What Kind of Evolution??? This is Genesis Week, Episode 12, Season 2 with Wazooloo, Aka Ian Juby

RTB gives reasons not to believe the RATE results, we address divergent/convergent/ parallel/ preadaptive/reductive evolution with a new rant and we beat a dead dinosaur as we dive into the mailbag - this is Genesis Week. [music] And welcome to this episode of Genesis Week, the weekly program of creationary commentary on news, views and events pertaining to the origins controversy, made possible by the supporters of CORE Ottawa, Citizens for Origins Research and Education, and now carried on the Christianima network - christianima.com - Christian cinema at its finest. Bringing you the best in pirate broadcasting, we set up in a random abandoned house in Uranium City, where we are determined to bring you the information the anticreationists don't want you to see or hear, and giving glory to our Creator while doing it. We believe God gave you an intelligently designed brain, and He expects you to use it - especially during this show. Remember if you get lost in cyberspace, you can just punch in wazooloo.com or genesisweek.com and you can find us, and also subscribe to our youtube channel to get extras like CrEvo rants and full interviews with our guests. I'm your host, Ian Juby. This past week the old-earth ministry of Hugh Ross, Reasons to Believe, posted a written response giving low RATEings to the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth - the RATE project. The RATE project was a 8 year study by a team of scientists, sponsored by Institute for Creation Research, the Creation Research Society, and Answers in Genesis. The team included geologists, geophysicists, physicists, Hebrew scholars and a meteorologist. The results were nothing less than staggering, and presented multiple challenges to the paradigm of an old earth and deep time. Specifically, they noted that carbon 14 - which breaks down really, really fast, was found in high quantities in coal seams and diamonds - both of which are supposed to be hundreds of millions of years old. But Carbon 14 can't last any more than about 100,000 years - so obviously, there's a problem. They also developed a new dating method which was linked to, but independent of, radiodating methods which we discussed in last week's show. As Uranium breaks down radioactively, it produces helium inside crystals called zircons. These crystals, and the granite rock that contained them, were supposed to be almost 2 BILLION years old. So Dr. Humphreys, of the RATE team, made two predictions: the strongest argument for a scientific theory is its predictive power. Dr. Humphreys measured how much Uranium had broken down into lead in the crystals, and therefore knew how much Helium had been produced over the life of that crystal. There was a LOT of helium still trapped in the crystals, so in order to do that if the crystals are 2 billion years old, the helium has to leak out really, really slooooowly. If instead it's only 6,000 years old, like the Bible suggests and the RATE team assumed, then the leakage rate would be quite fast. So based on all the numbers, Dr. Humphreys made two predictions: The required slow leakage rate if the crystals were 2 billion years old, and the faster leakage rate if the crystals were a mere 6,000 years old. Notice that the 6,000 year leakage rate is 100,000 times faster than the 2 billion year leakage rate - there is a stark difference between the two. Dr. Humphreys then sent the crystals to a lab to measure the actual leakage rate, to see which model made the correct prediction. When he got the results, the leakage rate was *** on the 6,000 year prediction. This meant that the crystals were 6,000 years old, not 2 billion years old, and that radioactive decay in the past was FASTER than it is now. Dr. Jeff Zweerink posted a response to the RATE team's findings, attempting to demonstrate that the conclusions were wrong. He cited Gary Loechelt who claimed to have found problems with the RATE teams work on the helium diffusion from the zircon crystals. Loechelt basically claimed that the rocks from which the crystals were extracted were colder in the past, and thus the leakage rates would have been smaller. Actually, there was a volcano not far from the location where the zircon samples were taken, the rocks were HOTTER in the past, not colder. If you want the technical reply, Humphreys published it in Creation technical Journal, which you can read here. Secondly, Zweerink also criticized the carbon 14 research in diamonds and coal - claiming it's nothing more than contamination. Really? Did Zweerink not realize that he just shot down carbon 14 dating in one fell swoop? If coal and diamonds can become contaminated with modern carbon 14, then so can archeaological samples