LOTD
Another episode of “Life in Fayetteville”
Evolution is not true science
Lewis Eubank in his April 9 letter, “Creationism a matter of faith, not science,” is only repeating the false and grossly misleading mantra that “creationism is religion and evolution is science.” If those opposing creation were honest, they would have to admit that evolution is not science, either.Science is usually defined as “knowledge covering general truth obtained and tested through scientific method.” To be true science, a theory must be testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable. Macro evolution (the theory that one kind of organism evolves into a higher, more complex organism) fails on all four counts.
Macro evolution is not testable — you can’t put a fish in a test tube and wait around a few million years to see what it changes into. It is not repeatable — no example of macro evolution has been shown to occur, much less be repeatable. Macro evolution has never been observed and is not falsifiable. If Eubank is academically honest, he must admit that macro evolution is not science.
However, evolution breaks four fundamental “laws” of science and logic: the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics, the law of cause and effect, and the law of biogenesis. Creationism satisfies all four laws.
If Eubank can cite one indisputable example of macro evolution where the organism increases in complexity and information, then please do so. Until then, please stop being dishonest or guidable and calling evolution science.
Barry L. Byrd
Fayetteville
In this week of swine flu alerts, shouldn’t the wacko creationists lie low? A new strain of virus has evolved before our very eyes.
Every single one of his claims has been thoroughly debunked a million times over. But the creationists continue to boldly repeat these enormous lies anyway. And they accuse scientists of being little better than Nazis.
45 Responses to “LOTD”
![]() Comment by Lynne April 29th, 2009 at 7:32 am |
They should lie low, but this is the beginning of Armageddon. I fully expect to hear a lot more from them. |
![]() Comment by COD April 29th, 2009 at 7:40 am |
God is punishing us for electing Obama. |
![]() Comment by Nance Confer April 29th, 2009 at 10:38 am |
I thought God was punishing us for having illegal immigrants. This God character is awfully testy! Nance |
![]() Comment by JJ Ross April 29th, 2009 at 1:28 pm |
He can’t be testy, God isn’t testable. 😉 |
![]() Comment by Shayrah April 29th, 2009 at 2:42 pm |
In what way is the Swine Flu proof of Macro Evolution? Swine Flu had its first “pandemic” back in 1918 and another one back in 1976! Macro Evolution is the study of evolution “above the species level”. Swine Flu (although it is mutating and is now the combination of genetic material from Swine Flu (both North American and Euro-Asian), Avian Flu (North American), and Human flu) is still classified as an A-H1N1. It is still a virus. It is still influenza. This is not proof of Macro Evolution. It IS proof of evolution, but who is arguing that? Macro Evolution cannot be “seen”. You take what information you know (fossils, mutation, migration, genetic drift, natural selection) and try to figure out HOW it happened. I equate this to a history lesson and not so much a science lesson. Much like in history, there are facts but there are also unanswered questions and holes in the story. If Swine Flu were proof of a species transforming into another species in a person’s lifetime, it would be a much bigger story than it already is. |
![]() Comment by dcobranchi April 29th, 2009 at 3:00 pm |
“A new strain of virus has evolved before our very eyes. ” I didn’t say it was macro evolution, which really doesn’t even exist as a separate entity from micro evolution. The only things that separate them are time and an isolated population. “I equate this to a history lesson and not so much a science lesson. ” Which shows you don’t know much about science. Not all science is subject to experimentation in the classic sense. Think astronomy. Or geology. But scientists (not historians) can explain the existing data and then make predictions based on their hypotheses (not theories). If the predictions are borne out, the hypothesis is supported. More predictions are made and more data gathered. Eventually, a “theory” is born. |
![]() Comment by Shayrah April 29th, 2009 at 4:49 pm |
If Macro and Micro are not separate, then why do they have different names and ways of testing? I never said YOU said it was Macro Evolution. The person you were quoting was speaking of Macro Evolution. Mr. Byrd asked for proof of Macro Evolution. Your proof was Swine Flu. Mutation does not prove or disprove Macro Evolution. We have known that viruses can mutate for quite some time now. Swine Flu is not cause for Creationists to “lie low”. Swine Flu is an example of Micro Evolution which was not debated in the article posted, probably because Micro Evolution has been proven a million times over. As far as history and the science behind Macro Evolution goes… Mutation, Gene Flow, Genetic Drift, Natural Selection + 3.8 Billion years = Macro Evolution The 3.8 Billion years is the history part I am talking about. This would mean you need a special kind of historian. A historian of prehistory. Historians draw upon both natural and social sciences to get their story which include