* Real Science Radio Focuses its Beetle Eye on Sponges: Co-hosts Fred Williams with Creation Research Society, and Bob Enyart, on this episode of Real Science Radio draw from the January 2011 issue of Creation magazine to discuss:
* If Chimps are 95% Human, Sponges are 70%: The sequencing of the Great Barrier Reef sponge genome shows, according to the co-author's interview with AFP in Scientists find sea sponges share human genes, "that sea sponges share almost 70 percent of human genes!" The study, reported in the peer-reviewed journal Nature, Sponge genome goes deep, goes beyond it's factual findings of human-to-sponge overlap to speculate on a period of evolution after sponges that, "Nearly one-third of the genetic alterations that distinguish humans from their last common ancestor with single-celled organisms took place during this period."
* 20,500 Human Genes; 18,000 Sponge Genes: While humans have about 20,500 genes and simple worms have 20,000, it turns out that sponges, according to Nature, have "more than 18,000 individual genes." Thus "the sponge genome represents a diverse toolkit." Exactly says RSR! As Nature reports, "according to Douglas Erwin, a palaeobiologist at the Smithsonian, such complexity indicates that sponges must have descended from a more advanced ancestor than previously suspected. 'This flies in the face of what we think of early metazoan evolution,' says Erwin."
So, What's This Doing In There? Nature also says about sponge DNA: "The genome also includes analogues of genes that, in organisms with a neuromuscular system, code for muscle tissue and neurons." Those Darwinists who hold to the circular logic of methodological naturalism do not have the intellectual liberty to consider that perhaps the Intelligent Designer devised a genetic toolbox from which He could pull out of the same basic blueprint tools for making sponges, kangaroos, and people.
And from Science Daily: About "the sponge, which was not recognized as an animal until the 19th century," Science Daily reports that "the team looked in the sponge genome for more than 100 genes that have been implicated in human cancers and found about 90 percent of them." And from a researcher with the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Mass., "Though we think of a sponge as a simple creature whose skeleton we take to the bathtub, it has a lot of the major biochemical and developmental pathways we associate with complex functions in humans and other more complex animals", she said.
* Assuming Other Genes GAINED Rather Than LOST: Why? With sponges possessing much of the genetic material needed to build the far more complex human body, Darwinists should equally consider that perhaps the remaining necessary genes were not added over time, but lost. In 600 million years surely the sponge could lose such genetic material out of disuse. As observed in Science Daily, "But there are certain missing components [as compared to the human genome]. Future studies will reveal how sponges operate as bona fide animals without those components, and how the addition [?] of those components led to the evolution of more complex animals." If sponges, which have no muscles or nervous system, have much of the genetic material to build a neuromuscular system, then in the Darwinian timeframe they as easily could have lost the rest of the genes needed to build a human body. Why do evolutionists arbitrarily prefer the idea of such genes being added rather than lost? The answer to that question exposes the elephant in the room (and in the genome).
* Genes Evolved Hundreds of Millions of Years Before Explosion of Life: Evolutionists describe the "Cambrian Explosion" as the relatively rapid appearance of most of the 35 major animal groupings (called phylum). The University of California, Berkley's Bob Sander's describes the sponge study as indicating that, "Essentially all the genomic innovations that we deem necessary for intricate modern animal life have their origins much further back in time than anyone anticipated, predating the Cambrian explosion by tens if not hundreds of millions of years." According to Sanders, that's what has been learned from the sponge genome and from co-author Bernie Degnan, professor of biology at the University of Queensland, Australia who collected the Great Barrier Reef sponge that was sequenced. This is more evidence, as frequently explained on RSR, of:
* Evolution's Big Squeeze: Many discoveries are uncomfortably squeezing the Darwinian theory's timeframe. And of course, without a workable timeframe, there is no workable theory. Examples, with their alleged and falsified old-earth timeframes, include:
- Butterflies existed 10 million years before they were thought to have existed.
