* Asking Travis Barlock to Retract Rodhocetus Claim: See more at RSR's Calling on Travis Barlock to Retract.
* Inviting DU Evolutionists to Enjoy:
RSR's List of Scholars Doubting Darwin
List of Genomes that Just Don't Fit
List of Evidence Against Whale Evolution
List of Six Problems with Eye Evolution
List of Shocked Evolutionists
List of Missing Transitional Fossils
List of Carbon 14 Everywhere it Shouldn't Be
List of Dinosaur Soft Tissue Journal Papers
List of Problems with Lucy as an Upright Walker
List of Problems with Language Origin Theory
List of Creationist Fathers of Science
List of Fresh Fossils
List of Living Fossils
RSR's List of Not So Old Things
* Debate After-Party: After the debate, Bob asked Travis about his favorite transitional fossils example: whale evolution, whether he was aware that the discoverer of Rodhocetus has now recanted that the creature had a fluked tail and flippers? Barlock said he was unaware of that development and that if and when he confirmed this, he would of course stop using Rodhocetus as a favorite example of evidence for evolution.
* See More of Travis' Favorite Transitional Whale Fossils Debunked: On the show page for the Real Science Radio interview of filmmaker Dr. Carl Werner, rsr.org/whale-fossils-faked, see more video clips of the other now falsified alleged whale transitional fossils. In addition to Rodhocetus, consider also Werner's interview with the discoverer of Ambulocetus, which reveals to the general public what only few insiders knew. Dr. Hans Thewissen is Philip Gingerich's student who, astonishingly, has been celebrated for also (allegedly) discovering a whale transitional form. Following his mentor into fame, and then into shame, Thewissen has now admitted on film that he fabricated the blowhole that he claimed was on the creature's snout. Yet public television nature programs and natural history museums worldwide, demonstrating their notoriously low standard for evidence, have long accepted that imaginary blowhole so that millions of people, like Travis Barlock, believe that fantasized claim to be among the best evidence for evolution.
* DU Students Say Whale Transitions are Travis' Favorite Examples: University of Denver students in the audience told Bob Enyart that the (alleged) transitional whale fossils were among Travis Barlock's favorite evidence for evolution. This is reminiscent of the millions of evolutionists who justify their belief in evolution by citing the content in Richard Dawkins' books, even as the author himself knew and has now admitted that his books contained no evidence and only assumed evolution to be true (see video below). This Bill vs. Barlock debate also reminds RSR of when Bob Enyart asked the famed evolutionist Dr. Eugenie Scott for her best evidence, and she answered "junk DNA", which very term today has been identified as a science stopper and severely hindered the growth of genomic research as a generation of geneticists were heavily deterred by strong-armed neo-Darwinists from even looking at the non-coding regions of our DNA, vast swaths of which have now been confirmed to have function. As the scientific evidence for our Creator God continues to grow, the big Darwinists claims are shrinking.
* Expecting Barlock to Keep His Word: So as this DU evolutionist agreed that if evidence is shown to be invalid, that he would no longer use it, we are hoping and expecting that Travis Barlock will retract his often repeated claim that Rodhoectus is a good example of the evolutionary transition from land animal to whale.
* Science is Fond of Asking for One Miracle: Terence McKenna, when he wasn't high, would say something along the lines of, "Science is fond of saying, Give us one free miracle, and we'll explain the rest." In a debate with a creationist, Travis Barlock repeatedly claimed that Bill Jack was out-of-bounds for pointing out that after a century of effort, secular evolutionists have no conceivable answer, let alone any progress, toward a materialist explanation for the origin of biological life.
* Today’s Resource: Get the greatest cell biology video ever made on DVD:
- helps you to share it with others
- helps keep Real Science Radio on the air, and
- gets you Dr. Don Johnson's book as a bonus!
Information is encoded in every cell in our DNA and in all living things. Learn how the common world view of life's origin, chemical evolution, conflicts with our knowledge of Information Science. Finally, information Science is changing the way millions of people think about all living systems!
Also, have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store? You just might LOVE IT!!
* Travis, Look What the Lord Has Done! The latest stunning animation from the anti-Darwinist ID folks...
* An Example of their Low Standard of Evidence for Evolutionists Worldwide: Taking the Ambulocetus example above, where evolutionists almost universally accept the nonexisting "blowhole" evidence for its alleged role as a transition to a whale, the world's most popular evolution author, Richard Dawkins, confirms one of Real Science Radio's early assessments, that Dawkins' books only assumed evolution to be true, and that they contained no actual evolution for evolution. See this and hear Dawkins affirm our contrary-to-popular-belief observation...
* List of Ways that Evolution has Hindered Science: This nascent RSR List has been inspired by Lili...
