“This is the main reason it is important to realize that evolution is simply another false religion, and that the temptation people face when confronted with that religion is nothing new.” This is a quote from Dr. Michael Houts affirming that evolution is another false religion. Dr. Houts goes further to present the separation of evolutionists from true science. He is absolutely right. He stated, “It is important for Christians to realize that evolution is simply another erroneous belief, and that they need not be intimidated into believing that the theory is supported by true science. It is also important that Christians not become suspicious of science just because evolutionists and atheists falsely claim it supports their worldview.”
Click here to read the article, “Evolution is Religion – Not Science”.
This is a great article written by Michael G. Houts Ph.D, who “holds a Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering from MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Dr. Houts has received numerous awards, including a NASA Certificate of Appreciation for Exceptional Leadership. His professional activities include serving as Chairman of the Symposium on Space Nuclear Power and Propulsion. Dr. Houts was employed by Los Alamos National Laboratory for 11 years, serving in various positions including Deputy Group Leader. He presently serves as the Nuclear Research Manager for NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center.”
The Breath of God 
Hmmm….I’m starting to get where you are coming from. The problem here is that your definitions don’t match that of biology.
Here is a quote from an article on apologetics press explaining the creationist definitions of macroevolution, macroevolution, species, etc…
“Creation includes the evidence for a sudden appearance of complex life. The creation model denies “vertical” evolution (also called “macroevolution” — the emergence of complex organisms from simple organisms), and change between kinds (such as an amoeba gradually changing into a man), but does not challenge “horizontal” evolution (also called “microevolution”—the formation of species or subspecies within created kinds, or genetic variation such as a species of birds gradually getting a smaller beak or a species of moth changing its colors over time).” ( http://tinyurl.com/yuw2m2 )
This is interesting because these definitions are exactly what you are using, yet they do not conform to the definitions of biology at all. They aren’t even close.
The biological definition of macroevolution includes speciation (the creation of new species) and microevolution is defined as changes in alelle frequency within species. Further biology does not recognize “kinds” since all organisms are organized using linnean structures of species, genus, family, order, class, etc…
I’m interested to know how creationists came up with this definition of microevolution and macroevolution. It obviously isn’t based on genetics or classification of phenotypic traits. Furthermore there is really no good definition of “kind” that I can find. The article and various searches of creationist sites don’t turn one up.
The intersting thing in this is that the way the definition of micro-evolution is set up it is impossible for biologists to ever prove macroevolution. Why? Because you have renamed what evolution is. You’ve moved macroevolution from the biological definition, creation of new species (along with the study of genetic changes between species), into creation of new “kinds” which is basically similar to evolution between biologial classes or orders in the linean system.
You’ve said that species evolve, they just don’t evolve directy from a donkey to a bird. Doh! My bad! Sorry for the misunderstanding.
The very fact that this type of change would take millions of years forstalls the argument forever since you will not accept inferences from the fossil record as proof.
The crux of the matter is that the way you structure the argument precludes questioning of whether species evolve by changing the very underpinnings of the definition of evolution. You accept what you cannot disprove and then use a word like “kind” that remains undefined and use that to disprove macroevolution, which you have handily changed the definition of as well.
I will retract my statement that you didn’t read the articles. You very well may have read them multiple times. I will not retract my assertion that you did not understand them. Your writing makes it plain that you don’t understand genetics.
I will forgive you for misunderstanding the biological definitions since yours are so blatantly different. However, I cannot forgive the fact that you take these definitions as the same as those of biology without questioning or understanding the reasoning and data that went in to creating them. If you want to start your own scientific field do it, but if you want to talk biology learn what the definitions really are. It is impossible to argue a point when the definitions being used are not understood.
The fact that I can list the definition of species, macroevolution, microevolution, genetic drift, information-positive, mutation, etc…speaks to the work that has gone into understanding biological systems. These definitions have been in force for many years, some as far back as times of Carolus Linnaeus.
The fact that you can bandy about a definition such “kind” without allowing it to be properly defined is ridiculous. It speaks to an unwillingness to put data behind your definitions and your work. It makes it appear that your arguments are simply created to an end, that you believe macro-evolution cannot exist, and therefore you will create logical devices which satisfy your premise despite the evidence.
The ironic part is that creationism has taken a long, slow road down the path of accepting scientific results. Unwillingly for sure, but it has happened. Not long ago creationists would have scoffed at the idea of including microevolution in their beliefs, let alone speciation. Now you seemingly believe that species are able to evolve acording to your onine courses. This would have been heresy even 50 years ago. I find it somewhat hilarious.
