Welcome to Real Science Radio: Co-hosts Fred Williams and Doug McBurney talk about science to debunk evolution and to show the evidence for the creator God including from biology, genetics, geology, history, paleontology, archaeology, astronomy, philosophy, cosmology, math, and physics. (For example, mutations will give you bad legs long before you'd get good wings.) We get to debate Darwinists and atheists like Lawrence Krauss, AronRa, and Eugenie Scott. We easily take potshots from popular evolutionists like PZ Myers, Phil Plait, and Jerry Coyne. The RSR Archive contains our popular List Shows! And we interview the outstanding scientists who dare to challenge today's accepted creed that nothing created everything.
RSR airs every Friday at 3pm MST on AM 670 KLTT in Denver, Colorado. For rebroadcast times and podcast platforms, see our Affiliates page.
Note: Bats do not have hollow bones. Their delicate bones have proportionately much less marrow than most other mammals.
* How'd Bats and Dolphins Evolve This? (Make sure to start with Part 1. And our annual September telethon is at $20,500 of $40,000! Please help!) This series on bats, whales, and dolphins fits into our List of Genomes that Just Don't Fit and our Evolution's Big Squeeze programs. For example, do you recall that horse DNA is closer to bats than to cows? Hmm. Evolutionists have the same contradiction to their theory when it comes to dolphins. Looking at their genes and sequencing the genomes of bats and dolphins gave researchers a shock. They discovered that not only is the primary hearing gene, prestin, astoundingly similar between bats, whales, and dolphins, but there are also shocking similarities between in 200 other genes between bats and dolphins! That blows out of the water the Darwinian claim that similarities can be used as evidence of common descent. Clearly, because echolocation has uncanny and massively extensive similarities between animals without a common ancestor for those features, that means that the whole concept of homology to show evolutionary descent is bogus.
* Homology Dead, Elephant Shrew Alive: Similarities, even extraordinarily and complex similarities, do not indicate common descent! Thus the superficial claim that similarities in teeth, or hair, or five digits on a limb, indicate common descent. Bob Enyart and Fred Williams discuss the physical demands on a system that can produce and detect an echo coming off of a mosquito! Then, remember RSR's PZ Myers Trochlea Challenge. In like form, the guys give examples showing why evolutionists don't propose algorithms for how echolocation could have arisen by any evolutionary mechanism. Because they can't!
* Trochlea Challenge: Infamous evolutionist PZ Myers replied to RSR and to his credit, he acknowledged that he does not have an answer for our trochlea challenge...
* Yale's Dr. Gelernter: Real Science Radio host Bob Enyart reports on the latest headlines. Another scholar, Yale University Prof. David Gelernter has given up Darwin. Gelernter has astutely observed that:
[T]o help create a brand new form of organism, a mutation must affect a gene that does its job early and controls the expression of other genes that come into play later on as the organism grows. But mutations to these early-acting "strategic" genes, which create the big body-plan changes required by macro-evolution, seem to be invariably fatal... Evidently there are a total of no examples in the literature of mutations that affect early development and the body plan as a whole and are not fatal.
* RSR/BEL September Telethon: And of vital importance for RSR to continue broadcasting and podcasting, Bob asks you to consider donating to our annual September telethon by calling 1-800-8Enyart (836-9278) or at our online store by subscribing or getting some of our extraordinary resources!
* A (Thankfully) Picky Ovum: "She's" preferentially receptive to gametes that offer good copies of "her" own corrupted reproductive genes...
Research shows that if the egg (ovum) has corrupted copies of its reproductive genes, it attempts to select a sperm with good copies of those degraded genes. So the ovum apparently can discern, out of about 20,000 genes scattered among billions of nucleotides, whether or not a sperm possesses a good version of one of its own damaged reproductive genes. (The genome modifies its expression in three dimensions based on the temporal needs of the cell or even of the entire organism. So RSR expects that the X and Y chromosomes will have manipulated their contents to insure that those relevant reproductive genes will not be deeply buried within but will be readily available on their surfaces.) This astounding ability to screen the sperm for good genes is consistent with other examples of extremely robust reproductive quality control design features. So the ovum prefers and admits the sperm with the healthier genes. Wow. Here at RSR we predict that this ability (like countless other biological functions and pieces of biological information) is not being controlled by genetic information within the DNA molecule itself but by some kind of "epigenetic" process. And, as California listener Randy Hayes often says, "How'd that evolve?" For, after all, unlike with genetic mutations, textbook neo-Darwinism doesn't even have a mechanism for explaining modifications to the exceedingly abundant and varied forms of non-genetic biological information.
