For the first time in science history the iconic double-slit experiment's startling results are explained. We posit. Real Science Radio hosts Bob and Fred Williams in their second program on this apparent breakthrough begin by laying out their outline for this and the next broadcast.
- That beautiful equations could describe physics Einstein thought incomprehensible
- Comprehending how such equations can describe physics is a key to the 2-slit results
- Describe again and explain further the "Day-4 Double-Slit Explanation"
- Further elucidate the How and Why of the 2-slit experiment
- Propose experiments to test the day-4 double-slit explanation
- Address any early challenges
- Make D4DS predictions about photosynthesis and space cameras

The double-slit experiment results are known for seeming physically impossible. To overcome that hurdle, see RSR's...
- List of Things that are Not Physical, and
- The Wave-Particle Duality is a Triality.

RSR's observations in their rsr.org/physical and rsr.org/triality series also explain:
- how quantum tunneling can occur
- how the instantaneous decoherence of vastly separated entangled particles can occur
- how to resolve what Einstein said was incomprehensible, about how our equations can describe physics
- how a massive waveform can instantaneously collapse
- how two specks of dust a universe apart can attract one another.

With the How address by RSR's previous series, the Day-4 Double-Slit (D4DS) Explanation combines:
- the size of a single photon's wave form
- the distance of the closest and furthest visible stars, and
- the purpose of God's work on Day Four of creation.

From rsr.org/math#beautiful-equations:

* Astounding and Unexpectedly Beautiful Equations: E = mc². Exploring unexpected and even startling symmetry and patterns from the microscopic to the galactic scale, mathematicians often describe their work as an aesthetic pursuit of beauty, as Lacayo quotes Einstein that relativity was his "most beautiful discovery."

- Symmetry: E = mc²
- Electrons: (i∂ - m)ψ = 0
- Entropy: S = k log W
- Propagation: I = P/(4π r²)
- Fields: ∇∙B = 0
- Uncertainty: ∇ P ∇x ≥ ħ/2
- Thermodynamics: dS ≥ 0
- Radiation: E = hf
- Waves: ψ(x, y, z, t) = a + ib a
- Force: F=ma
- And then there's even complex numbers, and the square root of negative one, which itself is a beautiful conundrum, which govern electric circuits and other areas of quantum mechanics!

Notice: Live on YouTube, see Bob and Fred speak tomorrow, Sat., Aug. 14, at 1:30 p.m. Central Time from San Antonio, Texas about creationism at, of all places, an ex-Jehovah's Witnesses event. Just go to YouTube and search for: Witnesses Now for Christ, Southwest Conference.

What forces obey the inverse square law? Light, gravity, electric fields, sound, radiation. Why say, "obey"?

Real Science Radio hosts Bob and Fred Williams make science history by explaining why scientists get the results they do from the startling two slit experiment. Consider the WHY and the HOW. With the double-slit experiment results seeming to be physically impossible, last year the guys aired two broadcast series that go to the question of HOW the double-slit results could possibly occur. The first series was our List of Things that are Not Physical, and the second series, on quantum mechanics, was The Wave-Particle Duality is a Triality. The observations made in these groundbreaking series remove the seeming impossibilities and contradictions and address HOW it is that the double-slit experimental results can occur! (They also address how quantum tunneling can occur, how the instantaneous decoherence of vastly separated entangled particles can occur, etc.) On today's program, the guys combine the following:
- the size of a single photon's wave form
- the distance of the closest and furthest visible stars, and
- the purpose of God's work on Day Four of creation.
Then with the HOW of the double-slit experiment already addressed, by adding these three factors, the guys can now explain the WHY!

* Prerequisites: RSR suggests the following prerequisites to best understand today's program.

- RSR's List of Things that are Not Physical
- Know the Double-Slit Experiment
- RSR's Wave-Particle Duality is a Triality

* RSR's Light Speed Experiment Proposal: A 2019 article posted here at Real Science Radio (at rsr.org/stretch) proposed an experiment, Einstein, Lisle, and Hartnett notwithstanding, that just might enable the measurement of the one-way speed of light. Let's think through the following.

* Billions of Frames Per Second Cameras: The field of physics almost with one voice has maintained for over a century that the one-way speed of light cannot be measured and therefore that it cannot be shown to be equal to its roundtrip speed. Do high speed cameras require a reassessment of that long-standing claim?

