About 25% of Americans Don't Know the Earth Revolves Around the Sun

[Yopaz]

DNA is two strands of RNA. It makes the double helix. Neither of those are alive. A protein is a nutrient. It is not living. That's like saying a rock is living because it contains iron and iron is made up of molecules. Also, a virus does not have inner organelles like a single-cellars organism like bacteria or multi-celled organisms like an animal or plants. Viruses are not made of cells, which is the smallest, most basic unit of life. So, technically they are nonliving. Also, saying something is organic does not mean it is living. Silicon is organic but it is not alive, like any element on the P.T.o.E.

RNA got Uracil, DNA got thymine. RNA is made up by ribose DNA is made up by deoxyribose. So you too are incorrect.

I never said a virus is alive. I said he was incorrect about a virus being a single molecule. Now I am saying you are incorrect because you say DNA is two molecules of RNA. It's true that you're incorrect about that. Yet you are correct about a virus not being alive by the most common definitions of life.

Please in the future read the posts you're quoting and do a little fact check before you make claims on things you don't know and I won't correct you where you say something wrong. Just because I say something is wrong in someone's post it doesn't mean I am saying his entire post is wrong. Just a tiny detail. Unlike in your case. In your case it was actually a major detail that was wrong. Single stranded DNA is a thing and it doesn't magically turn into RNA just because the strands separate.

Do you want me to go an and emphasize how wrong or do you want to admit it yourself?

 

[lacktheknack]

Oh yes, what are PLANET orbits around (which provides us with light and energy and without it no vegetation or water would be possible) is a small thing. Surely money is better than knowing the fact that IT CAN EXPLODE INTO A SUPERNOVA AND DESTROY THE ENTIRE FRIGGIN GALAXY, WHICH IS WHAT FORMED THE SOLAR SYSTEM ABOUT 5-10 BILLION YEARS AGO. If the sun EXPLODES, money and food would be the least of your worries, I can guarantee that!

destroy the galaxy
>implying the sun is large enough to even be noticed galactically if it explodes
>acting as if it's going to explode in less that three billion years from now
>as if the sun won't expand and destroy the planet anyhow well before it blows
>implying money and food is less important than the knowledge of something that will never happen in the human race's existence

Why are you doing this to me? ;______;

It is destiny. Sometimes destiny sucks. And the sun is big. That's obvious. And I know the sun won't explode soon...or will it? BUM BUM BUUUUUM

But in this case, destiny is irrelevant.

And the sun is big, but not galaxy-wrecking big, not even close.

If the sun was the size of a grain of sand:

http://what-if.xkcd.com/imgs/a/83/sand_hyper.png

 

[Brownie80]

Oh yes, what are PLANET orbits around (which provides us with light and energy and without it no vegetation or water would be possible) is a small thing. Surely money is better than knowing the fact that IT CAN EXPLODE INTO A SUPERNOVA AND DESTROY THE ENTIRE FRIGGIN GALAXY, WHICH IS WHAT FORMED THE SOLAR SYSTEM ABOUT 5-10 BILLION YEARS AGO. If the sun EXPLODES, money and food would be the least of your worries, I can guarantee that!

destroy the galaxy
>implying the sun is large enough to even be noticed galactically if it explodes
>acting as if it's going to explode in less that three billion years from now
>as if the sun won't expand and destroy the planet anyhow well before it blows
>implying money and food is less important than the knowledge of something that will never happen in the human race's existence

Why are you doing this to me? ;______;

It is destiny. Sometimes destiny sucks. And the sun is big. That's obvious. And I know the sun won't explode soon...or will it? BUM BUM BUUUUUM

But in this case, destiny is irrelevant.

And the sun is big, but not galaxy-wrecking big, not even close.

If the sun was the size of a grain of sand:

http://what-if.xkcd.com/imgs/a/83/sand_hyper.png

I know that. The sun IS a grain of sand compared to other stars. However, we can't live without it. Even if the human race survived a supernova, it wouldn't live very long afterwards. I was kidding about destiny.

