Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180369 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.

Psychology

United States

#103776 Oct 6, 2012
I have some new stuff for you!:-) but if you dare, answer the above question first.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#103777 Oct 6, 2012
Psychology wrote:
I have some new stuff for you!:-) but if you dare, answer the above question first.
It would be more appropriate to respond to the problems with your old stuff before we move on don't you think ?
Urban Cowboy

United States

#103781 Oct 6, 2012
Psychology wrote:
If entropy is a fact, why are all the planets still alligned after billions of years, as they all rotate together?
Because it hasn't been billions of years. We are now observing the most distant reaches of the cosmos with Hubble and guess what? The galaxies at the edge are just the same as the one we're in. Blue stars are new and they should be long gone but there's still plenty of them. Planets such as Mercury are still hot which doesn't make sense in a billion year old universe. Comets are measured to last only thousands of years. Saturns rings are recent and are deteorating. Moon recession indicates a young moon. Spiral galaxies are not wound up as they must be if very old. It's obviously a young universe.
Urban Cowboy

United States

#103782 Oct 6, 2012
Dogen wrote:
Dating Between Modern Humans and Neandertals
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/...
Neandertals are easily within the range of human variation alive today. They were fully human.

Since: Aug 07

United States

#103783 Oct 7, 2012
The Mariner 10 spacecraft meaured the planet Mercury's magnetic field back in 1975, and then the spacecraft Messenger measured in 2008 and then again in 2011. First of all, any meaurement of a magnetic field on Mercury contradicts evolutionary expectations. Because it was expected that such a small planet "millions" of years old should no longer have one. But these three measurements show a steady decline in strength, first by a few percent at the second measurement in 2008, and then in the recent orbit in 2011 a whopping 7.8% decrease in strength since 1975.

http://creation.com/mercury-magnetized-crust

Mercury's craters are young also, as evidence by the Blue Hollows or actively decaying volatile deposits on and off craters which proves the craters can not be millions of years old.

"Mercury does not conform to theory" and is "not the planet described in the textbooks"

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-0...

Since: Aug 07

United States

#103784 Oct 7, 2012
Evidence that Neanderthals lived hundreds of years:

"As noted earlier, Cuozzo showed by his X-ray studies of Neanderthal skulls that these were people who must have lived for hundreds of years (Cuozzo 1998a). Not only that, his computerized modeling of skull changes with age predicted development of exactly the kind of characteristics that these Neanderthal skulls displayed (Cuozzo 1998b). This meant that there had to have been some very, very old people somewhere in our history."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/...

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#103785 Oct 7, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Evidence that Neanderthals lived hundreds of years:
"As noted earlier, Cuozzo showed by his X-ray studies of Neanderthal skulls that these were people who must have lived for hundreds of years (Cuozzo 1998a). Not only that, his computerized modeling of skull changes with age predicted development of exactly the kind of characteristics that these Neanderthal skulls displayed (Cuozzo 1998b). This meant that there had to have been some very, very old people somewhere in our history."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/...
How about trying again with real sources?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#103787 Oct 7, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it hasn't been billions of years. We are now observing the most distant reaches of the cosmos with Hubble and guess what? The galaxies at the edge are just the same as the one we're in. Blue stars are new and they should be long gone but there's still plenty of them. Planets such as Mercury are still hot which doesn't make sense in a billion year old universe. Comets are measured to last only thousands of years. Saturns rings are recent and are deteorating. Moon recession indicates a young moon. Spiral galaxies are not wound up as they must be if very old. It's obviously a young universe.
Let's deal with your "genetic entropy" first. I've asked before, and you've never given an answer, so we'll try again.

If deleterious mutations happen at a certain average rate (which they must), then we can calculate when total genetic meltdown will occur. Do the math and tell us when that will be.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#103788 Oct 7, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
The Mariner 10 spacecraft meaured the planet Mercury's magnetic field back in 1975, and then the spacecraft Messenger measured in 2008 and then again in 2011. First of all, any meaurement of a magnetic field on Mercury contradicts evolutionary expectations. Because it was expected that such a small planet "millions" of years old should no longer have one. But these three measurements show a steady decline in strength, first by a few percent at the second measurement in 2008, and then in the recent orbit in 2011 a whopping 7.8% decrease in strength since 1975.
http://creation.com/mercury-magnetized-crust
Mercury's craters are young also, as evidence by the Blue Hollows or actively decaying volatile deposits on and off craters which proves the craters can not be millions of years old.
"Mercury does not conform to theory" and is "not the planet described in the textbooks"
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-0...
Isn't it telling that only fundamentalist Christian creationists are able to identify such things? NOBODY ELSE IN THE WHOLE WORLD ever sees this stuff. So, which fields of science are non-fundamentalist Christian creationists competent at? Obviously not geology, astronomy, cosmology, biology, genetics, and paleontology. Is there even one? How is it that fundamentalist Christian creationists are the only people in the world who are competent in the various scientific disciplines and nobody else in the whole world is?

Try to answer without resorting to confirmation bias. Good luck!

