Dr. Jack Horner declines sizable financial donation
to Carbon-14 date dinosaur bone.

* RSR & Paleontologist Jack Horner: Listen in as RSR co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams enjoy the Summer 2009 Creation magazine and the two air Bob's recorded conversation with paleontologist Jack Horner, curator at Montana State University's Museum of the Rockies, who excavated that soft-tissue T-Rex! Bob offered Jack Horner a $23,000 grant (see grant letter below).

* Motors in 'Simple' Cells Synchronized! Yes, according to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, not only do 'simple' cells have outboard motor-like flagella but it turns out, they are coordinated so that they can pull in one direction, switch into reverse, and then pull forward again! God is amazing!

* Hear Bob Enyart & Jack Horner: (2011 Update! The peer-reviewed journal PLoS One reported that the carbon in an allegedly 80-million year old mosasaur is five percent carbon-14!) Taking Fred's suggestion the co-hosts aired Bob's fascinating phone conversation with Jack Horner who is the real-life person whom the Jurassic Park scientist John Hammond is modeled after. And sure enough, Jack is the scientist who excavated the soft-tissue T-Rex! (He's also the evolutionist who's trying to coax chickens to grow dinosaur tails.) Bob offered Jack Horner $23,000 to Carbon 14 date the specimen (see the grant offer below). Jack said that he would speak to Mary Schweitzer, but he ultimately turned down the offer :( .

* Santi A. Farella of Prometheus Unbound! Santi blogged about the American RTL YouTube video The Ann Coulter Hang-ups, which partly thanks to him :) is nearing 40,000 views. He wrote, "On the Far Right, Ann Coulter and Mitt Romney Are Not Conservative Enough!" You bet your life (especially if your less than nine months old :). To which Bob replied:

* Prometheus, Do You Realize: that God made us and that we are accountable to Him? -Bob Enyart

* Bob, I’m Happy to Concede: that we are living within an ontological mystery, but could you offer me some justification for your claim that “God made us.” How do you know this? Secondly, I’d like to ask you a personal question: When you doubt, what is it exactly that you doubt? –Santi

* Latest Study on Shrinking Fishing: Fish are shrinking in response to global warming! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! (And all that warming is making them bigger too!) 2015 Update: The hysterical warmlist links to 883 effects of global warming. 2018 Update: Climate change prevents us from seeing aliens. Really! :)

* RSR's Global Warming Landing Page: For all the best arguments in a concise single page, see rsr.org/anti-global-warming.

* Top Anti Global Warming Websites: For all the best contrarian climate change sites, see our list at rsr.org/list-of-top-anti-global-warming-websites.

* AFP & Breitbart Report: Can you smell a fish in this? "Fish have lost half their average body mass… as a result of global warming, a study published Monday has found. 'It's huge,' said study author Martin Daufresne of the Cemagref Public Agricultural and Environmental Research Institute in Lyin', France. …individual species lost an average of 50 percent of their body mass over the past 20 to 30 years…"

* Warming Bias Flawed the Study: The study is biased because of the current obsession to see global warming behind every boogeyman. So Martin Daufresne tries to justify his absurd conclusion but the truth was already reported a year ago on RSF.

* Flashback: July 25, 2008 on BEL - Real Science Radio, Wildlife Officials Blow It with Fish: by instructing fisherman that they could only 'keep' larger cod fish, wildlife officials have severely altered the genetic pool of various species, removing genes for large fish. As a result the average length of some species have shrunk by a third, and even after a 15-year moratorium, the larger fish have not returned. For all the natural selection hype, it is sad that Darwinist governments have blown what would have been a major application of true selection principles.

* Huxley: Natural Selection will Prevent Over-Fishing: Right. Darwin's bulldog Thomas Huxley was wrong again. He claimed that the strongest fish would evade the nets. In reality, only the luckiest fish evaded the nets.

* RSR: Today's show has been designated an honorary Real Science Radio program!

* American RTL's Ann Coulter YouTube Nearing 40,000 Views: 2017 Update: We've recently relaunched the BEL YouTube channel and hit a quarter million views in March 2017 and 1,000 subscribers in April. So we invite you to check out youtube.com/BobEnyartLive! And here's one of our videos...