 

[Brownie80]

DNA is two strands of RNA. It makes the double helix. Neither of those are alive. A protein is a nutrient. It is not living. That's like saying a rock is living because it contains iron and iron is made up of molecules. Also, a virus does not have inner organelles like a single-cellars organism like bacteria or multi-celled organisms like an animal or plants. Viruses are not made of cells, which is the smallest, most basic unit of life. So, technically they are nonliving. Also, saying something is organic does not mean it is living. Silicon is organic but it is not alive, like any element on the P.T.o.E.

RNA got Uracil, DNA got thymine. RNA is made up by ribose DNA is made up by deoxyribose. So you too are incorrect.

I never said a virus is alive. I said he was incorrect about a virus being a single molecule. Now I am saying you are incorrect because you say DNA is two molecules of RNA. It's true that you're incorrect about that. Yet you are correct about a virus not being alive by the most common definitions of life.

Please in the future read the posts you're quoting and do a little fact check before you make claims on things you don't know and I won't correct you where you say something wrong. Just because I say something is wrong in someone's post it doesn't mean I am saying his entire post is wrong. Just a tiny detail. Unlike in your case. In your case it was actually a major detail that was wrong. Single stranded DNA is a thing and it doesn't magically turn into RNA just because the strands separate.

Do you want me to go an and emphasize how wrong or do you want to admit it yourself?

I will admit I did get my facts wrong. You got me there and that is entirely on me. I was just trying to say that RNA AND DNA are nonliving things. I just got confused on what you said he was incorrect about. However, that fact I will admit I did get wrong.

 

[Yopaz]

DNA is two strands of RNA. It makes the double helix. Neither of those are alive. A protein is a nutrient. It is not living. That's like saying a rock is living because it contains iron and iron is made up of molecules. Also, a virus does not have inner organelles like a single-cellars organism like bacteria or multi-celled organisms like an animal or plants. Viruses are not made of cells, which is the smallest, most basic unit of life. So, technically they are nonliving. Also, saying something is organic does not mean it is living. Silicon is organic but it is not alive, like any element on the P.T.o.E.

RNA got Uracil, DNA got thymine. RNA is made up by ribose DNA is made up by deoxyribose. So you too are incorrect.

I never said a virus is alive. I said he was incorrect about a virus being a single molecule. Now I am saying you are incorrect because you say DNA is two molecules of RNA. It's true that you're incorrect about that. Yet you are correct about a virus not being alive by the most common definitions of life.

Please in the future read the posts you're quoting and do a little fact check before you make claims on things you don't know and I won't correct you where you say something wrong. Just because I say something is wrong in someone's post it doesn't mean I am saying his entire post is wrong. Just a tiny detail. Unlike in your case. In your case it was actually a major detail that was wrong. Single stranded DNA is a thing and it doesn't magically turn into RNA just because the strands separate.

Do you want me to go an and emphasize how wrong or do you want to admit it yourself?

I will admit I did get my facts wrong. You got me there and that is entirely on me. I was just trying to say that RNA AND DNA are nonliving things. I just got confused on what you said he was incorrect about. However, that fact I will admit I did get wrong.

Thanks for the mature response. Also I have to apologize for being immature about my response there. I really should have just pointed out the misunderstanding and the fact that I agree with the core point you (and the first guy) made.

 

[Brownie80]

DNA is two strands of RNA. It makes the double helix. Neither of those are alive. A protein is a nutrient. It is not living. That's like saying a rock is living because it contains iron and iron is made up of molecules. Also, a virus does not have inner organelles like a single-cellars organism like bacteria or multi-celled organisms like an animal or plants. Viruses are not made of cells, which is the smallest, most basic unit of life. So, technically they are nonliving. Also, saying something is organic does not mean it is living. Silicon is organic but it is not alive, like any element on the P.T.o.E.

RNA got Uracil, DNA got thymine. RNA is made up by ribose DNA is made up by deoxyribose. So you too are incorrect.