* RSR's One-Way Speed of Light Series:
- Stretch Cosmology Pt. 1
- Veritasium, Lisle, and Light's One-Way Speed Pt. 2
- RSR's One-Way Speed of Light Experiment Proposal Pt. 3 (this show)

* A Fast Camera Proposal for a One-Way Measurement: RSR's asks whether 10-trillion FPS cameras (and Caltech's planned faster versions) might be used in a round-trip configuration to challenge the conventionality thesis and measure the one-way speed of light. Here's the concept for neutralizing that pesky 2-way speed of light problem...

* Light Speed in a Vacuum: To state the problem more fully, it's the one-way speed of light in a vacuum that can't be measured. Scientists at Cambridge and Harvard have slowed light down to 38 mph by shooting a laser through extremely cold sodium atoms, so it's relatively easy to measure that one-way speed. But this RSR experiment, especially its second iteration, through water vapor, will measure a speed so very close to the speed through a vacuum that the difference cannot falsify the primary results, that is, that it is possible to measure light's one-way speed! After all, there is no known perfect vacuum, not at CERN and not even in space. So if anyone wants to quibble they might as well argue that physicists have never measured even the roundtrip speed of light. For interestingly, even interstellar space is estimated to contain anywhere from a million molecules per cubic centimeter down to a thousand atoms per cubic meter.

If you'd like to help RSR, please consider Donating,
Subscribing, or See our Research Wish List!

* Vacuum Rabbit Trail: The European Organization for Nuclear Research has bragging rights for their massive super-rarified ultra high vacuum that they compare to the vacuum in space as far away from Earth as the moon. One RSR caveat on that though. It just so happens that the Earth's atmosphere extends beyond the Moon. So that environment isn't as void of particles as many may expect. And that atmospher extension is another young-earth argument because it is one of scores of transient conditions and events in the solar system that could not long persist. And while we're on this rabbit trail, the more than 100 annual meteor showers caused by Earth flying through known streams of cosmic debris is evidence, directly observed by millions of people, that Earth orbits in a dusty region of space, whereas evidence only known to those who study the solar system tells us that as the asteroid belt is approached the estimated number of micrometeroites per cubic kilometer decreases significantly. So something, recently, dirtied up Earth's environment.)

* Light Speed in Milk and Stuff: RSR's proposed light speed experiment is performed first with the bottle filled with water and a splash of milk. The milk sufficiently increases the refractivity of the medium so that the laser's progress can be captured on video. The experiment is then repeated with the bottle empty except for some water vapor. The speed of light in a vacuum is:
- 50% faster than in glass
- 25% faster than in water, but only negligibly faster
- three hundredths of 1% than in air.
Of course the introduction of milk in the water, and even the water vapor alone, will reduce the speed of light through these mediums. But that reduction should be quantifiable and sufficiently minimal as to not prevent the one-way measurement of the speed of light (unless, as pointed out above, it is argued that the 2-way speed can never be measured).

* Photons Bouncing Off Photons: A laser pulse in a pure vacuum would only be detectable, it is believed, by a camera situated directly in the path of the beam. A camera aimed at the beam from off to its side would not detect the laser directly because there would be no matter to scatter the laser's photons such that some could be detected by that camera. If photons normally interacted with one another, a second beam of light could be emitted from a camera and bounce off the target beam to be videotaped, with the camera then recording the returning light signal. If that were possible, RSR argues that its light speed experiment configuration could still resolve the one-way speed question because the round trip of that second much shorter beam would be a negligible factor compared to the lengthier main axis of the laser beam's path. However, visible light photons rarely collide. There are known ways to cause them to collide and high energy photon-photon collisions do occur. Regardless of these particulars though, if this proposal gets to the attention of the scientists at CIT or CERN, perhaps they could arrange for this experiment to be conducted in an optimal configuration.