anthropology, archeology, paleontology, biology, geology, molecular genetics, archaeoastronomy, etc. If you look in the Usborne Encyclopedia of World History, you will see the first half is dedicated to the times of the Pre-Cambrian Period to the Tertiary Period. The fact that I said Macro Evolution is more about History than about Science should not bring you to insulting my intelligence. I never said it does not involve Science. To prove Macro Evolution you need many different branches of Science to come together to form a solid story. Macro Evolution cannot be observed and cannot be experimentally manipulated (due to the 3.8 million year time frame). What scientists do is form “natural experiments” (as seen in fossils and modern organisms) and make inferences. The type of inference they make is one of inductive reasoning. You called this gathering “data”. I called this putting scientific facts together to form a story or a history. You say “to-may-to” I say “to-mah-to”. If you look at the 29+ Evidences for Macro Evolution you will see that Part 2 alone is dedicated to explaining the important role history has in explaining Macro Evolution by making phylogenetic trees which show the relationship between species! I find it interesting that by pointing out the fact that Swine Flu is not an example of Macro Evolution you felt the need to explain the Scientific Method to me in elementary terms. I may not agree with Mr. Byrd about Micro or Macro Evolution, but that doesn’t mean I need to agree with you that Swine Flu proves him wrong about Macro Evolution. |
![]() Comment by dcobranchi April 29th, 2009 at 4:59 pm |
So do macro and micro evolution proceed by different mechanisms? |
![]() Comment by dcobranchi April 29th, 2009 at 5:01 pm |
And once again I note that I did not say that the flu virus was an example of macro evolution. I said that in this week when evolution has shown that it’s alive and kicking, the folks who don’t believe in it should probably STFU. |
![]() Comment by Shayrah April 29th, 2009 at 5:15 pm |
They are tested and concluded upon differently. As I said above “Macro Evolution cannot be observed and cannot be experimentally manipulated” This makes Macro Evolution a harder pill to swallow for most people. Mainly due to the fact that logic and reason are not a part of public education. They just spew out facts and expect you to take their word for it. |
![]() Comment by dcobranchi April 29th, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
“They are tested and concluded upon differently.” Wrong. Like I said before, you’re showing how little you know. There is no difference in mechanism. |
![]() Comment by Shayrah April 29th, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
I just wrote how Macro Evolution is concluded upon by making putting together information to from a story using phylogenetic trees, Micro Evolution can be tested in a lab. |
![]() Comment by Shayrah April 29th, 2009 at 5:30 pm |
The fact that you think people who don’t believe the same thing as you need to “STFU” tells me you need to watch this video. It’s awesome! Open-Mindedness: |
![]() Comment by dcobranchi April 29th, 2009 at 5:34 pm |
Actually, I don’t care if the ignoramuses keep yapping. There’s a saying about it being better to keep one’s mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. The creationists have long ago removed all doubt. |
![]() Comment by Shayrah April 29th, 2009 at 5:42 pm |
Then why tell others to STFU? It seems strange you would say one thing and believe another. |
![]() Comment by dcobranchi April 29th, 2009 at 5:45 pm |
So that, perhaps, they might not look like fools and, more importantly, wouldn’t mislead others. |
![]() Comment by dcobranchi April 29th, 2009 at 5:46 pm |
You don’t count yourself among the ignoramuses, do you? |
![]() Comment by Shayrah April 29th, 2009 at 5:50 pm |
Are you implying that I am? |
![]() Comment by Shayrah April 29th, 2009 at 6:21 pm |
Fine, you have deferred to character attacks instead of idea attacks, which is a logical fallacy. There is no way to argue this logically, therefore I will leave it at that. |
![]() Comment by dcobranchi April 29th, 2009 at 9:07 pm |
Sorry, Little League took precedence. And, yes, given your lack of understanding of evolution and your defense of creationism, I believe you are probably numbered among them. |
![]() Comment by Nance Confer April 30th, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
“…macro evolution, which really doesn’t even exist as a separate entity from micro evolution. The only things that separate them are time and an isolated population.” Thank you, Daryl, for stating this so clearly. We always see this distinction but it just makes sense that it would all be the same thing, over varying lengths of time. Nance |
![]() Comment by dcobranchi April 30th, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
I’ve never understood how this could ever have been unclear. The logic for separating them is really untenable. What constitutes “macro” evolution? It’s the development of a new species. And micro evolution is a change within a species. But, eventually, there would have to be so many micro changes that two geographically separated populations would drift so far apart that they would no longer choose to (or be able to) interbreed. Hence, a new species. |
![]() Comment by Nance Confer April 30th, 2009 at 6:25 pm |