- Cephalopod fossils (squids, cuttlefish, etc.) 35 million years before they were able to propagate.
- Insect proboscis 70 million years before previously believed has them evolving before flowers.
- Fossil pollen pushes back plant evolution 100 million years.
- Mammalian hair, two allegedly 100-million-year-old hairs show that, "the morphology of hair cuticula may have remained unchanged throughout most of mammalian evolution", regarding the overlapping cells that lock the hair shaft into its follicle.
- Shocking organic molecules in "200 million-years-old leaves" from ginkgoes and conifers also show unexpected stasis.
- Plant genetic sophistication pushed back 200 million years.
- Jellyfish fossils (Medusoid Problematica :) 200 million years earlier than expected; here from 500My ago.
- Cheiracanthus fish allegedly 388 million years ago already had color vision.
- Color vision (for which there is no Darwinian evolutionary small-step to be had, from monochromatic), existed "300 million years ago" in fish, and these allegedly "120-million-year-old" bird's rod and cone fossils stun researchers :)
- 400-million-year-old Murrindalaspis placoderm fish "eye muscle attachment, the eyestalk attachment and openings for the optic nerve, and arteries and veins supplying the eyeball" The paper's author writes, "Of course, we would not expect the preservation of ancient structures made entirely of soft tissues (e.g. rods and cone cells in the retina...)." So, check this next item... :)
- And... no vertebrates in the Cambrian? Well, from the journal Nature in 2014, a "Lower-Middle Cambrian... primitive fish displays unambiguous vertebrate features: a notochord, a pair of prominent camera-type eyes, paired nasal sacs, possible cranium and arcualia, W-shaped myomeres, and a post-anal tail" Primitive?
- Trilobites "advanced" (not the predicted primitive) digestion "525 million" years ago
- And there's this, a "530 million year old" fish, "50 million years before the current estimate of when fish evolved"
- Eukaryotes (cells with a nucleus) existed (allegedly) 1 billion years before expected
- Mantis shrimp, with its rudimentary color but advanced UV vision, is allegedly ancient.
- Hadrosaur teeth, all 1400 of them, were "more complex than those of cows, horses, and other well-known modern grazers." Professor stunned by the find!
- Pre-sauropod 26,000-pound dinosaur "shows us that even as far back as 200 million years ago, these animals had already become the largest vertebrates to ever walk the Earth."
- Evo-devo, i.e., evolutionary developmental biology, as with rsr.org/evo-devo-undermining-darwinism.
- Extinct Siberian one-horned rhinos coexisted with mankind.
- Whale "evolution" is being crushed in the industry-wide "big squeeze" as fossil finds continue to compress any time available for evolution. To not violate its own plot, the Darwinist story doesn't start animals evolving back into the sea until the cast includes land animals suitable to undertake the legendary journey. The recent excavation of whale fossils on an island of the Antarctic Peninsula further compresses the already absurdly fast 10 million years to allegedly evolve from the land back to the sea, down to as little as one million years, by this assessment in 2016 based on various techniques that produced various published dates. (See the evidence that falsifies the canonical whale evolution story at rsr.org/whales.)
* Squeezing and Rewriting Human History: Some squeezing simply makes aspects of the Darwinian story harder to maintain while other squeezing contradicts fundamental claims. So consider the following discoveries from about a 12-month period beginning in 2017 which squeeze (and some even falsify) the Out-of-Africa model:
- find two teeth and rewrite human history with allegedly 9.7 million-year-old teeth found in northern Europe (and they're like Lucy, but "three times older")
- get mummy DNA and rewrite human history with a thousand years of ancient Egyptian mummy DNA contradicting Out-of-Africa and demonstrating Out-of-Babel
- find a few footprints and rewrite human history with allegedly 5.7 million-year-old human footprints in Crete
- re-date an old skull and rewrite human history with a very human skull dated at 325,000 years old and redated in the Journal of Physical Anthropology at about 260,000 years old and described in the UK's Independent, "A skull found in China [40 years ago] could re-write our entire understanding of human evolution."