* No Sneakin' Around: The experiment above, first proposed on Sept. 3, 2019, avoids the kind of systematic error that evolutionists make when they "sneak" intelligence into their "natural selection" computer simulations. For example, we would discredit the results if we snuck the round-trip speed of light into the synchronization of the cameras themselves and used that very synchronization in the experiment. To avoid this, the experiment design does not rely on the cameras being synchronized. (And in any configuration, other than perhaps in a photon-to-photon collision mode, the results do not depend upon roundtrip optics to and from any individual camera.) Instead, we position the three cameras close enough to the laser beam so that any roundtrip optics in any configuration is insignificant compared to the lengthier transit of the laser through the bottle. That is, evaluate the results through a range of values for the speed of light to the camera as though it were half c up to infinite. If none of those values changes the overall result of the experiment, we did not sneak in c (as Röemer reportedly did in 1676 when he first measured lightspeed). As a beam transits the bottle, it will produce photographable scatter from the refraction off of the various materials filling the bottle. If the beam's transit to the bottom of the bottle is instantaneous, and it's return trip is at half of today's assumed speed of light, then the cameras' registering of the scatter will show a different number of frames between the outgoing and returning beam as they would if the outgoing and returning beams travel at the same speed on both legs of their round trip. The differences are quantified below. However, if the beam's transit to the bottom of the bottle is not instantaneous (and of course the cameras' frame rates are fast enough to capture this), it seems that the leading edge of the beam (or pulse) would come into view of each camera from the right boundary of its field of vision and, frame-by-frame, pass to left boundary (with perhaps ten frames showing its progress across a single camera's field of view). If this happens, a single camera could accomplish the goal of the experiment, as it alone could demonstrate that the light did not travel instantaneously on its outgoing journey. In this case, we could calculate light's one-way speed based on the width of the single camera's field of vision, the cameras frame rate, and the number of frames it takes to record the beam's journey across that field.

The three-camera configuration enables a different kind of measurement. The two additional cameras (above, numbered 2 and 3) along with a reflector at the bottom of the bottle might enable separate video recordings of both the outgoing and the return trips of the same beam. (If the single camera configuration provided any one-way speed measurement, this could also corroborate that result.) Regardless of whether the beam's one-way speeds are identical, camera #3 will be the first camera to record the beam's return trip. That last camera would then record fewer frames between the beam leaving its field of view and when it again reentered its field of view on its return trip. If sufficient frame rates enable this experiment to work, then the first camera, #1, will register the most frames separating it's initial recording and it's final recording of the laser's scatter. For example, consider if the camera operated at quadrillions of frames per second. Next, consider what could be learned if each camera captured on ten frames the refraction produced by the passing laser. Only to simplify this explanation of the experiment, assume that the cameras were positioned next to each other such that the beams entire journey would be captured on one or another camera. So when Camera 1 first registers the beam, we count 10 frames until the beam disappears. If the one-way speed of light is the same as its roundtrip speed, the camera will then have 40 empty frames until it begins to register the beam on it's return trip, and the data from that camera will end with its frames 51 to 60 showing the end of the laser's journey. In this circumstance, Camera #2 will not show 40 empty frames between its first and last registering of the scatter, but only 20 empty frames. Camera #3 will show no empty frames and the reflector, in this simplified explanation, would be positioned at the edge of that camera's field of view.

If the one-way speed of light is not the same as its roundtrip speed, and its speed on its initial leg is instantaneous, it is presumed that all three cameras would still register the scatter produced, although they would all be registering that refraction at the same time. (This would be an indirect way to synchronize the cameras, after the fact in the analysis of the data they record. A difference this would make as compared to the above discussion is that the light scatter registered by each camera's field of view would not show it moving from right to left, but that scatter would appear instantaneously horizontally across the camera's display and disappear instantaneously, and not from right to left.) Also in this case of an instantaneous outgoing one-way trip, the number of frames results from Camera #3 will be identical to what it would be if the one-way speed of light were the same as its roundtrip speed. Camera 3 will show ten frames of the outgoing leg immediately followed by ten frames of the return leg (although, there very well may be a difference in how the instantaneous leg registers the refraction as compared to the non-instantaneous leg, as just described). So Camera #3 in this experiment would not be able to distinguish, based on numbers of frames, between varying one-way and roundtrip speeds of light. Consider though Camera #2. Camera #2 would have only ten empty frames between its registering the beam on its outgoing and return trips. That is because Camera #2 would register the laser instantaneously with Camera #1, and would only have to "wait" the equivalent of the ten frames it takes for the light reflected to cross Camera #3's field of view. So the data from Camera #2 will end with its frames 21 to 30 showing the end of the laser's journey from its perspective. Consider then Camera #1. In this circumstance, Camera 1 will show 20 empty frames between its first and last registering of the scatter.

So compare the differences in the empty frames between registering the light's outgoing and return trips. If the outgoing trip is instantaneous, Camera #2 will have 10 empty frames and Camera #3 will have 20 empty frames. If the one-way speed of light is the same as its roundtrip speed, Camera #1 will have 40 empty frames and camera #2 will have 20 empty frames. The ratios in this configuration are the same. But by using differing configurations and by determing the actual number of frames it takes for the laser to traverse a single camera's field of view, the results could become definitive.