I think I’m done arguing evolution, I’m going to let history play out. The preponderance of evidence seems to be pushing creationism so far back that it is hardly creationism any more. If you want to believe it go ahead but I hope you realize that all you are doing by changing the defintions to meet your beliefs is giving ground and cheapening your argumentative talent.
How did you conclude that I didn’t read the articles? See your logic of jumping to whatever conclusion you want. You didn’t give me the benefit of the doubt that your articles did not prove anything or that I did read but did not understand. This is why I believe that you’re hard-hearted. I’ve read all of your articles, sometimes twice. After all, I did ask to read them. I’m always curious about the reasoning of atheists and skeptics.
I know the salamanders can’t breed, and that doesn’t prove that they evolved just like Danes and Chihuahuas did not evolve though are classified as different species. There are no new genes. That’s my point. That article doesn’t prove anything but the range of God’s design. It was just another documented genetic drift. There are no new genes. I know that you like to make straw-men from my statements, but I wonder if you really do believe the stuff that you write. You’re right. My questions can’t be answered by you, because no answer can defend your faith in evolution. Finally, you’re getting it. You won’t answer the questions, because all the possible answers don’t fit your secular worldview. Why didn’t you just say in the beginning that you couldn’t prove evolution? How hard is it for you to prove a “fact” that new organisms can come from one gene pool that came from another gene pool? Certainly, you can prove this fact again and again using empirical evidence. You’re just going to send me an article presenting genetic drift and slap “evolution” on it.
You fuss about interpretation and that’s right. I point to your interpretation not as a retreat, but to the fact that your interpretation makes no sense. You’re whole argument about me using the word “kind(s)” is a straw-man, and you know it. “Kinds” was brought up from the Law of Biogenesis. I don’t have a problem with talking about using the standard man-made classifications of organisms, but with the Law of Biogenesis, it is kinds of animals. Here’s your non-sense in a nutshell, “This is group of organisms is a species (organized by people) can interbreed, but not with another species according (so these are different species by definition), and then point out how those species can breed and therefore conclude ‘species can interbreed’ and evolution is true.” An unbiased person would just change the wrong classification into one species, since by definition and classification of species, these are of the same species, but you would rather call this “evolution”. This leads us back to your problem with the Law of Biogenesis affirming that organisms only produce after their own “kind”, which refers to animals that cannot interbreed and can only produce after their own kind, which would make them by definition a species that is contingent upon our current knowledge that they cannot breed. Now add to this that you haven’t proved spontaneous generation and the Law of Biogenesis continues to stand.
When I speak of Creationists’ arguments, I do not always speak of myself. I’m comfortable with the fact that atheists and skeptics will be proved wrong and dishonest again and again from peppered moths to finches, but many Creationists like Theistic Evolutionists will certainly conform the so-called “facts” of evolution, which in arguing your case against Creationism by using Evolution will not work with most Creationists.
You obviously didn’t read the article. THE SALMANDERS ARE NOT ABLE TO INTERBREED that’s the point of why I posted it. Did you expect a paper detailing a failed attempt at salamander artificial insemination? Can you point to a source that says that they can interbreed?
Here you go again with the “Law of Biogenesis” which has been toroughly discredited as a “Law” at all and is taken completely out of context in the way you use it. Remember this post from a while back on YOUR BLOG ( http://tinyurl.com/26nuk8 )
You also didn’t read what I said about the difference between “kind” and “species”. If you don’t believe species exist and only “kinds” then you are free to believe that. If you don’t believe that a species is a group of animals that cannot interbreed with another group of animals (with certain exceptions obviously in hybrids) than your argument is less with evolution and more with biology itself. You should read up on the biological species concept, it is somewhat complex but it would be worth it.
Here you are talking about your “kinds” not species:
“Again, to prove your point, you’ll have to confirm a genetic drift of an animal away from various organisms from a prior genetic drift. For example, show the genetic drift from an ovine to an equine to a bovine, and not an ovine to a bovine and then imagine an equine in the middle or an ovine to a bovine to an ovine.”
It is also completely nonsensical, but I’ll leave that for the editors. You obviously don’t know what you are talking about when using the term genetic drift.
As for your view that those articles do not show information positive mutation I’m flumoxed. Those articles show that genes duplicated, true, but those duplicated genes mutated such that new protiens were coded for IN ADDITION to the genes that were already there. If that isn’t information-positive I don’t know what is.