- the oldest language in India, Dravidian, with 80 derivatives spoken by 214 million people, appeared on the subcontinent only about 4,500 years ago, which means that there is no evidence for human language for nearly 99% of the time that humans were living in Asia. (Ha! See rsr.org/origin-of-language for the correct explanation.)
- sequence a baby's genome and rewrite human history with a 6-week old girl buried in Alaska allegedly 11,500 years ago challenging the established history of the New World
- or was that 130,000? years ago as the journal Nature rewrites human history with a wild date for New World site
- and find a jawbone and rewrite human history with a modern looking yet allegedly 180,000-year-old jawbone from Israel which "may rewrite the early migration story of our species" by about 100,000 years, per the journal Science
- re-date a primate and lose yet another "missing link" between "Lucy" and humans, as Homo naledi sheds a couple million years off its age and drops from supposedly two million years old to (still allegedly) about 250,000 years old, far too "young" to be the allegedly missing link
- re-analysis of the "best candidate" for the most recent ancestor to human beings, Australopithecus sediba, turns out to be a juvenile Lucy-like ape, as Science magazine reports work presented at the American Association of Physical Anthropologists 2017 annual meeting
- find skulls in Morocco and "rewrite human history" admits the journal Nature, falsifying also the "East Africa" part of the canonical story
- And even this from Science: "humans mastered the art of training and controlling dogs thousands of years earlier than previously thought."
* Also Squeezing Darwin's Theory:
- Evolution happens so slowly that we can't see it, yet
- Evolution happens so fast that millions of mutations get fixed in a blink of geologic time
- Observing a million species annually should show us a million years of evolution, but it doesn't, yet
- Evolution happens so fast that the billions of "intermediary" fossils are missing
- Fossils of modern organisms are found "earlier" and "earlier" in the geologic column
- The "oldest" organisms are increasingly found to have anatomical, cellular, and genetic sophistication
- Small populations are in danger of extinction (yet they're needed to fix mutations)
- Large populations make it impossible for a mutation to become standard
- To evolve flight, you'd get bad legs
- Long before you'd get good wings
- Most major evolutionary hurdles appear to be extinction-level events
- Yet somehow even *vital* organs evolve (for many species, that includes reproductive organs, skin, brain, heart, kidney, liver, pancreas, stomach, small intestines, large intestines, lungs)
- Frequent appeal to "convergent" evolution (repeatedly arising vision, echolocation, warm-bloodedness, etc.) undermines anatomical classification based on trivialities like odd or even-toed ungulates, etc.
AND (as in the New Scientist cover story, "Darwin Was Wrong about the tree of life", etc.):
- DNA sequences have contradicted anatomy-based ancestry claims
- Fossil-based ancestry claims have been contradicted by RNA claims
- DNA-based ancestry claims have been contradicted by anatomy claims
- Protein-based ancestry claims have been contradicted by fossil claims.
- And the reverse of a "squeeze". Like finding the largest mall in America built to house just a kid's lemonade stand, see rsr.org/200 for the astounding lack of genetic diversity in humans, plants, and animals, so much so that it could all be accounted for in just about 200 generations!
- The multiplied things that evolved multiple times
* Dinosaurs Ate Rice Before It Evolved: Really.
* List of Ways Darwinists Invent their Tree of Life, aka Pop Goes the Weasle – Head and Shoulders, Knees and Toes: The methodology used to create the family tree edifice to show evolutionary relationships classifies the descent of organisms based on such attributes as odd-toed and even-toed ungulates. Really? If something as wildly sophisticated as vision allegedly evolved multiple times (a dozen or more), then for cryin' out loud, why couldn't something as pathetically simple as odd or even toes evolve multiple tiimes? Yet such distinctions form the basis for the 150-year-old Darwinist methodology and its leading proponents still haven't acknowledged that it is arbitrary and invalid. That tree recently fell anyway, and regardless, it has been known to be even theoretically invalid all these many decades. Consider also bipedalism? In their false paradigm, couldn't that evolve twice? How about verterate and non-vertebrates, for that matter, evolving multiple times? Etc., etc., etc. Darwinists determine evolutionary family-tree taxonomic relationships based on numbers of toe, when desired, or on hips (distinguishing, for example, dinosaur orders, until they didn't) or limb bones, or feathres, or genes, or fossil sequence, or neck bone, or..., or..., or... Etc.