I never said a virus is alive. I said he was incorrect about a virus being a single molecule. Now I am saying you are incorrect because you say DNA is two molecules of RNA. It's true that you're incorrect about that. Yet you are correct about a virus not being alive by the most common definitions of life.

Please in the future read the posts you're quoting and do a little fact check before you make claims on things you don't know and I won't correct you where you say something wrong. Just because I say something is wrong in someone's post it doesn't mean I am saying his entire post is wrong. Just a tiny detail. Unlike in your case. In your case it was actually a major detail that was wrong. Single stranded DNA is a thing and it doesn't magically turn into RNA just because the strands separate.

Do you want me to go an and emphasize how wrong or do you want to admit it yourself?

I will admit I did get my facts wrong. You got me there and that is entirely on me. I was just trying to say that RNA AND DNA are nonliving things. I just got confused on what you said he was incorrect about. However, that fact I will admit I did get wrong.

Thanks for the mature response. Also I have to apologize for being immature about my response there. I really should have just pointed out the misunderstanding and the fact that I agree with the core point you (and the first guy) made.

Well, I guess this is one Internet exchange that hasn't gone down the road to irrationality and vulgarity. What a great day.

 

[Ikasury]

it burns us *shudders*

i kind of wish people in my country didn't give praise to 'morons' and thing 'geek culture' is just a new trend... thus dumbing it down... can we go back to that mysterious 60s-aged thing where scientists were the badass secret-agents that beat everyone because they were SO FUCKING SMART! instead of just hawt and muscle-ly? please... pleeeeease *uses puppy watery-eyes*

 

[Something Amyss]

No point arguing with absurdity...

Isn't it interesting how all these other things that are contested fall under absurdity.

 

[viranimus]

Grrr... And here I was thinking I finally got past the "3 out of 8 Americans think Global Warming is a hoax" tripe.

Once again, My country gives a compelling argument for the legitimacy of idiocracy.

 

[Syzygy23]

Sounds like the survey was expecting the common, simplified answers. Because the earth orbits the sun only from the sun's frame of reference.

Also, the specifics of the Big Bang (which is a misnomer) is continuously revised. Last theory I recall stated that the Big Bang's energy was released everywhere simultaneously, an event which lacks many of the usual traits of an explosion.

Then again, I doubt that 25-39% of Americans are theoretical physicists.

I'm not a theoretical physicist and even I am aware of the latest origin theories and hypotheses. Don't people read Popular Science or any other scientific publications? I thought that other people did that normally.

 

[Liham]

Sounds like the survey was expecting the common, simplified answers. Because the earth orbits the sun only from the sun's frame of reference.

Yeah, nah.
The same way that we can look at distant solar systems and go "that planet orbits that sun", so true does the earth orbit the sun, regardless of frame of reference.

 

[Some_weirdGuy]

snip for neatness

Speciation itself has also been observed .
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

((Section 5 details instances of observed and recorded speciation, such as in planets and insects. Problem is, so many people think as you do('it's too slow to be observed'), and already feel existing evidence is convincing enough as is, that we don't have many scientist actively trying to observe speciation further XD
there are also some more cited examples here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html))

Thus my reiterated statement that evolution is still not a theory. ((though you do express the view most people use these days, it is itself still incorrect))
Of course, when I say natural selection is the theory in question(or that 'theory of evolution' is just slang for natural selection), that is itself also an oversimplification, as NS it's only one mechanism of evolution (others being for example genetic drift), all of which ARE indeed scientific theories.
However, the above over simplification leads to less confusion than the one most people currently use.

By grouping these different mechanism theories under one umbrella you could indeed slap the label 'theory(theories) of evolution' on them, and make confusing/easily misunderstood statements about it being 'both fact and theory' to people you discuss it with, but my whole point has been that you should not, because that's not actually what they are and (exactly as you point out in that last paragraph) it invites infuriating misunderstandings that can so easily be avoided by just not even opening that semantic can of worms in the first place.