Why would you need a geographical separation? Wouldn’t enough genetic changes get there too? Nance |
![]() Comment by dcobranchi April 30th, 2009 at 8:29 pm |
It’s because without the separation, the two groups will interbreed before speciation has occurred. That’s assuming the specie reproduces sexually. |
![]() Comment by Nance Confer May 1st, 2009 at 7:36 am |
So every time a new species has evolved, geographical separation has been involved? Or only when the first one still exists? Nance |
![]() Comment by dcobranchi May 1st, 2009 at 8:08 am |
I wasn’t clear in my original argument with Shayrah. At one point you had to have two separated populations. That separation can take place geographically, so that both exist at the same time. The mechanism is called genetic drift. It generally requires a small physically isolated population. An example is the Kaibab (sp?) squirrel in the Grand Canyon. The other mechanism can work on large populations over millions of years. Natural selection doesn’t require physical separation. Over time the one extant population no longer looks like the fossil record. So, the two species are separated by time. But it’s the micro changes in any one population that eventually lead to a new species being declared. There is no such thing as macro evolution. That’s what I was trying to get across to Shayrah. |
![]() Comment by Nance Confer May 1st, 2009 at 12:17 pm |
I understand the point you made about macro being micro over time. I am just stumbling on the idea that geographical separation is a requirement. Are you saying — If species A exists and is broken into two parts which are separated geographically, species A can continue in the original location but species B may evolve in the new location. Or — If species A exists and there are genetic mutations within A that evolve into species B, over great time, A is replaced by B. Or — If species A exists and there are genetic mutations within A that evolve into species B, over great time, both can exist. It’s the last possibility that I think you are saying can’t happen and I don’t know why. Nance |
![]() Comment by dcobranchi May 1st, 2009 at 12:36 pm |
Option 1) Yes Say A’s environment undergoes a drastic change over a relatively short time period. Random genetic variation will allow some individual members of A to survive while others, who lack these suddenly desirable traits, perish. But all of the survivors are still A. Nothing has changed other than their fitness for the new environment. A random change that results in a new species doesn’t happen in a single generation. Or, at least, it hasn’t happened in our experience. So, as long as speciation takes place slowly, you’ll never see A and B together in the same time/place. |
![]() Comment by Shayrah May 1st, 2009 at 6:35 pm |
When did I ever defend creationism!! All I said was Swine Flu is not proof of Swine Flu! |
![]() Comment by Nance Confer May 1st, 2009 at 6:38 pm |
Well, I beg to differ. I think Swine Flu is proof of Swine Flu. 🙂 Anyway, thank Daryl. I still don’t get it but thanks for your patience. I think my problem is that I am thinking of two different kinds of the same species living in the same environment. Changes that don’t amount to a different species. Nance |
![]() Comment by Shayrah May 1st, 2009 at 6:44 pm |
Macro Evolution…sorry I’m pissed! Look, I think myself very clear on what Macro Evolution is, I never said Creationism is right. You might want to reread what I wrote… |
![]() Comment by dcobranchi May 1st, 2009 at 7:12 pm |
You may think yourself very clear. If Macro and Micro are not separate, then why do they have different names and ways of testing? This proves that you’re not. I guess you didn’t defend creationism. You just sound like a creationist. You asked if I was implying that I believed you were a creationist and I agreed. Until tonight, that was your last comment. |
![]() Comment by dcobranchi May 1st, 2009 at 7:17 pm |
Here’s a pretty good summary of micro vs. macro. |
![]() Comment by Nance Confer May 1st, 2009 at 7:23 pm |
No need to be pissed, S. It’s good to clarify our thinking about these subjects. Nance |
![]() Comment by Shayrah May 2nd, 2009 at 7:56 am |
What if I called you a Creationist and an ignoramus? Would you be pissed? I showed numerous links on Macro Evolution including the 29+ Evidence for Macro Evolution in which Part 2 is dedicated to history and phylogenetic trees, a link to UC Berkley, and I was the first to even mention the concept of genetic drift,,, Excuse me for getting angry at people assuming I am a Creationist… All I was saying is that Swine Flu is not proof of Macro Evolution…and it is not. As I said before… Macro Evolution is the “study of evolution above the species level”. Swine Flu is not used in the study of evolution above the species level and, therefore, is not proof of Macro Evolution. You implied that it was by responding to a post demanding proof of Macro Evolution. Why do I care so much about this? When you give an incorrect “proof” you make Creationists believe they are right. They say things like “He was wrong about this little detail, therefore Creationism is fact.” BUT, if we bring forth all truth and facts and proofs and cut out the insults, maybe, just maybe, they will see the truth and the world will be that much better for it. |
![]() Comment by Shayrah May 2nd, 2009 at 8:44 am |