* Rampant Convergence: Ubiquitous appeals to "convergent" evolution (vision, echolocation, warm-bloodedness, icthyosaur/dolphin anatomy, etc.) undermines anatomical classification based on trivialities like odd or even-toed ungulates, etc.
* Astronomy's Big Evolution Squeeze:
- Sun's evolution squeezes biological evolution
- Galaxies evolving too quickly
- Dust evolving too quickly
- Black holes evolving too quickly
- Clusters of galaxies evolving too quickly.
* The Sun's Evolution Squeezes Life's Evolution: The earlier evolutionists claim that life began on Earth, the more trouble they have with astrophysicists. Why? They claim that a few billion years ago the Sun would have been far more unstable and cooler. The journal Nature reports that the Faint young Sun paradox remains for the "Sun was fainter when the Earth was young, but the climate was generally at least as warm as today". Further, our star would shoot out radioactive waves many of which being violent enough to blow out Earth's atmosphere into space, leaving Earth dead and dry like Mars without an atmosphere. And ignoring the fact that powerful computer simulators cannot validate the nebula theory of star formation, if the Sun had formed from a condensing gas cloud, a billion years later it still would have been emitting far less energy, even 30% less, than it does today. Forget about the claimed one-degree increase in the planet's temperature from man-made global warming, back when Darwin imagined life arose, by his just-so story of life spontaneously generating in a warm pond somewhere, the Earth would have been an ice ball, with an average temperature of four degrees Fahrenheit below freezing! See also CMI's video download The Young Sun.
* Remarkable? Yes, But For What Reason? Study co-author Dr. Kenneth S. Kosik, the Harriman Professor of Neuroscience at UC Santa Barbara said, "Remarkably, the sponge genome now reveals that, along the way toward the emergence of animals, genes for an entire network of many specialized cells evolved and laid the basis for the core gene logic of organisms that no longer functioned as single cells." And then there's this: these simplest of creatures have manufacturing capabilities that far exceed our own, as Degnan says, "Sponges produce an amazing array of chemicals of direct interest to the pharmaceutical industry. They also biofabricate silica fibers directly from seawater in an environmentally benign manner, which is of great interest in communications [i.e., fiber optics]. With the genome in hand, we can decipher the methods used by these simple animals to produce materials that far exceed our current engineering and chemistry capabilities."
Kangaroo Flashback: From our RSR Darwin's Other Shoe program: The director of Australia's Kangaroo Genomics Centre, Jenny Graves, that "There [are] great chunks of the human genome… sitting right there in the kangaroo genome." And the 20,000 genes in the kangaroo (roughly the same number as in humans) are "largely the same" as in people, and Graves adds, "a lot of them are in the same order!" CMI's Creation editors add that "unlike chimps, kangaroos are not supposed to be our 'close relatives.'" And "Organisms as diverse as leeches and lawyers are 'built' using the same developmental genes." So Darwinists were wrong to use that kind of genetic similarity as evidence of a developmental pathway from apes to humans.
SHOW UPDATE Of Mice and Men: Whereas evolutionists used a very superficial claim of chimpanzee and human genetic similarity as evidence of a close relationship, mice and men are pretty close also. From the Human Genome Project, How closely related are mice and humans?, "Mice and humans (indeed, most or all mammals including dogs, cats, rabbits, monkeys, and apes) have roughly the same number of nucleotides in their genomes -- about 3 billion base pairs. This comparable DNA content implies that all mammals [RSR: like roundworms :)] contain more or less the same number of genes, and indeed our work and the work of many others have provided evidence to confirm that notion. I know of only a few cases in which no mouse counterpart can be found for a particular human gene, and for the most part we see essentially a one-to-one correspondence between genes in the two species."