Then again you move the goalposts and make sure that the argumnet can never be won:
“I was just presenting in the previous comment what the new interpretation by Creationists would be to show that either way that you make your point; it won’t make any difference regarding origins.”
So…basically you will present an argument such as that by Dr. Houts that states that information-positive mutation does not exist. Then, when it is shown that it does, you retreat from your assertion and claim an “interpretation”. When you realize that “species” doesn’t work with your argument then you retreat to “kinds” because it sort-of fits your argument if you don’t understand anythign about genetics. This will go on ad-infinitum.
You aren’t looking at the facts, obviously, as there are major points from the salamander article and others which you have completely dismissed. You also don’t understand the argument as your statements make it plain that you do not understand the biological species concept, genetic drift, genetic mutation, or basic information science.
I appreciate discussions when the other party is willing to educate themselves. When the other party stubbornly refuses to look, covers their eyes, and brings up points like the “Law of Biogenesis” which have been previously discredited in his own blog, I find it hard to stomach the discussion.
I should have wrote “mutated duplication” instead of “mutated addition” at the end of my first sentence above. If you could prove information-positive to genes (another something from nothing theory), then this would not defeat Creationism. I was just presenting in the previous comment what the new interpretation by Creationists would be to show that either way that you make your point; it won’t make any difference regarding origins.
What is the Latin for “kind”? Isn’t it strange that animals that mate are a kind set apart from those that they cannot mate, but then there are “interspecies hybrids”?
Dr. Houts and everyone else have more than one reason to not accept macro-evolution. The Law of Biogenesis will not allow the theory of macro-evolution. There’s just no support for interpreting “micro-evolution” for “macro-evolution”. Labeling adaptation by an organism mutating as “micro-evolution” does not prove “macro-evolution”. You would have to show that mutations can occur upon mutations to produce another organism. This has not been proven to be able to occur or to have ever happened. None of your articles proved information-positive mutations, but rather mutated duplications. If you want to label mutated duplicated genes as “information-positive”, go ahead and make stuff up.
I do accept the results of adaptation and genetic drift caused by geographic, physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors as some would call “micro-evolution”, which this is exactly the case with those salamanders that could still genetically interbreed, but don’t. This is like pointing out the genetic drift of Great Danes and Chihuahuas are not able to mate due to size and then slapping them with the label “evolution guaranteed” on it. No one’s buying that garbage. That doesn’t prove anything until the Chihuahua drifts into a squirrel or the Dane into a horse or a bear. Again, to prove your point, you’ll have to confirm a genetic drift of an animal away from various organisms from a prior genetic drift. For example, show the genetic drift from an ovine to an equine to a bovine, and not an ovine to a bovine and then imagine an equine in the middle or an ovine to a bovine to an ovine.
As for an example of macro-evolution here is one that you can puzzle over for a while. It is a well documented case in which salamanders in California created new species. The genetic phylogeny has been well studied and supports the obvious conclusion that the two species are different and split from each other in the past. The physical evidence has also been well studied, showing the intermediate forms in existance as well as the shape and color differences and the fact that the two species cannot interbreed. Thus, they are indeed different species.
First, though, I’d like to make something clear. If you want to talk about evolution you must realize what a species is and how it is defined. You talk of “kinds” but in our previous discussions it is clear that these “kinds” are very broad. Would you agree that if a group of animals cannot interbreed with another group than those groups are considered species? If not than this is wasted effort. If you want to discuss “kinds” you will have to set out a definitive definition because I have not found one.
Here is one example of evolution at work which is hard to dispute. http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html (PBS page with graphics and a concise description)
Salmander species in California vary geographically around the Central Valley. In one spot there are two very distinct species, one that is green and camoflauged and another has bright yellow eyes and lighter color to imitate a poisonous newt. They do not, and cannot, interbreed and thus are considered different species.
The species do have hybrid and intermediate forms at different points around the Central Valley and molecular studies have shown that they are indeed intermediates along a cline (gradient) from one species to another which formed when the species split as it colonized the coastal and sierra nevada mountain ranges (http://tinyurl.com/39u8v8).
The fact that the two species are unable to mate at the point that they met again shows that a new species was formed due to small gradual change along the ring of the valley. Had this happened in any other geographic shape the proof would not be as dramatic, however, as luck would have it the fact that the species form a ring is an excellent example of speciation in action. Most speciation likely happens this way but in a line rather than a ring so it is not so easily used as an example.