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#103789 Oct 7, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Evidence that Neanderthals lived hundreds of years:
"As noted earlier, Cuozzo showed by his X-ray studies of Neanderthal skulls that these were people who must have lived for hundreds of years (Cuozzo 1998a). Not only that, his computerized modeling of skull changes with age predicted development of exactly the kind of characteristics that these Neanderthal skulls displayed (Cuozzo 1998b). This meant that there had to have been some very, very old people somewhere in our history."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/...
Again, it's only fundamentalist Christian creationists who are competent in science. NOBODY ELSE IN THE WHOLE WORLD comes to the same conclusion as the fundamentalist Christian creationist, therefore everybody else in the whole world is incompetent and only the fundamentalist Christian creationist is competent. Why isn't anybody other than fundamentalist Christian creationists competent at anything in science? Please do find the time to answer this question ever. It's very important. And, please do so without resorting to confirmation bias. I know it will be difficult, but do try. Thanks!

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#103792 Oct 7, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
The Mariner 10 spacecraft meaured the planet Mercury's magnetic field back in 1975, and then the spacecraft Messenger measured in 2008 and then again in 2011. First of all, any meaurement of a magnetic field on Mercury contradicts evolutionary expectations. Because it was expected that such a small planet "millions" of years old should no longer have one. But these three measurements show a steady decline in strength, first by a few percent at the second measurement in 2008, and then in the recent orbit in 2011 a whopping 7.8% decrease in strength since 1975.
http://creation.com/mercury-magnetized-crust
Mercury's craters are young also, as evidence by the Blue Hollows or actively decaying volatile deposits on and off craters which proves the craters can not be millions of years old.
"Mercury does not conform to theory" and is "not the planet described in the textbooks"
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-0...
Whether the magnetic field changed to any significant degree between the Mariner 10 mission and the MESSENGER mission remains an open question. A 1988 J.E.P. Connerney and N.F. Ness review of the Mariner magnetic data noted eight different papers in which were offered no less than fifteen different mathematical models of the magnetic field derived from spherical harmonic analysis of the two close Mariner 10 flybys, with reported centered magnetic dipole moments ranging from 136 to 350 nT-RM3 (nT is nanoteslas, RM is a Mercury radius of 2436 km). In addition they pointed out "[e]stimates of the dipole obtained from bow shock and/or magnetopause positions (only) range from approximately 200 nT-RM3 (Russell 1977) to approximately 400 nT-RM3 (Slavin and Holzer 1979b)." They concluded that "the lack of agreement among models is due to fundamental limitations imposed by the spatial distribution of available observations." [15] Anderson et al. 2011, using high-quality Messenger data from many orbits around Mercury – as opposed to just a few high-speed flybys – found that the dipole moment is 195 ± 10 nT-RM3.[16]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury%27s_magn...
Psychology

United States

#103793 Oct 7, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Neandertals are easily within the range of human variation alive today. They were fully human.
Doesn't entropy dictate loss over time? Well, from Neanderthals till now, it sure seems that human kind has lost quite a lot of bone and muscle mass.
Psychology

United States

#103794 Oct 7, 2012
Ah, so mercury is the only flyby in dispute, very funny.
Psychology

United States

#103795 Oct 7, 2012
It seems the children forgot to address the following that you brought.

Mercury's craters are young also, as evidence by the Blue Hollows or actively decaying volatile deposits on and off craters which proves the craters can not be millions of years old.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#103796 Oct 7, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't entropy dictate loss over time? Well, from Neanderthals till now, it sure seems that human kind has lost quite a lot of bone and muscle mass.
Not in the sense that you just used it, no. Entropy is really just a measure of how much of the existing energy is available for work. The higher the entropy the lower the amount of energy is available for work. In general it means that "things run down" but not necessarily so.
Psychology

United States

#103797 Oct 7, 2012
So where does earth get its energy from?
Psychology

United States

#103798 Oct 7, 2012
Ah, entropy only exists when and where you say. Hahahahahahaha

It demands more energy to make more bone and muscle mass.
Psychology

United States

#103799 Oct 7, 2012
Mans food supply is going to hell. Entropy is going to roar soon enough, while disease will run rampant.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#103800 Oct 7, 2012
Psychology wrote:
So where does earth get its energy from?
The Earth gets its energy from the Sun.

And in answer to your second question, no, that is from the definition of entropy. From the very start of the Wiki article on entropy:
Entropy is a thermodynamic property that is the measure of a system’s thermal energy per unit temperature that is unavailable for doing useful work.
They worded it better since it is obvious that the higher the amount of entropy with that definition the less energy there is available for work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy
LowellGuy

United States

#103801 Oct 7, 2012
Psychology wrote:
So where does earth get its energy from?
Primarily from the sun. Also, nuclear fusion in the Earth's core. A little is cosmic radiation. Therefore, the Earth is an open system, so it's entropy can decrease while the net entropy of the universe increases, just like a particular stock can skyrocket during a stock market decline.

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.

Science / Technology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 44 min Subduction Zone 79,787
News The case for Trump-Russia collusion: We're gett... 6 hr youll shoot your ... 93
News Now at Whole Foods: Cheaper milk, 'farm fresh' ... 9 hr a_visitor 5
News Help wanted: Amazon holds job fair to hire 50,0... 11 hr Simplejim 3
News Reem Alattas, the inventor of a next-generation... Mon America Gentleman... 2
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) Mon SoE 14,526
News If there's alien life in the universe, where is... (Jul '15) Sun SoE 209
More from around the web