Deterioration & Developlment - This is genesis week, episode 6, season 2, with ian juby aka/wazooloo

DNA falls apart really fast - gee, that's what we said, more problems with the evolution of reproductive systems, a brand-spankin' new theory of evolution, and we get some more toxic waste delivered to our mailbox - this is Genesis Week. [music] And a welcome to this episode of Genesis Week - the weekly program of creationary commentary on news, views and events pertaining to the origins controversy - answering your questions, and questioning your answers! Proudly brought to you by the supporters of CORE Ottawa, Citizens for Origins Research and Education, and now carried on the Christianima network - Christian Cinema at its finest. Excellence in pirate broadcasting, where we snuck into the Michigan Central Station to broadcast this week's show, continuing to bring you the information the anticreationists don't want you to see or hear. And we continue to give glory to the Creator while doing it. The Bible does not say "Be ye transformed by the removal of your mind," but rather we here at Genesis Week believe God gave you a brain for a reason! Remember you can find us in cyberspace at wazooloo.com (that's me) or genesisweek.com, and you can subscribe to my youtube channel and get extras like CrEvo Rants and full interviews with our guests. I'm your host, Ian Juby. First news item of the day - a study reported... Uh Joe - you've got the DNA backwards there...oh thanks. Sorry -Joe's the new slide guy, but he's slightly dislexic. A study reported in the most recent edition of the Royal Society confirmed what we've been saying for quite some time: DNA breaks down really, really fast. Haile, et al, based their study on 158 fossil bone samples from an extinct bird called the Moa, from New Zealand. They performed Carbon 14 dating on the bones, getting radiocarbon ages of between 600 and 8,000 years old. Thus by looking at how much the mitochondrial DNA in the bones had deteriorated, combined with the age of the bone, they were able to figure out that mitochondrial DNA has a half life of about 521 years. A half life means that 521 years from now, half of the bonds in the mitochondrial DNA will be broken apart. In another 521 years, half of the remaining mDNA will have broken apart. In another 521 years, half of that will have broken apart, etc... As you can see - it breaks down really, really fast. But wait - there's much more to this picture. Your DNA is contained within 24 bundles called chromosomes. Almost all of these chromosomes are housed within the nucleus of the cell. Mitochondrial DNA, considered the smallest chromosome, resides in the mitochondria, outside of the nucleus. Mitochondrial DNA is much more hardy and stable than the other DNA. According to Allentoft and team, regular DNA breaks down two to two and a half times FASTER than Mitochondrial DNA. So you can start to grasp the main point here: DNA, in any form, breaks down really, really fast. Bearing in mind that there are assumptions involved with the radiocarbon dates used to ascertain the age of the Moa fossils. After all, creationary researchers have performed carbon 14 dating on dinosaur bones and had ages of 5,000 years returned. So the fact that the Moa fossils may actually be YOUNGER than thought accelerates the deterioration rate even more! DNA is composed of the sides, or backbone, and the rungs known as bases or base pairs. DNA breaks down in a couple of different ways: The backbone falls apart with water. The bases disintegrate when exposed to oxygen. Heat will break down any hydrogen bonds. If the DNA is exposed to even a very weak acid, it will disintegrate at some 1000 bases per day. Sunlight will rip DNA apart. A human bone laying in a pond for 30 years had virtually no recognizable DNA left; 0.000 009 % was able to be "amplified" in the lab - that was only 30 years of deterioration. Dry and cold (but not freezing) conditions are the best. One study was conducted on the DNA left from licking postage stamps 83 years prior. The DNA had deteriorated considerably in only 83 years, when the letters and stamps were kept in a dry location. You can read more about all these in Dr. Theodore Seiks article here. Now let's apply this information to real world studies. There have been DOZENS of examples of DNA found that were claimed to be extremely old - the Denisovans which we discussed in episode 2 of this season, were just one classic example. You can start to see why so many choke on the idea that the DNA extracted was alleged to be 80,000 years old. But it gets to be even more of a stretch: DNA has been extracted from insects in amber claimed to be 25 to 40 MILLION years old. Fossil bone dating to the cretaceous period gave up its DNA, allegedly 80 million years old! DNA was extracted from a weevil in amber that was supposedly 120 to 135 MILLION YEARS OLD. But it gets better - bacteria encased in amber alleged to be 25 to 40 million years old were REVIVED. Obviously if the bacteria were awakened from the their sleep and not dead, then obviously their DNA is quite intact. But it gets better. There have been multiple papers written on bacteria that have been found in, and revived from, salts up to 500 million years old according to the evolutionary dogma. Now of course one's skeptical knee jerk starts kicking in - and it should be - but notice the pains that Dombrowski went through to remove modern contamination of bacteria from the salt samples: McGenity et al evaluated the many accounts of bacteria from deep underground deposits - their concern was bacteria possibly attacking buried containers of toxic and nuclear waste, so they were very keen to figure out where these bacteria were coming from. They could not rule out that the bacteria were just already there. But notice that NONE of the skeptics ever questioned the AGE of all of this DNA allegedly tens to hundreds of millions of years old! As the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding: DNA deteriorates so quickly, that it is impossible for it to last tens of millions of years. The most logical and simple explanation is not contamination of the samples, because the researchers all went to extraordinary lengths to rule out contamination. The most logical and simple explanation is that these deposits and fossils are NOT millions of years old. They are perhaps thousands of years old - which of course lines up with the