While a seemingly wild idea, quantum physicists can believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast. So, many would not be shocked if light behaved in the extraordinary way that Dr. Jason Lisle and Dr. John Hartnett propose. Regardless though, RSR makes the following prediction (which is merely what most physicists would expect). If the beam leaves a record of its travels on each of the camers, then considering the time that would pass between the beam leaving and then reentering each camera's field of view. RSR predicts that we could calculate the increasing number of camera frames (time) that pass, as we move from the last, to the middle, to the first camera, between the leading edge of the beam leaving the field of the camera's view (as it heads toward the bottom of the bottle) and reappearing on its return trip. And of course, if the camera frame rates are not fast enough to distinguish between the outgoing and return trips of the beam, then just get a faster camera or a much taller bottle.

Please send any comments to Bob@rsr.org. Thanks!

* On the One-Way Speed of Light Claim from Einstein and Creationist PhDs Jason Lisle & John Hartnett: The world of physics insists that the speed of light is known only from round-trip measurements. The context of this observation speaks generally of light in a theoretical vacuum or in space (which is a near vacuum). Hundreds of laser beam flashes aimed at the Moon demonstrate one example of this kind of measurement. These lasers strike the Apollo 15 retro-reflector base plate and then bounce back as researchers measure the time of the round trip, about 2.51 seconds. (These experiments, by the way, indicate that the moon is recessing from the Earth at more than one inch per year.) Long before these actual experiments, in Einstein's 1905 paper on special relativity he presented a thought experiment in space. "Let a ray of light depart from A... let it be reflected at B... and reach A again..." A page earlier he had described not the measurement of light's one-way speed but about, "establishing by definition that the 'time' needed for the light to travel from A to B is equal to the 'time' it needs to travel from B to A." Establishing this by definition instead of by measurement is referred to as doing this by convention. Regarding this Einstein continued, "We assume that this definition of synchrony is free from contradiction..." And we "assume the quantity... c to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space." This Einstein synchronisation is sometimes abbreviated as ESC for the Einstein Synchrony Convention.

* Starlight & Time, the Conventionality Thesis, and Anisotropic Synchrony Convention: Agreeing with Einstein, the consensus view in physics is that no one has ever measured the one-way c but presents that speed as a convention, that is, an assumption, or, as Einstein wrote, even just a definition, also called the conventional unidrectional speed. By this widespread reckoning, it would not violate any actual measurement to propose that the one-way speed of light toward an observer (say, on Earth) can be infinite as long as the light reflected back travels at half c for the other leg of its roundtrip, producing an average speed of 186,000 miles per second. Creationist astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle, as supported by RSR friend and cosmologist Dr. John Hartnett, has used this to address the starlight and time challenge by claiming that light instantly arrives at Earth after being emitted from even the most distant galaxies. If so, of course that great distance would thereby be irrelevant to light's travel time to Earth and also to the age of the creation. Photons are both relativistic and elementary quantum particles. Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum mechanics both make so many counterintuitive observations that many who study these fields, we submit, would not be shocked if light behaved in this way. Drs. Lisle and Hartnett, with many others, argue that such anisotropy cannot be experimentally disproved, that is, that light cannot be shown to not have this different property when measured in different directions. Effectively agreeing with this, Grünbaum in his second enlarged edition of Philosophical Problems of Space and Time points out that "a choice... which renders the transit times (velocities) of light in opposite directions unequal cannot possibly conflict with... our descriptive conventions" (p. 366, emphasis in the original). With this Karlov agrees, regarding "the constancy of the speed of light... but other choices... are physically just as permissible" (Australian Journal of Physics, 1970 Vol. 23, p. 244, emphasis added). Various philosophers of physics though, and others, have proposed theoretical ways to test the one-way speed of light. Routinely then, the physics community responds by claiming these proposals include faulty assumptions that "sneak in" the roundtrip speed of light (in much the same way that computational evolution simulators "sneak" intelligence into their algorithms). For example, reasoning can be shown to be circular if an experiment assumes the constancy of the speed of light which is the very thing that it is designed to demonstrate. So this conventional unidirectional speed means that the 300,000 kilometers per second claimed universal speed limit has never actually been experimentally verified and is only an industry-wide assumption made to simplify the math (and to please our sensibilities). Some creation physicists have begun to argue therefore that, as believed by mankind's early scientists (from Aristotle to Descartes and beyond), and compatible with Einstein's theory of special relativity, and arguably, with all measurements made to date, the one-way speed of light from even the furthest galaxies to the Earth could be infinite.