that are used to show that earth and civilization is older than the Biblical history allows! Secondly, Dr. John Baumgardner addressed all these alleged sources of "contamination" that Zweerink, and a previous guest author, Kirk Bertsche, claimed. For example, many skeptics claim that nearby Uranium seams contaminate the coal when they emit neutrons, reacting with Nitrogen and thus turning it into Carbon 14 in the coal. There's a HUGE problem with this: The radioactivity of Uranium is so slow, and the radioactivity of Carbon 14 so fast, that the carbon 14 won't collect! Unless the coal is like, 98% Uranium, in which case it's Uranium and not coal. Bertsche and others claimed that perhaps the coal was contaminated while in storage at the Department of Energy. Waitaminit - the DOE had the coal contained in sealed barrels which were purged with argon! Even if the coal samples had absorbed their entire volume in modern air (which is impossible), it STILL would not have provided the high levels of Carbon 14 found in the coal, because there isn't that much carbon 14 in the air! There's much more to this, but I will simply refer you to Brock's response on the Young Earth Creation website. Bottom line: the RATE group's research still stands, in spite of the criticisms of those who are ignorant of the facts and science behind the study. Science Magazine carried a paper on what David Coppedge over at Creation Evolution headlines called a "Whopping case of convergent evolution". An insect called the Katydid was found to have a complicated hearing system much like that found in mammals. This is quite a shock, considering that the insects and mammals are claimed to have branched off from a common ancestor back in the Cambrian period - some 500 million years ago. This common ancestor presumably had NO hearing system. Let's first explore and understand convergent evolution in CrEvo Rant #172: [funny organ music] In order for a theory to be "scientific", it must be falsifiable - that is, one must be able to prove that it is false if it is. In other words, you have to be able to TEST the theory. We creationists have contended for decades that evolution is not falsifiable - that the myth of evolution is very much like water - it will conform to whatever shape you pour it into. The evolution myth will conform to whatever evidence you give it. For example, we are pointed to the homology of bird, horse, whale and human limb bones being similar, and thus allegedly evidence of evolution. We're told this makes sense because these creatures all DIVERGED from a common, unknown amphibian ancestor which presumably had a limb with similar limb bones. This is called divergent evolution: the organisms all came from the same ancestor, and so they each kept some of the traits of the common ancestor. Please notice that this evidence can also be interpreted within the context of a common designer - in other words, the bird, horse, whale and human have similar bones because they were all designed by the same designer. However, we find countless examples of similar traits between organisms that do NOT have an alleged common ancestor with the same trait! For example - the developing circuity in the noses of fruit flies and humans! Fruit flies and humans are far, far apart from each other on the evolutionary tree. Their common ancestor did not have the same circuitry. So while this evidence still makes sense if they had a common designer, the puzzle pieces don't fit together for evolution. [swoosh] [swoosh] Suddenly evolutionary theory has no explanation for the evidence - and so a NEW form of evolution is invented: CONVERGENT evolution. Evolution is assumed to be a fact, therefore humans and the fruit flies must have each developed the same circuitry completely on their own. If the evidence does not fit, make it fit. [swoosh] [hammer banging] [hammer banging lots] [swoosh] The evolution myth, instead of being falsified by the evidence, simply CONFORMS to the evidence. Darwin even admitted that the eye was mind-bogglingly complex, and struggled with an explanation for how ONE eye arose: Yet forget about THE eye evolving by chance processes and natural selection - according to conventional evolutionary thinking, "complex, image-forming eyes evolved some 50 to 100 times..." But if you read further on down the article, you find out what they mean: "Whether one considers the eye to have evolved once or multiple times depends somewhat on the definition of an eye." Wait a minute here: not only is it downright impossible to evolve an eye, you need to do it as much as 100 times??? This doesn't make the impossible more possible, it makes it more IMpossible, because now you have to do the impossible multiple times! There is none so blind as those who do not know what an eye is. But