* Genetic Bottleneck, etc: Here's an excerpt from rsr.org/why-was-canaan-cursed...
A prediction about the worldwide distribution of human genetic sequencing (see below) is an outgrowth of the Bible study above, in that scientists will discover a genetic pattern resulting from not three but four sons of Noah's wife. Relevant information comes also from mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) which is not part of any of our 46 chromosomes but resides outside of the nucleus. Consider first some genetic information about Jews and Arabs, Jewish priests, Eve, and Noah.
Jews and Arabs Biblical Ancestry: Dr. Jonathan Sarfati quotes the director of the Human Genetics Program at New York University School of Medicine, Dr. Harry Ostrer, who said:
Jews and Arabs are all really children of Abraham … And all have preserved their Middle Eastern genetic roots over 4,000 years.
This familiar pattern, of the latest science corroborating biblical history, continues in Dr. Sarfati's article, Genesis correctly predicts Y-Chromosome pattern: Jews and Arabs shown to be descendants of one man.
Jewish Priests Share Genetic Marker: The journal Nature in its scientific correspondence published, Y Chromosomes of Jewish Priests, by scientists from the University of Arizona, Haifa (Israel's) Technical Institute, and University College of London, who wrote:
These Y-chromosome haplotype differences confirm a distinct paternal genealogy for Jewish priests.
The central historical claim of the cultic Book of Mormon is that American Indians are Jews. As expected, genetic science does not reinforce, but rather contradicts, that claim, which is also seen to be false culturally, religiously, and historically. Contrariwise, because the Judeo-Christian Scriptures are true, mountains of evidence corroborate their historic claims. Regarding Jewish priests, Dr. Sarfati adds to the above that, "These Jews have the name Cohen, the Hebrew for priest, or variants like Cohn, Kohn, Cowen, Kogan, Kagan, etc." and that, "Even today, it is possible to identify the Levites, because they have names such as Levy, Levine, Levinson, Levental..."
Mitochondrial Eve: As reported by Ann Gibbons in Science magazine's article, Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock, using actual measured mutation rates, if these rates have been constant, then "mitochondrial Eve… would be a mere 6000 years old." The first evolutionary estimates were that mtEve (a single female or a single female's lineage) lived 200,000 years ago, but then in 1997 the journal Nature Genetics published, "A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA..." reinforced by a paper in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology on "High mitochondrial mutation rates..." Actually measured rapid mutation rates (now estimated at one every other generation), is what led to the recalibration of Eve's age down to thousands, not hundreds of thousands of years. From an anthropology professor's popular article, "Analyses of the mitochondrial DNA of living humans from around the globe have shown that all are ultimately descended (if we trace exclusively through female links) from a common ancestress..." This evolutionary observation would also result of course if in fact we have all descended from an original, created biblical Eve. However, scientists quickly point out that their analysis doesn't require a biblical Eve. For example, you and all your full siblings have your maternal grandmother's mtDNA and yet you are all also descended from another woman from her generation, your paternal grandmother. Yet this mtEve finding does falsify two evolutionary expectations, the first from an old minority view held by evolutionists like the discoverer of "Peking Man," that humans evolved from parallel hominid groups. Secondly, just as the discovery of soft-tissue from a T. rex falsified the evolutionary expectation that we would never find original biological material from dinosaur fossils, the recent age of mitochondrial Eve falsifies the mainstream Darwinist expectation that she would have been much older. That expectation is falsified whether we use the 6,000 year date which is based on exclusively human DNA and documented mutation rates, or even when evolutionists stretch that date by one or two orders of magnitude as they do by including chimp DNA in their data set (which is circular reasoning if used as evidence for an evolutionary time frame). Either way, this finding falsifies the evolutionary expectation that such an Eve would have lived much earlier. (For more about the recent Eve, see creation.com's "A shrinking date for Eve," the journal Nature, Walt Brown's assessment, and Real Science Radio's List of Genomes that Just Don't Fit.)
