regardless of that though, AI could become conscious just like how data was determined to be a life form on star trek. Data does evolve (upgrades)and can reproduce himself. But we're a long long ways from there .

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#160420 Dec 28, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
A living thing with an advanced brain makes decisions. Meaning, builds an internal model of the world and runs it forward to make predictions then chooses which prediction is preferable.
A simpler living thing does not do this. Its reactions are far more predictable and more preprogrammed. Again to use the analogy, its reactions to stimuli are no more conscious than a traffic signal sensor to the arrival of a car.
In the case of the living system, the reactions that led to a higher survival rate predominate because of natural selection.
I think you are still assuming will, consciousness, effort, etc that are simply not required to explain the activities of most organisms. I also think, which is why I was reluctant to get into this discussion in the first place, that nobody can even agree about what the term "conscious" means and that is the problem with much of the debate.
FYI some psychologists do not even regard babies as conscious, believing it developed and matures up to the age of about 5 years. This is the point where most children are fully self aware of themselves as one human among others, can blush with embarrassment when they transgress social boundaries, etc.
That is just to give an extreme in the opposite direction to you and Pokay, who want to grant consciousness to rocks (primitive animism) and bacteria (some form of elan vital theory).
I think you are both way off base. But don't ask a mushroom what it thinks. It doesn't.
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/quorum/what.htm

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#160421 Dec 28, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no idea what your talking about because you're an idiot... Never thought I'd ever take up with Myrtha but he has provided you with links to back up his position... The reason I don't is clearly seen here... Bottom line is you don't care what sources are linked if it don't agree with your foolishness...
I'm not arguing that there is no definition for biophoton, I'm pointing out that it is not a unique particle wave from a physics pov. It is a photon.
AM's links admit that the speculations regarding the biologically produced photons in the UV and visible range are nothing more than speculative. He mixes the terms photon and ----luminescence with complete abandon. You do not describe a grain of dirt by the shape of a hill. I understand why you would want to support ANYTHING that might point toward some mystical and mysterious design, but given that mammals and avians glow like beacons in the IR and biochemical processes are constantly underway, I don't find it odd that 'life' emits faintly in other regions of the EMS.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#160422 Dec 28, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> The first criteria is it has to be defined a life form.
Then it must have the programing, senses or whatever you want to call it to..
metabolize, grow, able, reproduce , and evolve.
A computer fails the first test, and it ultimately fails several more.
Though this could change, one day AI may indeed become a conscious life form.
Is evolving a requirement to define something as living? That organisms do, is obvious (based on the evidence), but is it necessary to be considered alive or is it something that happens after you are alive?

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#160424 Dec 28, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, yes they do have spin. It is equivalent to polarization.
Yeah, I based that notion on the idea that photons have no mass, thus would/should not be able to have momentum necessary to maintain motion. But I guess that is true only of a photon at rest. My bad. Of course, 80% or more of his claims are BS.

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#160425 Dec 28, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Is evolving a requirement to define something as living? That organisms do, is obvious (based on the evidence), but is it necessary to be considered alive or is it something that happens after you are alive?
I didn't make the criteria up, that's the definition.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#160426 Dec 28, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes but these two are unique in their non thermal origin.
Wrong. There are several "non-thermal" ways of making photons. Synchrotron radiation, for example. Many chemical reactions do so.
But it boils down to It being only a ultra weak quanta energy packet in the 200-800nm range.
A photon with this wavelength range will have the energy associated with that range. For example, all photons with a wavelength of 700nm will have exactly the same energy: approximately 1.77 eV. There is no 'ultra-weak' photon of that wavelength. That is sort of the point of quantization of energy.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#160427 Dec 28, 2013
Who Knows wrote:
<quoted text> No need to complicate things, just answer the question, please. It's obvious we can verify the existence of something that *may* be infinite, but we cannot verify that it is indeed infinite.
Right. We can observe that it is larger than our instruments can observe, but we cannot measure infinite amounts. We might be able to verify them in some other way, though.
Do you agree or disagree?<quoted text>Why does it matter? Please answer the question.
Your question is too vague to answer.
If I want to hypothesize that any or all of your examples are infinite, I could never verify my assumption. Do you agree or disagree?
I can certainly imagine situations where it might be possible to verify that something is infinite: for example, if the curvature of space is negative, the infiniteness of space is strongly supported.
Mr token science guy doesn't know what 'tangible' means?
Yes, it means that something can be touched. So anything smaller than our ability to touch is intangible.
If we can wrap our arms around something; if we can contain it (like a quantum particle within a probability function), so to speak, then it is at least somewhat tangible, IOW, as I had defined my terms, we are able to work directly with it. It's not hard, poly.
You are using the word 'tangible' in a very strange way here. I would not say that an electron, for example, is tangible because it cannot be touched. it is, however, a physical thing. it can be measured and explored and understood. Perhaps that is what you mean when you use the word 'tangible'?
I don't see how it matters but I'm not talking mathematics; I'm talking reality.
Math is the language by which we understand reality.
In math we can conceive of something infinite; the *concept* can be useful, but I'm talking about existence itself; if it is infinite we could never verify it. And here I predict you will try to use the concept of an infinite loop,'arriving at the starting point in spacetime', to somehow attempt to claim infinity is tangible. But that, technically then, is not a true infinity because continued travel would result in going over the same "ground" and would ruin the true concept of infinity. The true concept of infinity is not tangible because it is not verifiable. Do you agree or disagree?
I disagree. Tangibility (the ability to be touched) has nothing to do with it. The question is one of how to go about verifying that, say, space is infinite. For example, if we are able to establish some physical theory to a certain degree of accuracy, and if we are able to show that certain parameters guarantee that space is infinite and if we can verify that those parameters fall within the required ranges, then I would be able to say that the infiniteness of space is verified.
Just out of curiosity, is it your opinion that the mathematical concept of infinity is verifiable?
In some situations, yes. Not in general. But then, it isn't a useful concept in general. I think it might be possible to show that space is infinite.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#160428 Dec 28, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I based that notion on the idea that photons have no mass, thus would/should not be able to have momentum necessary to maintain motion. But I guess that is true only of a photon at rest. My bad. Of course, 80% or more of his claims are BS.
Photons *do* have momentum. In fact, a photon of energy E has a momentum of size E/c. There is no such thing as a photon at rest.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#160429 Dec 28, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't make the criteria up, that's the definition.
That is *one* proposed definition. But it is far from being the only one. Even the definition of 'alive' is subject to a LOT of debate. Why something has to be 'alive' to be 'conscious' or vice versa is unclear to me.