* Real Science Radio & Creation Magazine: Listen in as RSR co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams enjoy the Creation magazine Summer 2009 issue!
- An enormous gorge in Texas was created in a few days! See Ken Erfurth's great photo of the gorge over at Flickr. 
- A tiny insect's eyes are so sophisticated (and so unlike the eyes of any other insect) that engineers have recently decided to copy the design to create an advanced imaging system! The xenos peckii's eyes are similar to those of trilobites, yet they come from vastly different branches of the recently-discredited (see next item) Darwinian Tree of Life; and so the one could not have evolved from the other.
- Darwin was Wrong about the Tree of Life: Do you remember that the evolutionary publication, NewScientist, ran a startling cover story titled, Darwin Was Wrong about the Tree of Life? They indicated that Darwin's Tree was as important as his theory of natural selection. However, fast forward 150 years to the age of modern genetic research, and it turns out that of the many thousands of species genetically evaluated so far, more than half are not the product of a biological pathway represented by a tree (or a bush for that matter). Months later, the atheist anger against NewScientist is so palpable that one leading evolutionist is calling for a boycott of the evolutionary publication because they acknowledged this now-obvious scientific truth. Yes, the inexorable march of scientific observation is devastating to atheists.
- The Nervous System - Had To Evolve TWICE! Once is not enough. Speaking of the inexorable march of scientific observation, according to NewScientist, the study of tiny sea creatures called placozoans indicates "that the nervous system developed twice - evolving independently in simple organisms like jellyfish and also in complex animals."

* RSR Interviews a Chiropractor: Bob Enyart interviews Denver Dr. John Hanks about the design of the human spine and asks the chiropractor how the human race would survive, if evolution were true, if our gradually forming vertebrae had achieved about 90 percent of their current shape, and the discs between them had only achieved about 75 percent their current form and functionality. Dr. Hanks answered that the debilitating back pain that would result species-wide would likely wipe out the human race. Also, Dr. Hanks pointed out other crushing evidence against Darwinism in that, between the vast domains of vertebrates and invertebrates, the fossil record in the geologic column has absolutely no intermediaries.

* Fred Williams Interviews Rob Carter: Dr. Carter, with Creation Ministries International (creation.com), spent several years teaching high school biology, chemistry, physics and electronics before venturing off to the University of Miami, where he earned a Ph.D. in marine biology.  He is one of the featured scholars in the film, The Voyage that Shook the World, a docudrama that traces Darwin's journey from England, to South America and the Galapagos islands.

* UPDATE: Hear also Bob Enyart's 2014 interview with Dr. Carter!

* Dr. Carter Answers Common Claims Made by Evolutionists:

* Chimps and Humans Share 97% DNA Similarity? This is not a valid argument , since common design is a reasonable explanation. Also, 3% would still amount to 90 million base pair differences, an enormous genetic feat to achieve in just 5 million years. Regardless, new data is pushing the differences higher, as more of the so-called "junk" DNA is turning out to have important functions.

* Psuedo-genes Between Simians and Humans Share Common "Mistakes": This is based on the faulty assumption that "pseudo"-genes (allegedly "broken" genes) have no function. It turns out they are highly conserved over time; that is, they show very little mutational change over time. Also, why do recent studies provide examples of mutations in these genes that are attributable to a disease? It means they must have a useful function. (See also realscienceradio.com/junk-dna.)

* Real Science Radio Co-hosts Having Fun: CRS webmaster Fred Williams and Bob Enyart enjoy talking about the latest science news and evidence against evolution and for our Creator God, including:
- more "junk DNA" that the scientists just figured out is NOT junk!
- headline for every evolution article on genetics is: Oops!
- insistence that disease is evidence of evolution indicates the lack of actual evidence.
- the mathematical proof that humans did not descend from chimps (required family size).
- fingertip control: wow!
- lobsters: primitive (but tasty!) creatures outsmarting commercial fishermen.
- elephants' tails.
- tiny water bubbles collapsing (natural cavitation bubbles reach 27,000 degrees F).

* Where are Darwin's Trillions of People: CRS webmaster Fred Williams and Bob Enyart ask where are the trillions of missing living, buried and fossilized humans if evolutionists are correct and homosapiens have existed for a million years? The two young-earth creationists also discuss a SETI scientist's unscientific and illogical a prior rejection of God; the courage of Australia's Creation.com group to talk about the de-criminalization of sexual immorality; the tragic consequences of widespread atheism among youth. Finally, Fred and Bob evaluate Charles Darwin's thinking skills based on quotes from his autobiography.

* Cutting Down the Tree of Life: [With 2019 updates.] This special edition of Real Science Radio reports on the cover story in Europe's leading science magazine, New Scientist, admitting that Darwin was wrong about the tree of life. See below, Attenborough's Missing Link, for the amazingly bad timing of Sir David Attenborough's evolution pronouncement coming out simultaneously with this cover story.