speaking of sight - evolution and natural selection does not have any FOREsight....until its needed, and then evolution once again CONFORMS to the evidence. The bacterial flagellum is an inboard/outboard motor on a bacteria. Composed of mutliple parts, all of which are essential to the system, it is irreducibly complex; if you remove any one part of the system, the whole system fails to do its job of propulsion. While such systems are readily explained by an intelligent designer, what could this system evolve from? If any part had not yet evolved, the whole system doesn't work. So the ancestor has to make parts for something that doesn't yet exist! Even though there's no reason why an organism would do this, this is precisely what is claimed with PRE-adaptation, also known as co-option or exaptation! When evolution does not have an explanation for the evidence, evolution is still ASSUMED! And thus not falsified - a NEW form of evolution must be invented to save the evolution myth. If the pieces of the puzzle don't fit - make them fit. [swoosh] >>Narrator The evidence wasn't quite adding up. The pieces fit together so well, that they were in an impossible position. The perfect fit was an illusion. But all was not lost. [sound of grinder grinding] The scientist determined that he could restore the pieces to their original shape. He cut the damaged pieces and put them back together the way they were before the pieces got damaged. It was a tricky job, but after restoring the pieces, the jigsaw puzzle looked exactly like we expected. As you can see when we compare the puzzle to one that we know was created and designed, we can tell that our puzzle had no intelligent designer, but was the result of chance processes. [swoosh] Onwards upwards evolution is supposed to gain new genetic information - new biological and physical traits. But of course, as I showed in CrEvo rant #78, we know that we are continually LOSING genetic information - we are deteriorating; we are losing functions. For example, axolots, newts and zebrafish can grow back damaged or lost tissue and appendages. But yet close "evolutionary relatives" cannot do this. Dr. Kenneth Poss said: Well does that then mean evolution has been falsified? Oh of course not! Haven't you learned yet? Evolution is assumed true, no matter what the evidence shows - if the evidence shows the opposite of evolution, give it a fancy name and call it evolution - in this case, REDUCTIVE evolution! So as you can see, it does not matter what the evidence is - it is interpreted within the evolutionary paradigm, and then claimed to be proof of the evolutionary paradigm! A perfect circular argument. You either have Devoted divergence, convenient convergence perfect preadaptation or random reduction! Obviously evolution is not falsifiable, therefore it is not a scientific theory. It is mythology. In the meantime, all the evidence can be interpreted easily within the intelligent designer paradigm. There is no force fitting required of the evidence, and in fact in cases like irreducible complexity, if you saw a vehicle or electric motor somewhere, you would ASSUME it was intelligently designed. But who is that intelligent designer? Our best minds and talent on planet earth cannot produce anything even vaguely resembling the complexity and incredible efficiency of the bacterial motor and flagellum. Someone designed it who had the capability to design a motor so small you could fit 8 million of them on the tip of one of your hairs! Who is that Creator? It's none other than Jesus Christ, who also created a body to sacrifice for your sins and mine - but it comes with a price: you must give him your life in return - withholding nothing. And through Him you can enter into the new heaven and the new earth, and eternal life. Why don't you call upon Him to recreate you anew today? The Katydid convergent evolution is almost on par with the alleged evolution of the eye. Montealegre.-Z et al noted that the Katydid used the same three Canonical processing stages for hearing that mammals do As we all know, frequency analyzers can arise by blind, chance processes. David Coppedge nailed it when talking about the science paper, so I'll just quote him: Exactly! Hang tight - we'll be right back after this short break! 