- Vestigial organs (rejecting function for 100+ useless organs and glands, etc.)
- Junk DNA (denying function for 98% of the human genome)
- Dinosaur soft tissue (STDs disparage and reject this paleontological breakthrough)
- Polystrate fossils
- Genetic science (decades of aggresive opposition)
- Information science (Darwinists resist the non-physical aspects of reality)
- Uninterested in TESS (transient events of the solar system)
- Ignored immunology: (terribly delaying treatment for cancer, flu, etc.)
- etc. (Send suggestions to Bob@rsr.org. For example, is there evidence that the "simple" cell perception from Darwin's time that the cell was a mere blob of protoplasm, delayed research into the cell.)
As noted on our rsr.org/junk-dna page, from Scientific American, "The term 'junk DNA' repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding genetic material for many years." And, "Illustrating this nicely the Wikipedia article on transposons states, ironically that transposition elements, "are often considered 'junk DNA'. In Oxytricha... they play a critical role..."
As another example from our rsr.org/ta page:
* The 1890s to 1990s Century of Anti-Immunotherapy Bias: Millions have likely suffered and died needlessly. The Father of Cancer Immunotherapy, Dr. William Coley, made one of the earliest such discoveries. He noticed that the occasional remission seen among his patients could be correlated with bouts of unrelated infectious disease. In a brilliant early realization, Coley reasoned that this other ailment caused the cancer patient's own immune system to enter a heightened state of defense in which it would also attack the cancer. Tragically though, about that same time, the journal Nature was entering into a policy, that lasted for 30 years, against publishing papers on genetic science. Because the journal Nature launched for the purpose of promoting materialist evolution, that bias moved its editorial policy against Gregor Mendel's exacting discoveries which undermined the freewheeling needs of Charles Darwin's theory. (That resistance subsided in the 1930s when Dobzhansky, et al., popularized the assuptions of the "modern synthesis" in their attempt to combinine genetics with the evolutionary worldview.) Also in Dr. Coley's day and with the same evolutionary bias, Encyclopedia Britannica absurdly listed more than 100 organs and glands within the human body that they claimed were vestigial, that is, no longer functional, useless organs. And, allegedly, the human body parts that did function were poorly designed, an idea that pervaded the 20th century. (C.S. Lewis recovered from this error, a belief which is still vestigial in Richard Dawkins.) Ideas have consequences. That "dysteleology" claim explains why for a century most in mainstream cancer treatment ignored the immune system. In his book, The Breakthrough, bestselling author Charles Graeber interviews the 2018 Nobel Prize winners Jim Allison and Tasuku Honjo on their immunotherapy cancer work. Graeber admits, as pointed out here by Real Science Radio, the century of harsh bias among scientists against using the immune system to fight cancer, but the author would utterly reject our explanation, that this was primarily a Darwinian bias. He writes of "a 500 million-year-old personal defense force that Allison's textbooks [in the 60s] called the innate immune system." And then, as he excerpts in Wired:
For more than 100 years, medical researchers [most of them] concluded that the immune system and cancer simply had nothing to say to each other. ... Cancer immunotherapy was condemned as a quaint if simplistic idea based on high hopes and bad science. But despite the mounting mockery of the larger scientific community and dwindling research funds, a handful of immunotherapy researchers continued...
But then he adds, most revealingly:
Today, aspects of our immune system [i.e., in reality, the vast majority of its functioning] still remain a mystery, but when Allison began his studies it hadn’t really even been explored... "New" aspects of the immune system, like the hunter-killer T-cells, were barely on the radar yet (Allison's college professor thought they were "too weird" evolutionarily to really exist).
Because undirected evolution would fill our bodies with mistakes, geneticists lost decades of opportuntity by ignoring the vast majority of our genome, 98%, which was wrongly proclaimed to be junk DNA. More than a hundred structures in the human body were wrongly proclaimed to be vestigial glands and useless organs. Those who made the greatest discovery in paleontoligical history, still-biological dinosaur soft tissue, were mocked and much of that material was lost. The journal Nature represented thousands of aggressive Darwinists retarding the advance of genetics by their harsh opposition. And even evolutionary-minded physicists, as with those in other scientific disciplines, resist the entire field of information science. Why? Because information is not physical, and that resistance itself has retarded progess in understanding biological information. Among the many ways that Darwinism has been a science stopper, one of the most painful to contemplate is the evolutonary bias that slowed for generations the gaining of knowledge and putting to use the incredible design and power of the immune system. Afterall, even neo-Darwinism can't explain the origin of high-tech moelecular weapons able to conduct search and destroy missions! They're just too weird evolutionarily to exist. Millions then, who could otherwise undoubtedly have been saved, have needlessly suffered and lost their lives.