2012 Update: For extraordinary excerpts from this New Scientist article, see our rebuttal to Jerry Coyne's criticism of RSR, where he wrongly indicates that the scientific evidence documented in this article "is common only in bacteria..." See this also debated by clicking on this link into Round Five of the RSR Debate with Evolutionist AronRa. This popular atheist claimed that the phylogenetic tree of life (as long ago sketched by Darwin) shows that evolutionary descent is doubly confirmed when re-examined genetically. Bob Enyart challenged this by referencing the many genomes that leading evolutionists admit do not fit into the predicted Darwinian pattern. In Round Five, Enyart also presents the discoveries published in peer-reviewed evolutionary journals as in RSR's List of Genomes that Just Don't Fit, and those from the New Scientist article, showing geneticists at world-renowned institutions blatantly admitting that DNA, RNA, and proteins demonstrate contradictory evolutionary pathways and therefore, via genetic science, undermine the alleged Darwinian tree of life.

* Wood Chipper & Stump Grinder: From the stump grinder to the wood chipper! Evolutionists for 150 years, based on their story, would draw Darwin's tree of life showing a cow and a horse somewhat closely related, with bats flittering about elsewhere on the tree. Now though, after prokaryote studies took a stump grinder to the base of the tree, study after study, as in this peer-reviewed paper in the Proceedings of the Nat'l Academy of Sciences, is taking a wood chipper to the eukaryotes throughout the branches. As explained by New Scientist, disregarding anatomy and drawing a tree of life based on genetic sequencing, evolutionists are now claiming that horses are more closely related to bats than to cows. Really.

2013 Update: Things are getting worse. For the rebellion against the Creator, in addition to all the genomes that just don't fit, it turns out that, according to the journal Nature, regarding the data used to identify the alleged evolutionary ancestry of tens of thousands of species, there are "holes in tree of life". Of more than 6,000 papers surveyed, 4,000 of them have no accessible data. And worse yet, while some of the data that was accessible required private correspondence with other scientists, according to the article, "Small portion of phylogenetic data is stored publicly" published at OpenTreeofLife.org, "only about four percent of [the data for] published phylogenies are stored in [publicly] accessible databases" like TreeBASE. (This is not unlike the data that's gone missing for that infamous global warming hockey stick graph.)

* Darwin Added "Survival of the Fittest" to his 5th Edition: Sixteen times Darwin used the pro-eugenics in his 5th edition even though as far as scientific observation is concerned, it is more tautological than anything else. Here's one of his uses: 

* Testimony Contrary to Interests: The Darwinist New Scientist magazine published their cover story, Darwin Was Wrong about the Tree of Life. About this Tree of Life theory (named after the actual tree described in Genesis), the magazine reports that Darwin's theory of descent was as important as his theory of natural selection. Of the thousands of species genetically evaluated so far, more than half are not the product of a biological pathway represented by a tree (or a bush for that matter).

* New Scientist Excerpts: The discoveries presented in this NS article affirm the creationist take on this and contradict the dismissive misrepresentation of evolutionists like Jerry Coyne and AronRa, who claim, respectively, that such findings are "common only in bacteria" and otherwise relegated to the "occasional odd gene", and that the article "focus[ed] primarily on microbes," whereas, for example, NS reported that a UC Davis study:

...compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, [they] should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. [They] failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. -New Scientist

NS also reports according to the National Academy of Sciences that:

...ever more incongruous bits of DNA are turning up. Last year, for example, a team at the University of Texas… found a peculiar chunk of DNA in the genomes of eight animals [including] – the mouse, rat, …, little brown bat, … opossum, [a] lizard and [a] frog – but not in 25 others [where Darwin's tree would have it], including [in] humans, elephants, chickens and fish.

As creationists, we predict that the “common only in bacteria” argument will go the way of Junk DNA, as the New Scientist article showed:

Conventionally, sea squirts - also known as tunicates - are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates.

Biologist Michael Syvanen of the University of California said that, "Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another… We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more…"

But today the project [to reconstruct the tree] lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says [an evolutionary biologist from Marie Curie University in Paris, Eric] Bapteste.

RNA, for example, might suggest that species A was more closely related to species B than species C, but a tree made from DNA would suggest the reverse.

And to make matters worse, protein sequencing might suggest yet a third evolutionary pathway, and then all of these were producing trees that contradicted the traditional pathways based on fossil evidence and anatomy.

Far from New Scientist's evidence referring primarily to microorganisms and only an occasional tip of a branch on the tree, the landmark article mentions single-celled organisms only to show that what is known of them is also common for organisms throughout the tree of life:

Having uprooted the tree of unicellular life, biologists are now taking their axes to the remaining branches.

