Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178661 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.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#156350 Oct 9, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And if you want to see the entropy picture of the end products, you have to look at ALL the end products which includes the amount of entropy added to the heat sink in both processes. See you dont just have a house and a bombsite. In each case you have what is onsite PLUS whatever has been added to the surroundings. You have to account for all the energy applied and where it has ended up in each process. And whichever process has generated the most heat has generated the most entropy, as i have been saying right from the start.
For all your digressions, that simple fact is still true whether you use the clausius or the boltzmann approach to solving it.
Whether the same amount of energy is applied to a system in a random burst or with deliberation and slowness makes no difference to the product unless you factor other variables, in which case you are measuring >those variables< by the difference in product. 5=5 1+1+1+1+1=5 It took a fraction of a second longer to validate the latter string of numbers, but 5 remains equal to 5 no matter how many times you circle the roundabout. At the end of the day, Hammer strikes versus bomb blast or RG machine versus pile of junk is completely irrelevant to the entropy of the system when the total microstates are equivalent.
Urb insists that an equal amount of wood and steel has greater entropy if it has been sawed into 2x4's and mulch and assembled in just-such-a-way than if it is a dead tree and a heap of nails. Anyone else would realize that the form doesn't matter - they are in every aspect except shape and distribution exactly the same thing. His entire argument revolves around an arbitrarily specific and preferential interpretation of "order" (aka "better", aka portable goalpost) that >must< include artificial manipulation and beneficial to the agenda. He would be the art critic who fawns over accidentally spilled paint as a masterwork, until he finds it was not spilled by Jackson Pollock.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#156351 Oct 9, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
OK, Chimney and Poly, this is my final comment on the matter. There is no sense in continuing this conversation since you two refuse to cooperate with me on how statistical entropy is used to evaluate entropy as various energies are applied to various systems. I have supported the formulas and forms with university papers, lessons, texts, wiki pages, and youtube videos. Here it is again. It works. It's predictions ARE devestating to both abiogenesis and forward/vertical evolution.
Entropy is defined as follows:
S = k log W
where:
S = entropy
k = Boltzmann constant = 1.380662 x 10-23 J K-1
W = the number of equivalent micro states (possible arrangements) of a system.
Also note that W is a natural number so that S is either zero or positive. This formula comes from the Wiki page on Entropy (statistical thermodynamics).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_ (statistical_thermodynamics)
The change in S can be defined as:
dS = S2 S1
Plugging in gives:
dS = k log W2 k log W1
or
dS = k log W2/W1
Everything up to this is correct. Notice that entropy has the factor k out in front, with has units J/K. Also, that we are looking at the change on entropy, which means the difference in the entropy at two times.
This explains why adding more randomness to a system makes it more random and adding more order to a system makes it more organized. So applying energy to a system in a manner more random than that system will increase the entropy of that system and applying energy to a system in a manner less random than that system will decrease the entropy of that system.
And this is where you fall off the horse. This does NOT follow from the above (correct) equations.
We want to know what happens to the entropy of a system when energy is applied to it. We have two microstates; one for the energy and one for the system. A microstate is a specific configuration of a system that the system may occupy with a certain probability in the course of its fluctuations.
And here again we have the problem that we are definitely *not* simply looking at two micro-states. We are comparing the *number* of micro-states. In fact, according to the (correct) equation above, we need to look at the *ratio* between the number of micro-states on either side of the change.
We want a relationship that explains what happens when energy is applied to all the microstates. So each energy microstate is related to each system microstate.
And again, this is false and shows a lack of understanding of the concept of a micro-state.
When evaluating whether or not an energy microstate affects a system microstate, there are only two possible outcomes:
1. The component of the system gets energy applied:
W(2n)= W(en)
Why would we expect the *number* of micro-states to be the same? That is what your formula says.
or
2. The component does not get energy applied:
W(2n)= W(1n)
Again, wrong. There is no reason for the *number* of micro-states to be the same.
This gives the Entropy Change Formula (dS) formula:
dS = k log We/Ws
Which, again, is another leap. It does not follow from the previous (wrong) material and definitely doesn't follow from the (correct) material you started with.
Which means applying energy to a system will change the entropy of that system. This formula predicts that energy applied to a system in a manner more random than that system will increase the entropy of that system; and energy applied to a system in a manner less random than that system will decrease the entropy of that system.
And specific examples have shown this conclusion is false in practice.
So,
1) Your derivation is flawed. You start with correct material and apply it incorrectly.
2) The conclusion itself is wrong. Specific examples (hammer on a RG machine, laser shining on black paper vs a mirror) show it to be wrong in *reality*.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#156352 Oct 9, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, count the micro-states at a particular time. That will give the entropy.
Now, to find the *change* in entropy, you need to find the entropy at two times and subtract. This is so basic I find it impossible you can't grasp this.
In other words, you are faking your lack of understanding, which simply makes you a troll.

He seems to think energy is poofed away magically instantaneously.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#156353 Oct 9, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not two different times. Two different microstates. It's the difference between them. There's no time difference.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Define microstate
Define ordered.