Y-Chromosomal Adam (Really, Noah): Further, scientists found the genetic evidence that the human race descended from a single man. Surprising, to evolutionists that is, the journal Sciencepublished, "Absence of polymorphism at the ZFY locus on the human Y-chromosome." After mtEve was claimed to live about 200,000 years ago, Y-chromosomal Adam was claimed in leading journals to have lived 59,000 years ago. The evolutionists, with their uber-flexible story-telling scientific method, immediately went to work explaining that Y-chromosomal Adam would be far younger than mtEve because of polygyny. (But like with Eve, the circular group-think dogma went to work recalibrating based on evolutionary assumptions and by 2013, Y-chromosomal Adam was now comfortably claimed to be probably twice as old as Eve, polygamy becoming suddenly irrelevant.) The discovery of Y-chromosomal Adam corroborates the genetic bottleneck of the global flood because all men alive have descended from one man who lived more recently than Adam and Eve. He was Noah. (This all builds on the finding in the 1970s of evolutionist Maynard Smith and others that the human population must have passed through a period of drastically reduced size prior to the more recent rapid population increase. About this, the journal Nature published a letter, Noah's Haemoglobin, from Dr. Richard N. Harkins and others from the Oregon Health and Science University describing the "reduction in the human population to eight individuals; Noah, his wife, their three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japeth, and the sons' wives. It seems entirely plausible that this small population could be homogenous for haemoglobin genes. Thus the book of Genesis documents a series of human population changes which are consistent with changes required from consideration of amino-acid sequences alone.") As Dr. Walt Brown summarizes all this, "Today, the world’s population is 7 billion people. Even if many women lived 6,000 years ago, on average, each female must have had many children. Whenever the average number of children per female exceeds two, the chance of only one of these many females having continuous female descendants today becomes highly improbable. A similar unlikely event must also happen for males. Having both improbable events happen concurrently is ridiculously improbable." Most astronomers came to admit, uneasily, that the universe had a beginning (but still they reject Genesis by holding to an increasingly untenable Big Bang theory. Likewise, evolutionists are acknowledging much of what the biblical creation model predicts about the human genome, while not realizing that the historic events recorded in Genesis help wonderfully to account for their data. For of course the Lord referenced "Noah" as an actual historical person (Mat. 24:37-39), and regarding Adam and Eve, Jesus Christ reminded us that, "from the beginning of the creation [not after billions of years], God made them male and female" (Mark 10:6), as "Eve... was the mother of all" (Gen. 3:20). [end Canaan excerpt]
* Science Bias:
- 48 chromosomes and Hand Washing & Semmelweis are examples of extreme stubbornness and bias in science. And a post-show example is the Galileo affair in which his trouble arose from opposing the mainstream, secular, Aristotelian geocentrism.
- Stickleback fish rapidly adapted to survive in colder water but now they die more quickly, showing the survival "cost" of adaptation. And the rapidity contradicts the slow trial-and-error mutation and selection method, as with Darwin's finches. This reminds us of paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium that claims that the lack of fossil evidence for evolution indicates that it happened so quickly, in geologic terms of course, that the strata record was unable to capture it. The Jonathan Park radio drama for kids illustrates this claim by saying: "We know that elephants run through our house very quickly because we never see them."
- A Darwinist professor asks, if we can't get moas right, that is, if we so misunderstand these extinct bird species from only 650 years ago, how can we get hominids right?
- Beetle larvae have eight regular eyes and four eyes with simultaneous bifocal vision to see close-up prey.
- Infants can't digest 20% of mom's milk, which sugary portion was designed by God as bait for germs.
Today’s Resource: Give a science Christmas Gift and get free shipping! Have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store?(Or you can call and ask about RSR's science resources, at 1-800-8Enyart.)