* Babylonian Enuma Elish Helps Corroborate Genesis: Bias against the Scriptures, by atheopaths and others, leads scholars to a backward conclusion. Widely, as Joshua Mark does in the Ancient History Encyclopedia, they attempt to discredit Genesis by claiming that the Enuma Elish was the source material for the Bible's creation account. To discredit Moses though, you have to do something other than provide evidence consistent with his account. And that's all that such scholars have done. For if Genesis were true, then within a few centuries of the global flood, scholars would expect that the generations descended from Noah would be aware of the creation, fall, and flood accounts. And further, as documented in Scripture, in their rebellion they would twist God's words and the truth into deception and worship entities of their own creation. The wildly mythological Babylonian account is far more likely to be the derivative account, taken from their gradually blurring societal recollections of the true history of the world. Yet scholars think that the "primitive" Hebrews, whom they deride, retained the core of the idolatrous accounts but without the idols. The extraordinary nature of this state of affairs is not so much that mainstream scholars haven't discredited Genesis. It's that they are fully incapable of recognizing that have done nothing but produce vast troves of evidence consistent with the Bible. The source material for the Enuma Elish was the actual creation and flood, as later recorded authoritatively through divine inspiration by Moses. Without performing a search of the literature, it is RSR's impression (see for example the Ancient History Encyclopedia) that many critical accounts do not object to this latter explanation because they don't even recognize it. In their deep bias these scholars presume that their discoveries consistent with Genesis have thereby discredited Genesis.
* How'd Bats and Whales Evolve This? This program on bats and whales fits into our List of Genomes that Just Don't Fit and our Evolution's Big Squeeze series. For example, do you recall that horse DNA is closer to bats than to cows? Hmm. Evolutionists have the same contradiction to their theory when it comes to whales. Looking at the genes and sequencing the genomes of bats, whales, and dolphins gave researchers a shock. They discovered that not only is the primary hearing gene, prestin, astoundingly similar between bats and whales, there are also shocking similarities between them in 200 other genes! That blows out of the water the Darwinian claim that similarities can be used as evidence of common descent. Clearly, because echolocation has uncanny and massively extensive similarities between animals without a common ancestor for those features, that means that the whole concept of homology is bogus. (Here's Echolocation Part 2.)
DNA closer to elephants than shrews!
* Homology Dead, Elephant Shrew Alive: Similarities, even extraordinarily and complex similarities, do not indicate common descent! Thus the superficial claim that similarities in teeth, or hair, or five digits on a limb, indicate common descent. Bob Enyart and Fred Williams discuss the physical demands on a system that can produce and detect an echo coming off of a mosquito! Then, remember RSR's PZ Myers Trochlea Challenge. In like form, the guys give examples showing why evolutionists don't propose algorithms for how echolocation could have arisen by any evolutionary mechanism. Because they can't!
* Trochlea Challenge: Infamous evolutionist PZ Myers replied to RSR and to his credit, he acknowledged that he does not have an answer for our trochlea challenge...
Real Science Radio host Bob Enyart shares a few discoveries reported in the latest edition of Creation magazine and interestingly, they further SQUEEZE the theory of evolution as in our latest series, Evolution's Big Squeeze! But then Bob shares another extraordinary discovery that fits in with our List of Genomes that Just Don't Fit! As presented on RSR for years now, we believe that the distribution of gene families will not support common descent and the Darwinian Tree of Life. Instead, they will support the software engineering model of shared code libraries, including for example the shared echolocation coding among bats and whales, the elephant shrew being closer genetically to an elephant than to other shrews, and the close relationship between the zebra finch and zebra fish which by common descent should share no unique gene families but which actually share nineteen! See rsr.org/predictions#libraries.