"The second law of thermodynamics describes how the entropy of an isolated system changes in time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microstate_%28st...

DUH!


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#156354 Oct 9, 2013
one way or another wrote:
So now the evo morons are learning to be childish, stupid and calm. Lmao
Way ta go morons.

You are our patron 'aint.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#156355 Oct 9, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
OK, Chimney and Poly, this is my final comment on the matter. There is no sense in continuing this conversation since you two refuse to cooperate with me on how statistical entropy is used to evaluate entropy as various energies are applied to various systems. I have supported the formulas and forms with university papers, lessons, texts, wiki pages, and youtube videos.

No, you have supported poly and chimney's positions with those links. You have simply failed to understand what they said.
It certainly is not worth continuing this discussion with you. All we are doing at this point is demonstrating you don't get the basic concepts and cannot define the basic terms.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Here it is again. It works. It's predictions ARE devestating to both abiogenesis and forward/vertical evolution.

Hysterical.
Urban Cowboy wrote:

Entropy is defined as follows:
S = k log W
where:
S = entropy
k = Boltzmann constant = 1.380662 x 10-23 J K-1
W = the number of equivalent micro states (possible arrangements) of a system.
Also note that W is a natural number so that S is either zero or positive. This formula comes from the Wiki page on Entropy (statistical thermodynamics).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_ (statistical_thermodynamics)
The change in S can be defined as:
dS = S2 S1
Plugging in gives:
dS = k log W2 k log W1
or
dS = k log W2/W1
This explains why adding more randomness to a system makes it more random and adding more order to a system makes it more organized.

This is right so far. But now you are going to go off the deep end because you do not understand what "random" and "ordered" mean in the context of entropy. You are using common definitions of the words and not considering how they are used in entropy.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#156356 Oct 9, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I do admit that the math in this conversation is way past my understanding. So of course I have to look at other factors to see if there is anything that I can get a handle on.
There is one thing that should stand way, way out to anyone who has any interest in science. That point is: If Creager is properly using statistical entropy to show that evolution violates the SLoT, wouldn't his work make him a contender for the Nobel Prize? This should be right there with the Higgs Boson, right?
So why are all the classic physicists ignoring him?

Because he is a loon.

Oh, your question was rhetorical. Sorry. I may have missed that.

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#156357 Oct 9, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I do admit that the math in this conversation is way past my understanding. So of course I have to look at other factors to see if there is anything that I can get a handle on.
There is one thing that should stand way, way out to anyone who has any interest in science. That point is: If Creager is properly using statistical entropy to show that evolution violates the SLoT, wouldn't his work make him a contender for the Nobel Prize? This should be right there with the Higgs Boson, right?
So why are all the classic physicists ignoring him?
One reason he is wrong that evolution violates the SLoT, is that
one of the criteria when for searching for extraterrestrial life.
Is to look for systems that show signs of an entropy reduction.
The biosphere is a system that reduces entropy , because organisms on Earth scavenge some of the waste products of others.
Microbiologists say DNA has the ability to correct code, but natural selection also weeds out part of negative entropy.
Then there is the fact that if DNA becomes too disordered it would would not produce a living organism. So there are many examples as to why evolution and life itself are somewhat immune to gathering and passing on negative entropy.

Since: Aug 07

Tarentum, PA

#156358 Oct 9, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I do admit that the math in this conversation is way past my understanding. So of course I have to look at other factors to see if there is anything that I can get a handle on.
There is one thing that should stand way, way out to anyone who has any interest in science. That point is: If Creager is properly using statistical entropy to show that evolution violates the SLoT, wouldn't his work make him a contender for the Nobel Prize? This should be right there with the Higgs Boson, right?
So why are all the classic physicists ignoring him?
No, the Nobel Prize is reserved for the extreme left-wingnuts like Al Gore for spreading liberal anti-science propaganda and other pro-evolution, pro-Big bang garbage. Creager would probably gag at the thought of it.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#156359 Oct 9, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the Nobel Prize is reserved for the extreme left-wingnuts like Al Gore for spreading liberal anti-science propaganda and other pro-evolution, pro-Big bang garbage. Creager would probably gag at the thought of it.
Yeah.

That would probably happen.

<snicker>
Mugwump

Consett, UK

#156360 Oct 9, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the Nobel Prize is reserved for the extreme left-wingnuts like Al Gore for spreading liberal anti-science propaganda and other pro-evolution, pro-Big bang garbage. Creager would probably gag at the thought of it.
Says the guy that insists volcanos produce a million times more CO2 than mankind.

Then ran a mile when I pointed him to a research paper showing the opposite.

So remind me again who spreads the anti-science propaganda UC.

(To appleboy - told you you would get a BS answer)

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#156361 Oct 9, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the Nobel Prize is reserved for the extreme left-wingnuts like Al Gore for spreading liberal anti-science propaganda and other pro-evolution, pro-Big bang garbage. Creager would probably gag at the thought of it.
Al Gore has not received any Nobel Prize in SCIENCE.