I guess I misunderstood what you were trying to say because I thought you were responding to Mr. Byrd’s post, not commenting on the fact that he was talking about evolution on a particular date. This may be due to the fact that I don’t see the correlation between a virus from 1918 and “Creationists need to not question something they secretly crave knowing”. We both assumed… I assumed you were responding to Mr. Byrd and you assumed I was defending him. You know what happens when you assume things? It makes an ass out of U and ME… (BTW, some of my comments were screwy because I was pissed and clicking the submit button before I looked over the comment. To my surprise, your blog does not have a feature for editing comments. Even though I mentioned this you still felt the need to point out the exact screw-ups I had made. As Randall Graves said in Clerks “I hope it feels so good to be right. There’s nothing more exhilarating than pointing out the shortcomings of others, is there? “) |
![]() Comment by JJ Ross May 2nd, 2009 at 11:06 am |
You’re not Mimi Rothschild in disguise are you, or maybe a family member? |
![]() Comment by dcobranchi May 2nd, 2009 at 11:14 am |
(BTW, some of my comments were screwy because I was pissed and clicking the submit button before I looked over the comment. To my surprise, your blog does not have a feature for editing comments. Even though I mentioned this you still felt the need to point out the exact screw-ups I had made. For future reference, you should see a preview of your comment at the very bottom of the page even before you hit submit. At least it works in FF. Let me know if it doesn’t work for you and what browser/OS you’re using. And I don’t believe I commented on any mistakes that you made. Nance made a joke about one obvious mis-type. As for editing comments, yeah, that’s not an option. I haven’t found a WP plugin that allows that I I liked. I’m open to suggestions, though. And if you find an obvious mistake after posting, just drop me an email, and I’ll fix it, post haste. I guess I misunderstood what you were trying to say because I thought you were responding to Mr. Byrd’s post, not commenting on the fact that he was talking about evolution on a particular date. Yeah. Let’s start over, okay. Pleased to meet you, Shayrah. I apologize for misrepresenting your beliefs. My comments on Mr. Byrd’s letter were only to point out that creationists generally reject the whole idea of evolution and that the whole “micro” thing is a bit of a dodge. Sure, H1N1 Type A is not a new species and really isn’t an example of evolution per se. Viruses develop new strains by a completely unique system of exchanging chunks of genetic material. But the fact that they can do this in real time should give pause to the creationists who think that new species can’t evolve over billions of years. H1N1 Type A is an interesting bug, BTW, as it combines swine, avian, and human virus DNA. |
![]() Comment by dcobranchi May 2nd, 2009 at 11:16 am |
You’re not Mimi Rothschild in disguise are you, or maybe a family member? 🙂 Definitely not. Unless Mimi’s moved to Houston, TX. Unless I’ve misunderstood things once again, I think Shayrah’s probably more in line with the free-thinking side of the homeschool blogosphere. |
![]() Comment by JJ Ross May 2nd, 2009 at 11:22 am |
I was just going by the um, similar style of discourse? 😉 |
![]() Comment by JJ Ross May 2nd, 2009 at 11:28 am |
Oh, and also that she’s taken a particular shine to YOU, Daryl. You were always one of Mimi’s “special” conversation partners . . . |
![]() Comment by Nance Confer May 2nd, 2009 at 12:03 pm |
First, creationists will believe what they want no matter what we say. They have their god’s word for it that they are right. There is no reasonable argument that can change that sort of thinking because it is not based on trying to be reasonable. And that includes trying to refute every single on of their dumb proclamations based on willful misreadings of what little science they try to include in their arguments. It is an amusing pastime when you are in the mood but will never result in winning the argument. Second, JJ, I believe S is an unschooler. Just like us. Or maybe not but anyway. 🙂 Not a Mimi clone from what I gathered at her blog. S, you know the whole awful Mimi R saga, don’t you? Is it worth wasting brain cells on if you don’t? Probably not. No apology for making fun of a funny obvious typo. We’ve all done it and it teaches us to read first and then hit send. Or to laugh at ourselves. The folks here are generally very bright and a good way to learn about many things. Some of them very particular to their lives and locations — the good thing about NC is that it makes me feel better about FL, btw — some of broader interest. But I have not noticed a lot of interest in mollycoddling. A good thing, imo. Nance |
![]() Comment by JJ Ross May 2nd, 2009 at 2:20 pm |
“No apology for making fun of a funny obvious typo. We’ve all done it and it teaches us to read first and then hit send. Or to laugh at ourselves.” LOL, I learned to prefer the latter. Typos can make serendipitous mash-up words much more fun than what you started out to say! |
![]() Comment by Nance Confer May 3rd, 2009 at 9:44 am |
I enjoyed this discussion of the evolution of the swine flu — particularly the part about H and N and the different strands. Oh, so that’s why it’s H1N1. 🙂 Nance |
![]() Comment by dcobranchi May 3rd, 2009 at 10:07 am |
Some interesting info at Wiki. |