And when they report something that Coyne and AronRa suggest is the article's primary claim, that prokaryotes (single-celled organisms lacking a distinct nucleus) do not fit Darwin's hierarchical tree of life, they do so only to explain that this is the rule for eukaryotes, which would include all plants and animals. For example, as reported in NS and in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, European researchers:

…examined more than half a million genes from 181 prokaryotes and found that 80 per cent of them showed signs of horizontal transfer [i.e., not Darwinian hierarchy]. Surprisingly, HGT also turns out to be the rule rather than the exception in the third great domain of life, the eukaryotes. -New Scientist

* 2014 Update: And things just keep getting worser. :) Because Darwin was wrong about the tree of life, creationists expect that his tree concept lacks predictive value. Here's an example where avowed Darwinists provide evidence that we creationists are correct. As reported by LiveScience, According to researchers running a major National Science Foundation evolution experiment, "If Darwin was right", they would have documented the evidence for his claimed insight on competition and the tree of life. Instead, their results falsified Darwin's claim. Of the 60 species of algae being studied for a five year period, Charles Darwin predicted how well and how poorly such organisms would compete for resources, based on their respective distances from each other on the (supposed) tree of life. But of the outcome, "It was completely unexpected. We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin's hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right? ... We should be able to look at the Tree of Life, and evolution should make it clear who will win in competition and who will lose. But the traits that regulate competition can't be predicted from the Tree of Life." Interestingly, after scores of science sites, including RichardDawkins.net, reported on the LiveScience article, titled Doubting Darwin: Algae Findings Surprise Scientists, the politically correct editors at LS renamed the piece to something less offensive. :)

* Shock Chimp Y Chromosome Report, 30% Different: [As discussed in another RSR show, check out this post-show note.] Geneticists have sequenced the chimpanzee's Y chromosome has been sequenced,  the evolutionists are in "shock" once again. See the April 2011 Creation Magazine and their online report about team leader Dr. David Page of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Mass., said in the journal Nature (1-14-2010), that the human and chimp Y chromosomes are "horrendously different from each other." Horrendously? A_O, is that a scientific term? Why not just, "different?" Why horrendously so? Because for modern Darwinism to not lose face, chimps have to be shown to be our closest relatives. Yet the chimp's Y chromosome (that which makes us reproducing males... well, males...):
- has only 66% of the genes that we do
- codes for only half the proteins ours does
- has 30% of the entire Y that can't be aligned to our Y
- and the human Y has 30% that doesn't line up to the chimps.

* Humans and Worms - Same Number of Genes: Bob Enyart and Real Science Radio co-host Fred Williams talk about roundworms (C. elegans) and humans having a similar number of genes and many similar genes. Disproving yet another evolutionary prediction, as published by the U.S. Human Genome Program, C. elegans Sequence Whole-Genome View of a Multicellular Animal:

"The C. elegans genome is packaged into 6 chromosomes containing about 19,000 genes [humans have 20,500], several times the number originally predicted by classical genetics experiments. About 40% of identified genes match those of other organisms, including humans." U.S. Human Genome Program

How can that be? Caenorhabditis elegans is only a millimeter in length (1 mm, i.e., 1/25th of an inch). While the evolutionary idea of a "simple" lifeform is an illusion, never found and indescribable even conceptually, with all the genes possessed by C. elegans, why don't they have a far more complex morphology? Well, consider other news from Nature.com and ScienceDaily.com. Human genes are heavily multitasking, which helps explain the many years of confusion among evolutionists who thought that humans and chimpanzees were 99% alike (and even since 2000, 95% alike). RSR suggests that obviously false conclusion would be like claiming nearly identical Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Dumb and Dumber after finding similar words in each. Creation magazine's March 2009 issue further explains that our human genes not only multitask in general, but they have a greater regulatory role in embryonic development. This shows the greater genetic design that God put into humans, who are uniquely made in His image. And this embryonic regulatory role of genes likely helps to explain some of the counter-productive effects of embryonic stem cell treatment as compared to the far-more effective adult stem cell therapy. Regardless though, it would be wrong to kill a single tiny child even if it would cure the whole world.

2010 Update on a Related Story: With the sponge genome now sequenced and showing that 70% of its 18,000 genes are shared with humans, lead researcher Bernard Degnan claims that these findings could lay the foundation for breakthroughs in stem cell research because, "Sponges have what's (considered) the 'Holy Grail' of stem cells." As anti-creationist Eugenie Scott found out, It's not wise to bet against genetic progress. But RSR predicts that Degnan's specific claim here, that sponges have the ultimate stem cells, ostensibly because they appeared so early in the alleged evolution of animals, will never lead to scientific discoveries because the claim is false. Sponges undoubtedly have tremendous stem cells as designed by God. But it is false to assume that they are phylogenetically close to the origin of all animal stem cells.

* Related RSR Reports: See our reports on the fascinating DNA sequencing results from the chimpanzee's Y chromosome, kangaroos, and sponges!