RSR needs Adobe Framemaker help for a very important, even historic, creation project! If you are good at Framemaker, please email Bob@rsr.org. Thanks!
* Bob & Friend vs. Resasons To Believe Scientists: Fifteen years ago in front of a liveB audience Bob Enyart and a friend debated scientists with the Denver chapter of Hugh Ross' old-earth Reasons to Believe group. This was in the early days of Bob's focus on creation and evolution. With a Christian high school teacher, Bob debated a geophysicist and a CU mathematician. The full Age of the Earth Debate on disc and download is still available and includes Bob's written notes.
* The Opponents: Bob debated mathematics professor Gordon Brown, from the University of Colorado in Boulder and the late John Nicholl, former president of EEGS, Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society.
* The Physicist Witness: An atheist physicist named "The Phy", well known from his presence on TheologyOnline.com, traveled from Seattle to Denver for the debate. Upon his return to Seattle he posted on TOL that even though he utterly disagreed with them, the young-earthers clearly won the debate.
* Debate Aftermath and the 770,000 Dead: Immediately after the event, John Nicholl asked Enyart, "If the earth really were young, and had recently experienced a global flood, that would mean that geologists should give governments greater warnings about earthquake risks. So do you think we should do that?" Bob answered yes, governments should be warned of risks greater than that predicted by old-earth assumptions for earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. The 9-11 attack left was about 3,000 dead from terrorism and since governments have spent trillions to minimize further such deaths. In contrast, for the casualties in the years since Bob's debate with Reasons 2 Believe more than 770,000 people have died from earthquakes. (See this documented at rsr.org/earthquakes.)
Bob Enyart and Fred Williams conclude RSR's List of Discoveries Squeezing Evolution, aka, Evolution's Big Squeeze! Many discoveries squeeze beyond recognition the timeframe of the theory of evolution! And of course, without a workable timeframe, there is no workable theory. And make sure to see the list itself at rsr.org/squeeze where you can also hear Part 1 and make sure to also check our Part 2 at rsr.org/sq2.
* List of Discoveries Squeezing Evolution: Bob Enyart and Fred Williams continue RSR's List of Discoveries Squeezing Evolution, aka, Evolution's Big Squeeze! Many discoveries squeeze beyond recognition the timeframe of the theory of evolution! And of course, without a workable timeframe, there is no workable theory. From Part 1, dinosaurs ate rice before rice evolved. Turtle shells existed forty million years before turtle shells began evolving. Advance birds appeared before birds evolved. Yes, the fossil record is a wonderful thing! And insects evolved to eat from flowers 70 million years before flowers evolved! In Part 2 the Real Science Radio hosts begin with a look at how the big squeeze affects whale evolution! (And make sure to first hear Part 1 at rsr.org/squeeze.)
Example
* 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 evolved.
- Cephalopod fossils (squids, cuttlefish, etc.) appear 35 million years before they were able to propagate.
- Dinosaurs ate rice before it evolved.
- Insect proboscis (tongue) in moths and butterflies 70 million years before previously believed has them evolving before flowers.
- 100 million years ago and already a bird
- Fossil pollen pushes back plant evolution 100 million years.
- Mammalian hair allegedly 100-million-years-old 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.
- more
* List of Discoveries Squeezing Evolution: Did you know that dinosaurs ate rice before rice evolved? That turtle shells existed forty million years before turtle shells began evolving? That insects evolved tongues for eating from flowers 70 million years before flowers evolved? And that birds appeared before birds evolved? The fossil record is a wonderful thing. And more recently, only a 40,000-year squeeze, Neanderthal had blood types A, B, and O, shocking evolutionists but expected to us here at Real Science Radio! Sit back and get ready to enjoy another instant classic, today's RSR "list show" on Evolution's Big Squeeze! Our other popular list shows include:
- scientists doubting Darwin
- evidence against whale evolution
- problems with 'the river carved the canyon'
- carbon 14 everywhere it shouldn't be
- dinosaur still-soft biological tissue
- solar system formation problems
- evidence against the big bang
- evidence for the global flood
- genomes that just don't fit
- and our list of not so old things! (See also rsr.org/sq2 and rsr.org/sq3!)
- Jellyfish fossils (Medusoid Problematica :) 200 million years earlier than expected; here from 500My ago.