If so, human beings would be seeing astronomical events unfold as they happen in a "real-time" universe and Adam would have seen the light from the stars made only two days before He was created, without any other supernatural or natural explanation needed. In 2010 Dr. Lisle proposed this Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC) to answer the young-earth creationist's starlight and time question. This argument includes the claim, as boldly stated by Dr. Hartnett in 2019, that "there can be no experiment that can refute the conventionality thesis", such that no one can even theoretically devise a way to demonstrate that the one-way speed of light equals the roundtrip speed. What follows are four proposed methods to demonstrate that the one-way speed of light approximately equals the roundtrip speed, the first three having already been performed, which we use to address the Einstein's Synchrony Convention. And the fourth experiment, not yet performed but here proposed, which addresses Lisle's ASC.

* Did this 2019 Laboratory Video Measure the One-Way Speed of Light? Through water, light travels 25% slower than through a vacuum, at 225,000 kilometers per second rather than 300,000. At rsr.org/asc#camera (and just below) see a 2019 video made at CIT using a 100 billion frames per second (FPS) camera. At 4:33 (see the screenshots, just above) a laser beam is shot through a bottle of water with a bit of milk in it. The milk increases the amount of photon scatter produced by refraction to make the beam's progress easier to capture on video. (The milk of course would also further slow down the light.) Amazingly Caltech's two cameras, the fastest in the world, one with a maximum rate of 10 trillion frames per second, are able to capture light in progress in its one-way transit. The clip referenced was filmed using the slower of the two cameras and yet it captures the laser beam's one-way journey through the bottle!

Real Science Radio hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams discuss excerpts from the Veritasium/Derek Muller YouTube video, "Why no one has measured the speed of light". Einstein stipulated that the speed of light in one direction is the same as light's roundtrip speed, decreeing this by definition, rather than measuring it, because measuring the one-way speed of light has been technically impossible and many argue that it is even theoretically impossible. Einstein then observed (as discussed on Veritasium) that the one-way speed of light might be infinite in one direction and half its agreed-upon speed in the reverse direction, averaging to what we refer to as c, or about 300,000 kilometers per second.

When good and evil compromise, evil always wins. In this special edition of Real Science Radio, Bob Enyart thanks the founder of Answers in Genesis, Ken Ham, for rebuking Bethany Christian Services and Holt International for placing children into homosexual households.

With Real Science Radio co-host Fred Williams on assignment out of state, Bob Enyart interviews Brian Lauer, the creation activist making a difference (here at RSR and) on the campus of Saint Cloud State University in Minnesota. When Fred returns, the guys will do as promised, Lord-willing, and discuss their rsr.org/one-way-speed-of-light measurement proposal. And... why not, in a separate program regarding the iconic quantum mechanics two-slit experiment getting the results it does (wave/particle duality and the waveform collapsing upon observation/recording/measurement), the guys will present RSR's own understanding of WHY the two-slit experiment gets its startling results! And they'll also discuss HOW it is that the waveform can collapse upon observation and how it is that duality can occur. (Nothing big to see here. Just move along. Move along. :) So in the meantime our ally Brian Lauer debriefs the recent RSR talk on the scientific predictions of the fountains-of-the-great-deep flood model called the Hydroplate Theory. And while praising the big creation organizations, Brian also laments that they've wasted 40 years during which they could have been making stunning HPT predictions with the likelihood that really big predictions would be confirmed every five years or so, which would have provided greatly increased opportunity to reach the lost.

* RSR'S Timesaving Google Creation Tool: Multiple Creation Site Search!

* The Flesh: Just as universal gravitation affects our physical universe, the world (system) and our flesh attract one another and affect our spiritual lives. While two families, Bob Enyart's and Doug McBurney's, spend a couple days in Manitou Springs summiting a mountain, ziplining down, and exploring a cave, we've reaching into our archives to present this program which we're calling a special episode of Real Science Radio!

* Trading Genesis: Check out Bob Enyart's theistic evolution presentation in Malibu:

AN RSR GOOGLE CREATION TOOL: The time-saving multiple creation-site search!

Real Science Radio hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams discuss the scientific world's measurement of the roundtrip speed of light with Einstein pointing out the inability of physicists to measure the one-way speed. The guys compare those who claim to have measured light's one-way speed to those who claim to have manufactured a perpetual motion machine. Yet with fear and trepidation, they've been asking themselves whether or not they should publicly propose an experiment to measure the one-way speed of light using brand new technology the likes of which Einstein (and even almost all current scientists) would never have dreamed could be possible. But before getting to that, the guys reminisce about their radio program from 2011 and the written material on its page at rsr.org/stretch, where for the last couple of years they've hidden in plain view their proposed experiment (shhh, don't tell anyone) to measure the one-way speed of light.