((It's been kinda like saying 'man, this seat is ice' to mean it's very cold, and then someone starts arguing 'no, its metal', and instead of saying 'nah man, I mean that it's very cold', you start instead arguing that it is 'both ice and metal', or that it is ice under the 'street' definition of the term yo, eventually resulting in a world wide debate over the existence/non-existence of ice ))

snip for neatness

But I enjoy being able to share this tidbit/ having the ol' 'evolution' conversation now and again :X ((in moderation ofcourse... so I can understand that if you've been replying in this thread to a few others beforehand that you might already be tired of the subject ))

You seemed to have been getting a little grumpy (I apologise if that was my fault), and have edited your post now, but did you find the answer to your question on your own and 'get' what I've been pointing out?
I guess it was indeed semantic, but in this case semantics are the source of the misinformation/frustrations, which could easily be avoided by just 'changing tactics' in how we name/discuss it.

I kinda have this deluded hope that if I can explain it to enough people we can nip that misunderstanding in the bud, ((since lets be honest, it's absolutely no wonder why people think evolution itself is the theory when so many go around saying 'the theory of evolution', such a totally misleading slang.))

 

[SteewpidZombie]

AH YOU CRAZY BLACK MAGIC WORSHIPIN DEMON SCIENCE FOLK! HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT THE EARTH REVOLVES AROUND THE SUN!
Next you heretics are gonna be sayin that the Earth isn`t square, and that I won`t fall off the edge if I take a boat ride. You witches and cultists need to stop spouting such nonsense as `math` and `physics`!

(I am totally being sarcastic for those who still scratch words into rocks and drag their knuckles on the ground...also known as 99% of today`s youth who fail to realize that the internet isn`t a sentient being that requires you to spout YOLO every 5 seconds to praise it`s existence.)

 

[wolfyrik]

Uhm arguing against evolution is like arguing against 2>1. The evidence is so overwhelming and it comes from so many different areas its almost embarrassing, between the fossil records, the DNA records and heck the very physiology of the human body not to mention the fact we see proof of it in every other living thing around us every day.

It's only considered a theory because the results of it can't be properly predicted. I.e Laws are a case of where X then Y. All evolution says is that given time.. change will occur, that's pretty much a law of the universe so it doesn't really count. but beyond stating that change will occur... you can't predict what that change will be or when it will happen.

Evolution isn't speculation...it's fact.

No it's not. 2>1 is a fact. Evolution is a theory which means there is still at least some doubt in it be factually correct. It doesn't matter whether that doubt is 20%, 1% or even 0.0000000001%. It's still there. And while it's still there there is always a chance that a new and better theory could come up and replace it.

That's not to say I don't believe in it because I do. It's just that it gets on my nerves when people still go around treating theories as facts. They've been proven wrong in the past, there's nothing stopping that happening again, hence why they are called theories rather than facts.

OT: Some of those questions are pretty stupid. Namely the ones on evolution and the big bang. They're reported on as though they are both facts but they are instead still theories. And with the big bang one especially, the "correct" answer according to them is the wrong answer. If it had of said "the universe as we know it" then it'd sit next the evolution one. But it didn't, it just said "the universe". And the thing is, something had to of been before the big bang for it to even happen. Don't get me wrong though, they're solid theories and I believe in both of them they just aren't facts. Not yet at least.

No, Evolution is a fact; observed, identified, falsified. Evolution by natural selection is the theory. Evolution by natural selection remains a theory because in science 'theory' is the highest value, the highest position an explanation of the facts, can reach. Just as gravity is still "just a theory" and Germs are still "just a theory" but I challenge you to demonstrate that dropping a brick from a building won't result in it hitting the ground, or licking an influenza infected person, won't risk your own contamination.