And anyone who can say in the space of a few sentences that cooling something lowers entropy THEREFORE it is the "order of the applied energy" that lowers entropy is simply a stranger to logic.

Make no more excuses for Creager, that is exactly what he claimed. Reread his analysis and discussion and perhaps even you will see it, and see how damned silly it is.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#156362 Oct 9, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the Nobel Prize is reserved for the extreme left-wingnuts like Al Gore for spreading liberal anti-science propaganda and other pro-evolution, pro-Big bang garbage. Creager would probably gag at the thought of it.

Hysterical. You don't even know the difference between Nobel prizes in Science vs. other areas. Gore did not win a Nobel prize in any science field. He won the Nobel Peace Prize which is based on subjective criteria.

You also don't understand what science is or how it works if you don't understand that evolution and "Big Bang" cosmology are pro science and only liberal in the sense that conservatives hate science.

Creager with crap himself with joy at even being nominated. Not that it will ever happen. To win a Nobel prize in science requires one to actually accomplish something in a scientific field.

“GOD ALMIGHTY”

Since: Aug 12

London, UK

#156363 Oct 9, 2013
serendipity created the big bang.

a "happy accident" caused the beginning of the universe.

post astro phenix days all TV and all DVD is live.

to explain the complexity to the problem:

and we need the special theory to causality to do this,
plus vis quite a lot of Euclidian linear geometry.

the laptop may well be showing DVD pictures of a by gone age,
nothing new there.

but linking your time and it together in a live link up.
that is surreal.

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#156364 Oct 9, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
One reason he is wrong that evolution violates the SLoT, is that
one of the criteria when for searching for extraterrestrial life.
Is to look for systems that show signs of an entropy reduction.
The biosphere is a system that reduces entropy , because organisms on Earth scavenge some of the waste products of others.
Microbiologists say DNA has the ability to correct code, but natural selection also weeds out part of negative entropy.
Then there is the fact that if DNA becomes too disordered it would would not produce a living organism. So there are many examples as to why evolution and life itself are somewhat immune to gathering and passing on negative entropy.
Yes, but in some of UC's rare lucid moments he has actually agreed with these basic observations. He has admitted that evolution does occur and that speciation does actually occur. His problem with evolution is that there has never been a documented occurrance of something on the order of a reptile transmorgifying in one generation into a bird. He claims that this is proof that macro evolution is impossible.

We need to encourage his occasional moments of clarity and to ask him to apply his above average math ability to those rare instances.

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#156365 Oct 9, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the Nobel Prize is reserved for the extreme left-wingnuts like Al Gore for spreading liberal anti-science propaganda and other pro-evolution, pro-Big bang garbage. Creager would probably gag at the thought of it.
We'd both agree that Al Gore is a bit flakey, but I don't think he got his Nobel Prize for breaking new ground in science. It was for his efforts to bring the issue of global warming off the back burner and place it in front of the average American.

Would you consider 99 percent of scientists to be extreme left-wingnuts? That doesn't leave much room for the center, or for that matter, right-wingnuts.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#156366 Oct 9, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but in some of UC's rare lucid moments he has actually agreed with these basic observations. He has admitted that evolution does occur and that speciation does actually occur. His problem with evolution is that there has never been a documented occurrance of something on the order of a reptile transmorgifying in one generation into a bird. He claims that this is proof that macro evolution is impossible.
We need to encourage his occasional moments of clarity and to ask him to apply his above average math ability to those rare instances.

But in true contradictory fashion that we have come to expect of UC, he states that humans don't evolve. We only degenerate.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#156367 Oct 9, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
We'd both agree that Al Gore is a bit flakey, but I don't think he got his Nobel Prize for breaking new ground in science. It was for his efforts to bring the issue of global warming off the back burner and place it in front of the average American.
Would you consider 99 percent of scientists to be extreme left-wingnuts? That doesn't leave much room for the center, or for that matter, right-wingnuts.

To be truthful, most of the scientists I have known have been a bit left of center. But higher education and higher intelligence correlates with being more "liberal", so that seems expected.

“I can never convince the ”

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#156368 Oct 9, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
But in true contradictory fashion that we have come to expect of UC, he states that humans don't evolve. We only degenerate.
He is probably just basing that on his own life.

“I can never convince the ”

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#156369 Oct 9, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
To be truthful, most of the scientists I have known have been a bit left of center. But higher education and higher intelligence correlates with being more "liberal", so that seems expected.
It varies. My adviser was fairly conservative. He used to have Rush Limbaugh playing on the radio when Rush first started out. I had no idea who Rush even was at the time.

Still, he (my adviser) accepted the evidence for global warming and 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.

Science / Technology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 48 min shinningelectr0n 7,186
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr thetruth 20,644
News Multi-meter Sea Level Rise This Century? That's... 3 hr Earthling-1 3
News Who Inspired You to be an Engineer? 8 hr Walter Harold Marlin 128
News Why a One-degree Rise in Global Temperature is ... Sat Earthling-1 1
News Merger Makes WiFiRV the Only RV-Industry Wirele... (Feb '10) Fri WHO2016 15
More from around the web