Real Science Friday: 2 Nervous Systems, 3-Day Gorge

[Jefferson]

Real Science Friday: 2 Nervous Systems, 3-Day Gorge

This is the show from Friday August 7th, 2009.


BEST QUOTES OF THE SHOW:

There's a lot of evolutionists now - geologists - who admit [that the grand canyon was caused by a dam breach]. They're called neo-catastrophists. They say that a lot of catastrophes like this happened around the globe but they don't want to admit to a global flood because they don't want to acknowledge anything in the bible.

Darwin was wrong...is about DNA evidence that has forced evolutionists to disgard Charles Darwin's evolutionary tree of life. Now they don't all agree but Fred, the force of the evidence is forcing scientists (evolutionists by the thousands) to say, "We've got to dump the tree of life. Darwin was wrong."

I like what this one evolutionary biologists said. He was quoted in the magazine: "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality." No evidence at all!

These evolutionary biologists that have realized this - are they abandoning the theory of evolution? They say they're not abandoning it but they don't explain why they shouldn't. And the reason why they're not abandoning it, of course, is because evolution is a religion to them. It's not science, it's a religion.

One leading anti-creationist blogger is still angry. He wrote, that in the midst of his and other efforts to debunk creationists...New Scientist magazine hands the creationists a propoganda gold-mine. And he's so angry he's calling for a boycott. He says, "Don't buy New Scientist." So he's openly saying, "Let's not report what's actually happening with our scientific observations. It's too theatening to us."

SUMMARY:

* Real Science Friday & Creation Magazine: Listen in as RSF co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams enjoy the Summer 2009 Creation magazine!
- An enormous gorge in Texas was created in a few days!
- 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."

* Any New Listener or Donor to BEL: You can help us jump start our vital September telethon! If you have never given before to Bob Enyart Live, if you donate this month, or sign up for one of our DVD or Bible Study monthly subscriptions, or purchase anything as a first-timer to BEL, we will apply the amount of your purchase, or your donation or your subscription (which we will multiply times ten!) to help jumpstart our September telethon to raise $40,000 to keep BEL on the Internet at KGOV.com for another year!

* Denver Post & the DNC Sheets of Shame Anniversary: You remember the world's largest protest sign that American RTL unfurled on the Rocky Mountains during the Democratic National Convention? Well, so does the Denver Post. Please email (newsroom@denverpost.com) or call the Denver Post at 303 832-3232 and ask for the news room, and request that they report the story behind the enormous sign on the mountain!

Today's Resource: Have you seen the Government Department at our KGOV Store? Check out the classic God's Criminal Justice System seminar, God and the Death Penalty, Live from Las Vegas, and Bob on Drugs DVDs, and our powerhouse Focus on the Strategy resources!

 

[Lighthouse]

Raise your hand if you're surprised.

*doesn't raise hand*

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Real Science Friday: 2 Nervous Systems, 3-Day Gorge

This is the show from Friday August 7th, 2009.


BEST QUOTES OF THE SHOW:


SUMMARY:

* Real Science Friday & Creation Magazine: Listen in as RSF co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams enjoy the Summer 2009 Creation magazine!
- An enormous gorge in Texas was created in a few days!

And this means that all of them were!
No, wait- it doesn't.
:mrt::duh:

- 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!

What's your point? Do you think that in evolution small=primitive?
:idunno:

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.

What about this do you believe is a problem for evolution?

- 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.

Do you understand what is at stake here? It isn't the theory of evolution, it's the way in which species are differentiated and interrelated in taxonomy.
:doh:

- 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."

That's pretty cool. Again, though- what's your point?

 

[Stripe]

And this means that all of them were! No, wait- it doesn't. :mrt::duh: What's your point? Do you think that in evolution small=primitive? :idunno: What about this do you believe is a problem for evolution? Do you understand what is at stake here? It isn't the theory of evolution, it's the way in which species are differentiated and interrelated in taxonomy. :doh: That's pretty cool. Again, though- what's your point?

:mock: Guys who respond to BEL threads without listening to the show.

 

[Jukia]

:mock: Guys who respond to BEL threads without listening to the show.

I listened to the show. Standard Bob and Fred arguments from personal incredulity.
I think I injured my brain just listening to it. If only either of these guys would bother to learn some real science. Oh well.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

:mock: Guys who respond to BEL threads without listening to the show.

:mock: People who allow a religious agenda to distort science, its methodology, and the nature of consensus.
I've heard it before, Stripe. Bob has some guest and together they laugh at how stupid everyone in the world is except people who get their udnerstanding of the material world from a spiritual text. There is no "real" science, just incredulity and fringe opinions taken as though they had more weight than the rest of the scientific community put together, not because Bob and co. have any real understanding of the scientific positions they are either supporting or denying but because one dovetails nicely with their soppy biblical literalism and the other doesn't.