Biblical account of a young earth, and rules out the possibility of evolution, as evolution requires deep time. Having just recently released a new rant on how the evolution of *** reproduction is flat out impossible, we encounter a couple of more reasons this past week in Nature magazine. As I pointed out in CrEvo Rant #13, not only do you need to evolve two radically different male and female reproductive systems, at the exact same time and place on planet earth, these two systems have to be complimentary and compatible. And the compatibility is far more complex than just being able to mate. For example, the female immune system has to be able to recognize male *** for what it is, and not destroy it. After all, it is a foreign entity, and the immune system is designed to seek and destroy all foreign bodies within the body. *** has a specific immunosuppressant built in that the female immune system recognizes so it won't attack the ***. Remember: this is the reproductive system. If evolution occurs one small step at a time, when did the step changes occur in the female and male reproductive systems? How did the male *** know how to mark itself so the female reproductive system would recognize it, and how did the female immune system know how to recognize the ***? If there is any failure here, you have no reproduction, and the extinction of the developing species. Once the egg is fertilized, we have a heap of other problems to address: the egg contains foreign bodies, and in fact the developing baby is a completely separate entity from the mother: Contrary to the abortionist's mantra, it is not her body, but rather a completely different body. The baby has different DNA, could be male - a different gender, and can have a completely different blood type! All of these facts will cause the mother's immune system to attack and destroy the developing baby as an invader - that's what immune systems do. Instead, Rowe, et al show in their paper show why the mother's immune system not only does not attack the baby, but instead acts to PROTECT the baby from invaders as well. When pregnancy occurs, there is a cascade of chemical signals that transpire throughout the mother's body. These chemical signals cause a cascade of physical reactions in the mother, of which every mother is already aware. Each and every one of these processes that take place is crucial to the survival of the baby, and in some cases, the mother! If any of these steps is missed, or goes awry, it is the end of reproduction, and the extinction of the evolving species. One of those steps in the cascade is the release of a bunch of regulatory T-cells in the mother's blood which turn off the immune system's attack on the developing baby. These regulatory T-cells are called FOXP3 + CD4. Now when you get an infection, your body produces T-cells specific to that infection, and the T-cells have a variety of jobs. However, when you get an infection, specific T-cells are produced, and your immune system now has a "memory" of sorts. If you ever get that infection again, the specific T-cells are already around, and thus the attack on the invader happens all the more quickly and aggressively. This is why you have to get poison ivy twice before you see any reaction to it. The second time you get it, your body essentially OVERreacts to it. What Rowe, et al discovered, was that the FOXP3 +CD4's also hung around long after pregnancy, and acted like a "memory" so that the next time a pregnancy occured, the baby was already recognized by the immune system. As David Coppedge put it on the Creation Evolution Headlines website: In a Corallory article in Nature, Alexander Betz briefly discussed the immunological challenge to the evolution of reproduction: Hogwash! Even animals that lay eggs also have similar problems, because many egg-laying animals still have internal fertilization of the eggs: and so the female immune system will attack any *** as invaders, unless there are complicated safeguards in place - complicated safeguards that cannot evolved one small step at a time. I'm sorry - the EVIDENCE speaks volumes - that "In the beginning GOD Created them male and female." The two systems were DESIGNED, right down to the most intricate details to work with each other. On that note, the most recent issue of "Science" magazine had a large special section entitled "forces on development," looking specifically at things like evolutionary development and embryo development. Dr. Stuart Newman proposed an essentially new theory of evolution - or so it seemed at first. As it turns out, his theory really is just another rehash of punctuated equilibrium - the idea that evolution happened in leaps and jumps, which directly contradicts the long standing evolutionary thinking: that evolution happens in small steps. He couldn't be more clear in his paper: In one sentence, Newman has directly contradicted conventional evolutionary theory taught in our textbooks, peer reviewed journals and television science programs - that life develops one small step at a time. Instead, based on the fossil evidence, complex life just appeared - boom! There it is! To explain this, Newman made an analogy: As animal bodies develop, the groups and clusters of cells tend to fold up, extend and even make skeletons with repeating parts, like the hand or your toes. Newman and several authors have noted the striking similarities between these developing cell arrangments and the natural formations that occur with non-living, viscoelastic materials. What is a viscoelastic material? A viscoeleastic material is a substance which is both viscous and elastic at the same time - like honey. It's thick and stretches when forces are applied. The molecules of the viscoelastic materials stick together for a variety of reasons: electrostatic charge, Van der Waals force, and other physical reasons. So Newman suggests that the original clumps of cells stuck together like viscoelastic fluids, to form the first multicelled animals. Newman suggests that physics Newman makes a fatal, glaring error in his paper: Chemistry and physics do not assemble multicelled animals: The very precise assembly of certain cells together into certain configurations is directed by the information contained in the DNA! It is information that directs chemistry and physics to assemble chemicals, and ultimately cells, in an embryo! We covered this in episode 5 on thermodynamics and information: Information directs the formation of biological machines to assemble cells and life. In fact, BECAUSE OF chemistry and physics, cells WILL NOT FORM spontaneously. You will NEVER find an instance of a cell forming without direction from information, let alone an embryo! End of discussion! Don't believe me? Remove the DNA from an embryo and watch what happens - chemistry and physics will break down the embryo and cells that you might already have. For that matter - leave the DNA in there, and just scramble the letters in the DNA around, thus removing the information conveyed by the DNA - the embryo will not assemble, because it is INFORMATION that causes the chemistry and physics to go against the flow. In the words of Dr. Gary Parker, a former evolutionist, In his podcast interview on the science website, Newman says that the original cells had genes As Brock Lee put it, Just like the order of the letters in the DNA is not the result of chemistry and physics, so also is the assembly of an embryo. It is the result of INTELLIGENCE, which produced INFORMATION, which DIRECTED MACHINES (in this case, biological machines) to counteract chemistry and physics to form LIFE. The first cause of Intelligence and life must be living - and I would suggest to you that first life was the Creator, Jesus Christ, who rose from the dead to show He was the LIFE. In closing, I like the way TCRCreation put it on his excellent blog response to the article: Yes - Newman pointed to the very evidence that contradicts the evolution paradigm to bolster his theory of evolution which runs counter to conventional theory. Of course, if Newman is wrong, and it would appear he is for multiple reasons, then where does that leave conventional evolutionary interpretation? What does the Bible say about aliens? Is there life on other planets? What can science tell us about the possibility of aliens? Ian Juby gives answers to these and many more questions in this fascinating and highly disturbing subject. Looking analytically at the subject, complete with testimonies of people who claim to have been abducted by aliens. The answers will probably surprise you. In this 1 and a half hour lecture, Ian that the alleged "aliens" are a problems, and that Jesus is the solution. Order on line today at Ian's bookstore. [scary, dramatic music] Wahoo! Mail for me? [sounds of a geiger counter] Hmmmm...I wonder what it tastes like? [drinking sounds] [scary, dramatic music] LOTS of viewers writing in for the last two shows, some obviously more unimpressed than others: In response to my example of a frog in a blender, or a pile of rotting sawdust or hay, Eviscera09 wrote in: Actually, I'm glad he brought this up, because he (or she) is correct that in my example, a lot of the heat comes from bacterial activity. I was aware of this, but due to time constraints on that particular show, I had to cut out a LOT, and I was trying to keep things as simple as possible. The point I was making still stands, in that even some of the heat released by the micro-organisms breaking down organic matter is the energy from the organic matter itself being released, however, there is also a lot of heat produced by action of the micro-organisms, thanks for writing in. I got two separate requests regarding starlight from distant stars in a young universe: I covered this in more detail in "Complete Creation" part 17, including that naturalistic models have a suprisingly similar problem - so distant starlight is an interesting challenge for both the old universe and young universe paradigms. For the sake of time, here's a brief synopsis of one creationary model, put forward by Dr. Russel Humphreys. Multiple times in the scriptures, it refers to God "stretching out the heavens" - which would include space, light and time. Time is actually a variable - for example, clocks actually run faster on a mountain top than they do in death valley. This is because time is actually affected by gravity - this is called time dilation. The Big *** theory has two philosophical assumptions: That there is no edge to the universe, and no center. Humphreys went on the assumption that there is a center to the universe, and earth is at or near the center, and that this stretching out of the universe leaves a gravity well with earth near its center. Thus there is a whole pile of gravity, near earth, which slows down time, and time out at the stars is going much faster. According to Humphrey's time dilation calculations, the universe is only a few thousand years old here according to clocks on earth, but at the edge of the universe, a clock could read billions of years old. You can read more of his model in his book "Starlight and time." Apparently a number of people didn't understand what I said in the episode on thermodynamics, as several skeptics argued with me, saying that energy from the sun or heat from the earth can reverse entropy, I challenged them to please provide an example. Several people wrote in, citing examples like plants. Well waitaminit that's what *I* said in the very video they were criticizing. I'm well aware that plants cause a local decrease in entropy - that's just my point: Decreasing entropy requires a machine - the plant is the required machine - in this case, a biological machine. So the whole point I was making with thermodynamics was that evolution requires an increase in order over time - which is accomplished by a local decrease in entropy, which is accomplished by a machine converting available energy, which requires information on how to build and operate the machine, which requires intelligence, which is outside of nature. It all points a creator. Well that's it for this week's show - thanks again for watching, and please join us again next Genesis Week. Remember you can send in your questions and comments in a number of ways - like email, sending us a tweet, or finding the latest show on our YouTube channel and leaving a comment. I'm your host, Ian Juby, reminding you of those words of warning and hope from our Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ who said "I am the WAY, the truth, and the life - no man comes to the Father but through me." We'll see you on the flip side. [music] We need your support to help keep this program on the air. You can help by making a tax-deductible donation to CORE Ottawa. You can also sign up for Ian's newsletter, detailing current news and research at ianjuby.org [music]