* Time-Saving Google Creation Tool: Multiple Creation Site Search!

* Science News RSR Style: Real Science Radio hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams share observations from secular science sources, from Psalm 139, and from MendelsAccountant.com! Also, the guys pull off a neat trick. During today's program they update LAST WEEK's broadcast! :) And finally, about the fabulous dramatized television series on the life of Jesus called The Chosen, Bob and Fred disclose, well, almost, a fun BEL insider project to help promote the production!

[While Bob & Cheryl Enyart go fishing we invite you to enjoy from the RSR archives our favorite List of Not So Old Things! Photos from today, June 25, 2021.]

-- Finches Diversify in Decades, Opals Form in Months,  Man's Genetic Diversity in 200 Generations, C-14 Everywhere: Real Science Radio hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams present their classic program that led to the audience-favorites rsr.org/list-shows! See below and hear on today's radio program our list of Not So Old and Not So Slow Things! From opals forming in months to man's genetic diversity in 200 generations, and with carbon 14 everywhere it's not supposed to be (including in diamonds and dinosaur bones!), scientific observations fill the guys' most traditional list challenging those who claim that the earth is billions of years old. Many of these scientific finds demand a re-evaluation of supposed million and billion-year ages.

* Finches Adapt in 17 Years, Not 2.3 Million: Charles Darwin's finches are claimed to have taken 2,300,000 years to diversify from an initial species blown onto the Galapagos Islands. Yet individuals from a single finch species on a U.S. Bird Reservation in the Pacific were introduced to a group of small islands 300 miles away and in at most 17 years, like Darwin's finches, they had diversified their beaks, related muscles, and behavior to fill various ecological niches. Hear about this also at rsr.org/spetner.

* Opals Can Form in "A Few Months" And Don't Need 100,000 Years: A leading authority on opals, Allan W. Eckert, observed that, "scientific papers and textbooks have told that the process of opal formation requires tens of thousands of years, perhaps hundreds of thousands... Not true." A 2011 peer-reviewed paper in a geology journal from Australia, where almost all the world's opal is found, reported on the: "new timetable for opal formation involving weeks to a few months and not the hundreds of thousands of years envisaged by the conventional weathering model." (And apparently, per a 2019 report from Entomology Today, opals can even form around insects!) More knowledgeable scientists resist the uncritical, group-think insistence on false super-slow formation rates (as also for manganese nodules, gold veins, stone, petroleum, canyons and gullies, and even guts, all below). Regarding opals, Darwinian bias led geologists to long ignore possible quick action, as from microbes, as a possible explanation for these mineraloids. For both in nature and in the lab, opals form rapidly, not even in 10,000 years, but in weeks. See this also from creationists by a geologist, a paleobiochemist, and a nuclear chemist.

* Finches Speciate in Two Generations vs Two Million Years for Darwin's Birds?  Darwin's finches on the Galapagos Islands are said to have diversified into 14 species over a period of two million years. But in 2017 the journal Science reported a newcomer to the Island which within two generations spawned a reproductively isolated new species. In another instance as documented by Lee Spetner, a hundred birds of the same finch species introduced to an island cluster a 1,000 kilometers from Galapagos diversified into species with the typical variations in beak sizes, etc. "If this diversification occurred in less than seventeen years," Dr. Spetner asks, "why did Darwin’s Galapagos finches [as claimed by evolutionists] have to take two million years?"

* Blue Eyes Originated Not So Long Ago: Not a million years ago, nor a hundred thousand years ago, but based on a peer-reviewed paper in Human Genetics, a press release at Science Daily reports that, "research shows that people with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor. A team at the University of Copenhagen have tracked down a genetic mutation which took place 6-10,000 years ago and is the cause of the eye colour of all blue-eyed humans alive on the planet today."

* Adding the Entire Universe to our List of Not So Old Things? Based on March 2019 findings from Hubble, Nobel laureate Adam Riess of the Space Telescope Science Institute and his co-authors in the Astrophysical Journal estimate that the universe is about a billion years younger than previously thought! Then in September 2019 in the journal Science, the age dropped precipitiously to as low as 11.4 billion years! Of course, these measurements also further squeeze the canonical story of the big bang chronology with its many already existing problems including the insufficient time to "evolve" distant mature galaxies, galaxy clusters, superclusters, enormous black holes, filaments, bubbles, walls, and other superstructures. So, even though the latest estimates are still absurdly too old (Google: big bang predictions, and click on the #1 ranked article, or just go on over there to rsr.org/bb), regardless, we thought we'd plop the whole universe down on our List of Not So Old Things!  