Since: Apr 13

Scappoose, Oregon USA

#160430 Dec 28, 2013
I don't believe in evolution, simply because IMHO the female orgasm is too fantastic to be an accident! Don't know how it feels for guys of course, but they make pretty much the same sounds I do.Nope, I'm a firm believer in creationism. I may not be able to understand or explain the creator being we call God, but at least that's an explanation. All the evolutionists have is "somehow this and that happened" and random chance. That's me anyway! Everybody can feel free to disagree or agree, freedom of choice.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#160431 Dec 28, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Photons *do* have momentum. In fact, a photon of energy E has a momentum of size E/c. There is no such thing as a photon at rest.

They cannot be at rest but they can be slowed down. Does slowing them down decrease their mass?

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#160432 Dec 28, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. There are several "non-thermal" ways of making photons. Synchrotron radiation, for example. Many chemical reactions do so.
<quoted text>
A photon with this wavelength range will have the energy associated with that range. For example, all photons with a wavelength of 700nm will have exactly the same energy: approximately 1.77 eV. There is no 'ultra-weak' photon of that wavelength. That is sort of the point of quantization of energy.
I've never claimed anything else , other than it isn't known exactly how they are created in living things, unlike the several other ways which are known. For non thermal photon creation. Of course we have hypothesis how they are , but we don't really know how or what they are doing. All I have done is pointed to the research into this phenomena . None of it being my work , but happen to think some of it is somewhat correct because it makes sense of a few inexplicable things related to this study. The only thing I have written in here that has not been said by others, is that
life and consciousness are intertwined , much the same as space and time are, and that life has a will to survive, that extends all the way to the microscopic.

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#160433 Dec 28, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is *one* proposed definition. But it is far from being the only one. Even the definition of 'alive' is subject to a LOT of debate. Why something has to be 'alive' to be 'conscious' or vice versa is unclear to me.
Maybe because dead matter, like that rock, Or any matter without the ability to sense things around it and have memory of it . Cannot have consciousness, and so far only living things are able to do this. Though I think we will soon create the artificial version of this,
but will it really be alive or just synthetic life?
defender

Mount Vernon, KY

#160434 Dec 28, 2013
Jenji wrote:
I don't believe in evolution, simply because IMHO the female orgasm is too fantastic to be an accident! Don't know how it feels for guys of course, but they make pretty much the same sounds I do.Nope, I'm a firm believer in creationism. I may not be able to understand or explain the creator being we call God, but at least that's an explanation. All the evolutionists have is "somehow this and that happened" and random chance. That's me anyway! Everybody can feel free to disagree or agree, freedom of choice.
Well said and true...

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#160435 Dec 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
They cannot be at rest but they can be slowed down. Does slowing them down decrease their mass?
Slowing light down causes it to release it's mass/energy equivalence as thermal energy.
But this is where biophotons differ from thermally born photons, and why they are called ultra weak. The difference is like a incandescent light bulb vs florescent light bulb.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#160436 Dec 28, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said and true...

Orgasm = proof of evolution.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#160437 Dec 28, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't make the criteria up, that's the definition.
I'm just asking. Where were the criteria from. It may be considered so. I don't know. I wouldn't have thought so, but I only know some of everything and not all of it. LOL.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#160438 Dec 28, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said and true...
Your home school prom date was faking it.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#160439 Dec 28, 2013
Jenji wrote:
I don't believe in evolution, simply because IMHO the female orgasm is too fantastic to be an accident! Don't know how it feels for guys of course, but they make pretty much the same sounds I do.Nope, I'm a firm believer in creationism. I may not be able to understand or explain the creator being we call God, but at least that's an explanation. All the evolutionists have is "somehow this and that happened" and random chance. That's me anyway! Everybody can feel free to disagree or agree, freedom of choice.
Jenji, evolutionist have a bit more than just lack of understanding and chance to base the science on. There is some very well defined science and evidence supporting evolution. However, science isn't trying to subvert your personal belief system. I believe in God and accept the science of evolution. My personal beliefs sound like yours. They are not so weak that new knowledge shakes them to the ground and I run in fear.

I am a big supporter of the female orgasm, but despite inspiring calls to God, I don't know if it defines God's existence.

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) 15 min Regolith Based Li... 40,322
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 40 min karl44 15,810
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 58 min One way or another 201,120
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 3 hr Aura Mytha 87
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr Dogen 151,416
Scientists create vast 3-D map of universe, val... Sat One way or another 6
The conscious God or the inanimate nature Sat Fear-God 8
More from around the web