This is the common misconception that earlier posters were describing. Theory, in the way you are using it, is closer to scientific hypotheses. Scientific theories are the absolute pinnacle of our understanding, the are the best, undisputed, most complete explanations of the observed facts. They are unchallenged. If they were demonstrated to be false, they would be revised or rejected. The fact that Evolution by natural selection is still the leading theory, is testament and result of it being correct so far, according to the evidence.

 

[wolfyrik]

snip for neatness

Speciation itself has also been observed .
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

snip

Speciation=/= evolution. Evolution by natural selection is the theory which explains the fact of Evolution. Evolution IS speciation, lifeforms changing over time, becoming diverse and branching off from each other. Evolution/speciation is occrrung all around us, right this minute. The Cliff swallows are a prime example of evolution/speciation:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/19/birds-evolving-dodge-vehicles-traffic_n_2901431.html


I dislike Takl oriogins, it's full of nonsense pandering. There is no controversy around Evolution. There are only two parties in this discussion
1. people who accept that evolutuion is fact, that evolution by natural selection is the best, most evidenced explanation of those facts.
2. creationists. ie Those too ignorant, too dishonest to acknowledge the facts because doing so would challenge their bizarre, extremist ideas.

It's interesting to note at this point, that evolution by natural selection has more evidence to support it, is more thoroughly explained and more complete than gravity.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

I hope they just dipped into the wrong poll pool. Though it wouldn't surprise me, Science isn't exactly one of my country's top priorities and when the dust finally settles I hope maybe then they'll realize how costly it was to throw away the seed of 21st century business endeavors really was.

 

[AgedGrunt]

These "Americans are ignorant" pieces are pretty banal, but this particular one (John mostly copypasta'ed) is downright offensive condescension. Still, this is an International-friendly place here; it's already expected.

However, I take issue with some things:

Lest you think the sample size was too small, 2,200 people were asked 10 science questions

I'm not sure where statisticians stand, but ten mundane questions for 2,200 people (out of over 300 million) is a small test with a relatively small sample size. This is to say nothing of where the sample was taken and what it is composed of. The conclusion ("About 25% of Americans") is incredulous and absurd. Sensationalism is good click-bait, though.

Don't misunderstand, the results are unsettling, but then what's up with some of these questions?

Did the universe begin with a huge explosion? Only 39% answered yes correctly.

That's not even a scientific explanation of the Big Bang, which by the way is scientific fact because, as a theory, it has not been refuted. In certain terms it's the explanation that works. That said, this question is just terrible.

Then evolution. For obvious reasons this will produce skewed results in the States (I'd also include the Big Bang here, to some extent); it's just not a good question to put on the survey for its intended purpose.

And did anyone honestly believe the vast majority of people should know this about antibiotics and viruses? I certainly learned that a long time ago and consider it important, but I don't find it comparable to the most basic question of our solar system. I'd expect a majority of people all over the world aren't up on their microbiology in a random test of knowledge.

TL;DR it looks to be a poor survey but has some merit. We definitely need more investment in sciences.

 

[NezumiiroKitsune]

Why can't we see the test? Why have we the sample size, but not how the test was administered, whether selection was random, and potential biases? I can't take much of anything from this.

All that really, really, bothers me, is people not knowing the function of antibiotics in medicine, because it's vital they do. Antibiotics are one of the most powerful tools, in the fight against disease, science has discovered. When abused, they lose their potency, and we cripple our future capacity to defend ourselves against pandemics. I'm not asking everyone to have a degree in pharmacology, just to be aware enough to ask their doctor whether antibiotics are necessary.

If you have the flu, if you have a cold, don't take antibiotics. They won't make a difference, and the side-effects can worsen your health.

Antibiotics are used to treat microbial based disease. E.Coli poisoning, salmonella, TB, tetanus, meningitis, cholera, septic shock, are a few examples of what you might treat with antibiotics.

This is a necessary level of scientific awareness. If you wish to believe you were a result of divine creation, the universe is 6000 years old, or the sun revolves around the earth, I wholly support your right too. Please, don't be party to wasting our best defences against disease.

Edit: Amended. Previously misleading.