* After the Soft Tissue Discoveries, NOW Dino DNA: When a North Carolina State University paleontologist took the Tyrannosaurus Rex photos to the right of original biological material, that led to the 2016 discovery of dinosaur DNA, So far researchers have also recovered dinosaur blood vessels, collagen, osteocytes, hemoglobin, red blood cells, and various proteins.

As of May 2018, twenty-six scientific journals, including Nature, Science, PNAS, PLoS One, Bone, and Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, have confirmed the discovery of biomaterial fossils from many dinosaurs! Organisms including T. Rex, hadrosaur, titanosaur, triceratops, Lufengosaur, mosasaur, and Archaeopteryx, and many others dated, allegedly, even hundreds of millions of years old, have yielded their endogenous, still-soft biological material. See the web's most complete listing of 100+ journal papers (screenshot, left) announcing these discoveries at bflist.rsr.org and see it in layman's terms at rsr.org/soft.

* Rapid Stalactites, Stalagmites, Etc.: A construction worker in 1954 left a lemonade bottle in one of Australia's famous Jenolan Caves. By 2011 it had been naturally transformed into a stalagmite (below, right). Increasing scientific knowledge is arguing for rapid cave formation (see below, Nat'l Park Service shrinks Carlsbad Caverns formation estimates from 260M years, to 10M, to 2M, to it "depends"). Likewise, examples are growing of rapid formations with typical chemical make-up (see bottle, left) of classic stalactites and stalagmites including:
- in Nat'l Geo the Carlsbad Caverns stalagmite that rapidly covered a bat
- the tunnel stalagmites at Tennessee's Raccoon Mountain
- hundreds of stalactites beneath the Lincoln Memorial
- those near Gladfelter Hall at Philadelphia's Temple University (send photos to Bob@rsr.org)
- hundreds of stalactites at Australia's zinc mine at Mt. Isa.  
- and those beneath Melbourne's Shrine of Remembrance.

* Most Human Mutations Arose in 200 Generations: From Adam until Real Science Radio, in only 200 generations! The journal Nature reports The Recent Origin of Most Human Protein-coding Variants. As summarized by geneticist co-author Joshua Akey, "Most of the mutations that we found arose in the last 200 generations or so" (the same number previously published by biblical creationists). Another 2012 paper, in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology (Eugenie Scott's own field) on High mitochondrial mutation rates, shows that one mitochondrial DNA mutation occurs every other generation, which, as creationists point out, indicates that mtEve would have lived about 200 generations ago. That's not so old!

* National Geographic's Not-So-Old Hard-Rock Canyon at Mount St. Helens: As our List of Not So Old Things (this web page) reveals, by a kneejerk reaction evolutionary scientists assign ages of tens or hundreds of thousands of years (or at least just long enough to contradict Moses' chronology in Genesis.) However, with closer study, routinely, more and more old ages get revised downward to fit the world's growing scientific knowledge. So the trend is not that more information lengthens ages, but rather, as data replaces guesswork, ages tend to shrink until they are consistent with the young-earth biblical timeframe. Consistent with this observation, the May 2000 issue of National Geographic quotes the U.S. Forest Service's scientist at Mount St. Helens, Peter Frenzen, describing the canyon on the north side of the volcano. "You'd expect a hard-rock canyon to be thousands, even hundreds of thousands of years old. But this was cut in less than a decade." And as for the volcano itself, while again, the kneejerk reaction of old-earthers would be to claim that most geologic features are hundreds of thousands or millions of years old, the atheistic National Geographic magazine acknowledges from the evidence that Mount St. Helens, the volcanic mount, is only about 4,000 years old! See below and more at rsr.org/mount-st-helens.

* Mount St. Helens Dome Ten Years Old not 1.7 Million: Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Mass., using potassium-argon and other radiometric techniques claims the rock sample they dated, from the volcano's dome, solidified somewhere between 340,000 and 2.8 million years ago. However photographic evidence and historical reports document the dome's formation during the 1980s, just ten years prior to the samples being collected. With the age of this rock known, radiometric dating therefore gets the age 99.99999% wrong.

