Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178667 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.

“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.

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#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?

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#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.

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#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

Somerset, 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...

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#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.

“Just because it is possible”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Doesn't mean it will happen.

#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.

“Just because it is possible”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Doesn't mean it will happen.

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

“Just because it is possible”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Doesn't mean it will happen.

#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.

“Just because it is possible”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Doesn't mean it will happen.

#160440 Dec 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Orgasm = proof of evolution.
Or a job well done.

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#160441 Dec 28, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>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.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Life

“Just because it is possible”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Doesn't mean it will happen.

#160442 Dec 28, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
Thanks Aura.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#160443 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.
I agree with you. It seems every where I turn I discover more reasons why evolution never happened. I have been keeping a list of reasons but must admit, I've never heard of the female orgasm as being one of them! The evolutionists will weave a tale where a mutation occurred which resulted in some survival benefit that was selected, etc. They always can make up a "just-so" story to make it fit and sound good but it's never backed up by any real evidence. I've been at this for over 10 years and I can tell you their best evidence is "99.9% of scientists accept it so it must be right...." which is also a lie and of course and certainly not real evidence.

There are literally hundreds of variables found in nature and science where the odds of them occurring by random chance are well beyond imagination. The fine tuning of the universe, solar system, earth, moon, sun; the atmosphere, water cycle, food cycle, DNA, genetic code, etc., i.e., hundreds of these fine tuning and intelligent design markers are all around us. The evolutionist has to deny the untold trillions to 1 odds against what they are claiming about the big bang, abiogenesis, vertical/forward evolution, etc.

The simplest cell is far, far more complex than anything man could ever begin to imagine. The kind of evolution where one kind of animal changes into a completely different kind over long periods of time has never been observed, cannot be observed, and will never be observed, so it cannot even be considered scientific. There is not even a basic mechanism for it to be possible. There is no possible way for a genetic mutation to result in the creation of any new genetic information for some new kind of animal.

There are many great books on intelligent design, fine tuning, and the anthropic principle, etc. Even secular science admits to this but because of ideological reasons (I feel must be more of a mental disorder) cannot come to grips with it.

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) 4 min ChromiuMan 141,797
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 27 min dirtclod 168,576
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr dirtclod 19,743
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 4 hr polymath257 6,169
How can we prove God exists, or does not? 9 hr Chimney1 190
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Mon Chimney1 560
Poll Should Topix create an Philosophy forum? (Oct '09) Jun 26 NoahLovesU 6
More from around the web