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? [beeping sounds] Hmmmm.... I forget - do I cut the blue wire, or the red wire? Or I could just pull the detonator. [scary, dramatic music] I had a pile of comments about the scene from the NOVA documentary where Owen Lovejoy modified the parts of Lucy's fossil pelvis to apparently make it look more human, because of a knee found 2-1/2 kilometers away from the rest of the skeleton which Lovejoy instantly knew was human. Eric wrote in: Thanks for writing in Eric. Apparently Eric didn't quite catch what I said, but unfortunately there is tremendous confusion surrounding this point - and I lay the blame at the feet of Lucy's discoverer, Donald Johanson. Please notice what I said in the program: I did not say Lucy's knee was found 2-1/2 kilometers away, I said the human knee which was found 2-1/2 kilometers away from the rest of the skeleton was used to INTERPRET the Lucy skeleton. This was prolific in Johanson's writings, and he winds up interchanging the two knees all the time - you even see it in the NOVA documentary. Actually, the same things were written in Johanson's book "Ancestors," as well as other writings of his - and oh, by the way, that was Johanson himself who narrated the NOVA production. I even provided the reference for the program, narrated by Johanson himself, the transcript of which is freely available on the internet. Read if for yourself: After lamenting the fact that the knee - what knee? The Human knee found 2-1/2 kilometers away from the rest of the skeleton. After lamenting the fact that the knee looked human, but the shape of her hip didn't - what hip? The hip that looked an awful lot like a chimpanzee hip, which means it couldn't possibly walk upright like a human. Only THEN did they claim that the hip was distorted, and only then did they MODIFY the pieces and only THEN did the reconstructed hip look vaguely human. Read the transcript yourself! If what Johanson said in the production wasn't quite accurate, then why did he say it? And apparently you guys missed the point: I couldn't care less if it took them 20 YEARS to reconstruct the hip - you do not reconstruct a fossil by MODIFYING THE PIECES WITH A DREMEL! If I, or any other creationist did that to a fossil, you guys would all over us, yelling "Fraud!" "lies!" and other accusations that, for once, would actually be justified. So please tell me again why is it if Johanson and Lovejoy modify the evidence, it's not called fraud? To add to the accusations and insults, two more YouTube atheists insisted on beating a dead dinosaur, writing in a barrage of horribly ill-informed claims about Carbon 14 in dinosaur bones. After going back and forth with Paul Chartley a few times, who claimed there would be no carbon in the bones to date, Chartley wrote: baud2bits added his 2 bits Really? Let's see who's gullible, and deceiving others by denying the evidence presented to them, shall we? I'm not quite sure what part of "The bone is still there" you guys don't understand - even after I quoted Philip Currie, who said the same thing I did, both Chartley and 2bits focused on the inorganic compounds of bone, as if that was all that would be left. Even though both Charltey and 2bits are aware of Dr. Mary Schweitzer's findings of blood vessels, blood cells, soft tissue and bone cells from dinosaur bones, both Chartley and 2bits claimed that there is no biomatter left in dinosaur bones that could be carbon dated. To his credit, Chartley at least included the word "If" in his statements, however there's a much more serious issue here. Collagen fibers in dinosaur bones have been documented in the secular scientific literature multiple times, and Miller went into tremendous detail on collagen fibers in his papers. Collagen fibers are connective tissues strewn throughout the body - let's take a look at the molecular structure of a collagen fiber: No, I don't see ANY carbon in there at all, do you? Miller details on his website and in his published technical papers how they test for collagen in dinosaur bones. He also mentioned some fascinating details about collagen in fossil bones, saying: Cherkinsky went into detail on this very subject in a 2009 paper in Radiocarbon, which you can download for free here: So what makes Chartley's and 2bits comments so damning to them is the fact that Hugh Miller specifically discussed all this in the REFERENCES I REPEATEDLY PROVIDED TO THEM. Obviously neither 2bit nor Chartley read the references. Baud2bits - What was that you wrote? "When you deceive by denying evidence, provided to you, you are lying?" I keep hoping that you'll learn your lesson and not be so quick to hurl around the "liar" accusation, because everytime you do, it backfires on you. Okay - having gone way over time, I gotta cut outa here - thanks for joining me, your host, Ian Juby, and please join us again next Genesis Week. You can send in your feedback via email, twitter, or comments on youtube. Let us not forget the words of 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" See you next week. [music] We need your support to help keep this program on the air. You can help by making a tax-deductable donation to CORE Ottawa You can also sign up for Ian's newsletter, detailing current research and news at ianjuby.org