* Devils Hole Pupfish Isolated Not for 13,000 Years But for 100: Secular scientists default to knee-jerk, older-than-Bible-age dates. However, a tiny Mojave desert fish is having none of it. Rather than having been genetically isolated from other fish for 13,000 years (which would make this small school of fish older than the Earth itself), according to a paper in the journal Nature, actual measurements of mutation rates indicate that the genetic diversity of these Pupfish could have been generated in about 100 years, give or take a few.

* Polystrates like Spines and Rare Schools of Fossilized Jellyfish: Previously, seven sedimentary layers in Wisconsin had been described as taking a million years to form. And because jellyfish have no skeleton, as Charles Darwin pointed out, it is rare to find them among fossils. But now, reported in the journal Geology, a school of jellyfish fossils have been found throughout those same seven layers. So, polystrate fossils that condense the time of strata deposition from eons to hours or months, include:
- Jellyfish in central Wisconsin were not deposited and fossilized over a million years but during a single event quick enough to trap a whole school. (This fossil school, therefore, taken as a unit forms a polystrate fossil.) Examples are everywhere that falsify the claims of strata deposition over millions of years.
- Countless trilobites buried in astounding three dimensionality around the world are meticulously recovered from limestone, much of which is claimed to have been deposited very slowly. Contrariwise, because these specimens were buried rapidly in quickly laid down sediments, they show no evidence of greater erosion on their upper parts as compared to their lower parts.
- The delicacy of radiating spine polystrates, like tadpole and jellyfish fossils, especially clearly demonstrate the rapidity of such strata deposition.
- A second school of jellyfish, even though they rarely fossilized, exists in another locale with jellyfish fossils in multiple layers, in Australia's Brockman Iron Formation, constraining there too the rate of strata deposition. By the way, jellyfish are an example of evolution's big squeeze. Like galaxies evolving too quickly, galaxy clusters, and even human feet (which, like Mummy DNA, challenge the Out of Africa paradigm), jellyfish have gotten into the act squeezing evolution's timeline, here by 200 million years when they were found in strata allegedly a half-a-billion years old. Other examples, ironically referred to as Medusoid Problematica, are even found in pre-Cambrian strata.
- 171 tadpoles of the same species buried in diatoms.
- Leaves buried vertically through single-celled diatoms powerfully refute the claimed super-slow deposition of diatomaceous rock.
- Many fossils, including a Mesosaur, have been buried in multiple "varve" layers, which are claimed to be annual depositions, yet they show no erosional patterns that would indicate gradual burial (as they claim, absurdly, over even thousands of years).
- A single whale skeleton preserved in California in dozens of layers of diatom deposits thus forming a polystrate fossil.
- 40 whales buried in the desert in Chile. "What's really interesting is that this didn't just happen once," said Smithsonian evolutionist Dr. Nick Pyenson. It happened four times." Why's that? Because "the fossil site has at least four layers", to which Real Science Radio's Bob Enyart replies: "Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha", with RSR co-host Fred Williams thoughtfully adding, "Ha ha!"

* Polystrate Trees: Examples abound around the world of polystrate trees: 
- Yellowstone's petrified polystrate forest (with the NPS exhibit sign removed; see below) with successive layers of rootless trees demonstrating the rapid deposition of fifty layers of strata.
- A similarly formed polystrate fossil forest in France demonstrating the rapid deposition of a dozen strata.
- In a thousand locations including famously the Fossil Cliffs of Joggins, Nova Scotia, polystrate fossils such as trees span many strata.
- These trees lack erosion: Not only should such fossils, generally speaking, not even exist, but polystrates including trees typically show no evidence of erosion increasing with height. All of this powerfully disproves the claim that the layers were deposited slowly over thousands or millions of years. In the experience of your RSR radio hosts, evolutionists commonly respond to this hard evidence with mocking. See CRSQ June 2006, ICR Impact #316, and RSR 8-11-06 at KGOV.com.

* Yellowstone Petrified Trees Sign Removed: The National Park Service removed their incorrect sign (see left and more). The NPS had claimed that in dozens of different strata over a 40-square mile area, many petrified trees were still standing where they had grown. The NPS eventually removed the sign partly because those petrified trees had no root systems, which they would have had if they had grown there. Instead, the trees of this "fossil forest" have roots that are abruptly broken off two or three feet from their trunks. If these mature trees actually had been remnants of sequential forests that had grown up in strata layer on top of strata layer, 27 times on Specimen Ridge (and 50 times at Specimen Creek), such a natural history implies passage of more time than permitted by biblical chronology. So, don't trust the National Park Service on historical science because they're wrong on the age of the Earth.