- Green seaweed 200 million years earlier than expected, pushed back now to a billion years ago!
- The acanthodii fish had color vision 300 million years ago, but then, and wait, 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-oldMurrindalaspis 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?
- Fast-growing juvenile bone tissue, thought to appear in the Cretaceous, has been pushed back 100 million years: "This pushes the origin of fibrolamellar bone in Sauropterygia back from the Cretaceous to the early Middle Triassic..." - 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"
- Mycobacterium tuberculosis100,000 yr-old MRCA (most recent common ancestor) now 245 million - Fungus long claimed to originate 500M years ago, now found at allegedly 950 Mya (and stillbiological "the distant past... may have been much more 'modern' than we thought." :)
- A rock contained pollen a billion years before plants evolved, according to a 2007 paper describing "remarkably preserved" fossil spores in the French Alps that had undergone high-grade metamorphism
- 2.5 billion year old cyanobacteria fossils (made of organic material found in a stromatolite) appear about "200 million years before the [supposed] Great Oxidation Event".
- 2.7 billion year old eukaryotes (cells with a nucleus) existed (allegedly) 1 billion yearsbefore expected
- 3.5 billion year "cell division evidently identical to that of living filamentous prokaryotes."
- And even older cyanobacteria! At 220 million years earlier than thought, per Nature's 3.7 billion year old dating of stromatolites!
- The universe and life itself (in 2019 with the universe dated a billion, now, no, wait, two billion!, years younger than previously thought, that's not only squeezing biological but also astronomicalevolution, with the overall story getting really tight)
- 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! (RSR predicts that, by 2030 just to put an end date on it, more fossils will be found from the geologic column that will be more "advanced" as compared to living organisms, just like this hadrosaur and like the allegedly 100M year old hagfish fossil having more slime glands than living specimens.)
- Trace fossils "exquisitely preserved" of mobile organisms (motility) dated at 2.1 billion years ago, a full 1.5 billion earlier than previously believed
- Various multicellular organisms allegedly 2.1 billionyears old, show multicellularity 1.5 billion years sooner than long believed
- 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."
- The Evo-devo squeeze, 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". First, geneticist claims whales evolved from hippos but paleontologists say hippos evolved tens of millions of years too late! And what's worse than that is that fossil finds continue to compress the time available for whale 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. BioOne in 2016 reported a fossil that is "among the oldest occurrences of basilosaurids worldwide, indicating a rapid radiation and dispersal of this group since at least the early middle Eocene." By this assessment, various techniques produced various published dates. (See the evidence that falsifies the canonical whale evolution story at rsr.org/whales.)
* The Navy's Geomorphologist vs Plate Tectonics: Thirty years mapping the ocean floors for the U.S. Navy left geomorphologist Christian Smoot strongly opposed to the theory of plate tectonics. Why? Because under the waves, the ocean floor terrain contradicts the theory in region after region, ocean after ocean, and feature by feature. The actual geography of the oceans falsifies today's unassailable politically correct theory. Smoot gave permission to summarize his evidence against plate tectonics to today's RSR friend Ellen McHenry, who we're now interviewing in the concluding Part 3 of our Smoot vs. Plate Tectonics on RSR with McHenry series.
Important HPT Notice: Tonight, RSR has entered into an agreement to host an important new forum for Hydroplate Theory enthusiasts to better understand the flood model, to explore its implications, and to document that all scientists work for Walt Brown! We'll all be able to interact with HPT supporters, and detractors, from around the world in a more effective way than ever before! Stay tuned for an update later this summer!
* The Navy's Geomorphologist vs Plate Tectonics: Thirty years mapping the ocean floors for the U.S. Navy left geomorphologist Christian Smoot strongly opposed to the theory of plate tectonics. Why? Because under the waves, the ocean floor terrain contradicts the theory in region after region, ocean after ocean, and feature by feature. The actual geography of the oceans falsifies today's unassailable politically correct theory. Smoot gave permission to summarize his evidence against plate tectonics to RSR friend Ellen McHenry who we're now interviewing in Part 2 of our Smoot vs. Plate Tectonics on RSR with McHenry series which concludes next week with Part 3.