In that same article is another example of a ring species of greenish warblers in Siberia. This might even be a better case as the way the birds react to each species songs is indicative of how morphological changes can cause a species to isolate itself genetically by stopping interbreeding with similar groups due to behavioral changes induced by genetic differences.
So…given these examples do you still feel that small genetic change, coupled with geographic isolation, cannot create new species over time? If so I’d like to see your evidence to the contrary.
Now you are changing the goalposts of the argument. Notice that the article by Dr. Houts specifically calls out that all genetic mutation is information-negative or information-neutral. He cites that to support a point that without information positive mutation there cannot be macro-evolution. In doing this he concedes the point that if information-positive mutation exists than macro-evolution is possible.
You just stated:
“this occurrence of micro-evolution, which Creationists do not deny, is still a mutated addition”
So…you suddenly are willing to accept genetic mutation as information-positive despite citing a paper that states that it does not exist?
You state:
“The creationist would simply interpret this as a part of God’s design that organisms may micro-evolve, but that the organisms still produce after their own kind.”
So…you disregard your prior argument when I point to data that disproves it, but rather than accept the alternate hypothesis which fits the facts you latch onto an “interpretation” which does not follow the logical line. If information-positive mutation is possible than macro-evolution is possible, yet you rely on a creationist interpretation rather than looking at the facts of macro-evolution and determining if the facts fit the hypothesis.
Let me know if you find any of other articles on additions, but at the same time, this occurrence of micro-evolution, which Creationists do not deny, is still a mutated addition. This works for either belief whether macro-evolutionist or creationist. The creationist would simply interpret this as a part of God’s design that organisms may micro-evolve, but that the organisms still produce after their own kind. Most Creationists are simply skeptical of micro-evolution upon micro-evolution.
I would have to also refine my question to: How do you know that the “added genes” did not already exist in the same breed of organism 100, 500, 1000 years ago?
I would also be curious if there is such a scenario presented on behalf of macro-evolution showing how an organism could mutate upon mutation to benefit the organism into absolutely changing into another animal over time or in other words macro-evolution.
I don’t know the papers very well. The ones I do understand go something like this…
There are many cases where a portion of DNA will duplicate during mitosis or meiosis when the cell divides. This is basically due to accidents in the process when the DNA is replicated in presparation for the cell division. These duplicate portions code for the same proteins but since they are duplicate they are more prone to mutations since knocking them out won’t kill the organism.
In the case of one monkey species this duplicate gene was shown to have mutated in a way which actually made the protien it coded for work better in the more acidic gut of the animal. The protien it originated from was still working and being used in the body as well. Thus, there was a net increase in genetic information due to the mutation.
In all the cases in the link a sent we know that the gene didn’t already exist because the organism was typed before the change occured so it is easy to go back and compare later.
I don’t know the other papers although I am particularly interested in the case of the two papers by Lenski as they go directly against Dr. Hout’s point. They show positive information growth in the genetic sequences of a population of E. coli bacteria that was evolved over a lng period of time in the lab. Since bacteria are so easily dealt with in the lab the results would be much more clear cut and hard to refute. I have not read the paper though.
Good points. I’ll have to look into your source. I’m interested. You should write Dr. Houts. I’d like to know what he says about this.
How do you know that the “added genes” did not already exist?
I find it interesting that just a short search debunks one of hs main points, that all microevolution is information neutral or negative.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
There are quite a few documented cases of information positive mutation in organisms and populations. Instead he focuses on only on bacteria. Almost all antiiotics have a natural origin or a natural chemical analog. Thus, bacterial populations, being incredibly heterogeneous, would be expected to already have resistance genes in the population.
I guess that is what happens when you ask a rocket scientist to write about biology. So he worked for NASA and has a PhD? Why exactly does that make him any more of an expert than the average joe when it comes to genetics, genomics, cell biology, ecology, or any other natural science? I would be interested to hear the answer to that. I would trust him with my life if I needed him to make me a rocket to the moon. I wouldn’t trust him any further than the tip of his sterile pipette if I needed him to sequence my genome, create a vaccine, study animal ecology, or understand anthropology.
Sadly, he seems to lump anthropology into Social Science simply because the past cannot be tested. He forgets that anthropology is an operational science in that one can test large numbers of fossils for characteristics (and increasingly ancient DNA), which can also be compared to analogous and well understood characteristics in todays world, which then lead to hard scientific inferences about the past. His grasp of science is very limited to a mechanical engineering perspective. He’s good at what he does, but he is not qualified to argue this point at all.