"Real" science, my patootie...

 

[Granite]

Wow. Darwin wasn't infallible. Thanks for the tip. Film at eleven.

 

[Nick M]

It was a good show, as usual.

 

[Flipper]

What a great post, NickM.

 

[Nick M]

Thanks, captain obvious.

 

[Nick M]

The lack of intermediate fossils is well documented, by people other than Dr. Walt Brown. It makes sense to say there is no trunk on the evolutionary tree, and that there is a missing link. Because they don't exist.

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/eldredge.pdf

 

[PlastikBuddha]

The lack of intermediate fossils is well documented, by people other than Dr. Walt Brown. It makes sense to say there is no trunk on the evolutionary tree, and that there is a missing link. Because they don't exist.

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/eldredge.pdf

The presence of intermediate fossils is well documented by the entire biological and geological scientific community. It makes sense to say that there is no "trunk" on the evolutionary tree because life doesn't change so discretely from one form to another, and Darwin's "model" was more simplistic than reality. People desperate to believe in the imminent collapse of ToE are free to interpret this as they choose, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for ID or YEC to wax dominant in biology.

 

[Jukia]

The lack of intermediate fossils is well documented, by people other than Dr. Walt Brown. It makes sense to say there is no trunk on the evolutionary tree, and that there is a missing link. Because they don't exist.

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/eldredge.pdf

Nick:
1. Walt Brown documents nothing.
2. the Eldredge Gould paper is what? Anti evolution? Pro creation?
3. Charlie Darwin did not know everything.

Deal with it.

 

[Nick M]

The presence of intermediate fossils is well documented by the entire biological and geological scientific community.

Young foolish Christian who doesn't read his bible, it is best if you say nothing at all. You are way off on this. And if you had any idea of the mountain of evidence for creation, you wouldn't side with Satan all time.

Nick:
1. Walt Brown documents nothing.
2. the Eldredge Gould paper is what? Anti evolution? Pro creation?
3. Charlie Darwin did not know everything.

Deal with it.

1. He isn't a part of the discussion.
2. The paper is an observation that there isn't a fossil record supporting evolution.
3. You got that right, even if you are overstating what he does know.

:mock: jokia

On second thought, that rebuttal of yours which said nothing has me convinced. I don't know what I was thinking. :thumb:

PB, the reason jokia doesn't like Dr Brown, is that he has done work as an objective reporter. You know, the thing CNN and Fox pretend to do.

All he did was show the palentologists findings, and how it doesn't add up. That is why jokia said Darwin didn't know everything, when in fact, all of his projections were not just wrong, but the oppposite of what is needed for evolution.

For example;

And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.”

Delighted creationists, much to his dismay.

His book is filled with research from noncreationists who verify the Bible claim of creation. Not intentionally of course. I don't think Richard is a fundie. Well, not of my type.

“Evolutionary biology’s deepest paradox concerns this strange discontinuity. Why haven’t new animal body plans continued to crawl out of the evolutionary cauldron during the past hundreds of millions of years? Why are the ancient body plans so stable?”

Granted an evolutionary origin of the main groups of animals, and not an act of special creation, the absence of any record whatsoever of a single member of any of the phyla in the Pre-Cambrian rocks remains as inexplicable on orthodox grounds as it was to Darwin.

But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth

Fast forward; This article was called conflicts between Darwin and palentology. Because in order to have transition, the fossil record would have to show it. He surmised after digging longer, we would. Guess what...

Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information—what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.

But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition

This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate. A fortiori, it is also true of the classes, themselves, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. ... We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

Just so you know PB, Gould is not a creationist. He shook his fist at God every chance he could. He created that retarded theory I posted that says more or less, an arm just turned into a wing in an instant, because there is no God, and evolution didn't happen. The trade secret of paleontology. Meaning, it is kept from kids in school.

And jokia's pathetic response to discredit Dr Brown, as though this is his work. He is only reporting what the diggers found. Got to go, Jurrasic Park is on.

 

[Alate_One]

Young foolish Christian who doesn't read his bible, it is best if you say nothing at all. You are way off on this. And if you had any idea of the mountain of evidence for creation, you wouldn't side with Satan all time.

Right, I've yet to see any of this mountain of evidence for creation. There don't seem to be any posts on it on ToL. Perhaps you could give us some major pieces of evidence?

And if you think Evolution = Satan, I'm afraid you have an extremely warped viewpoint.

Quote-mining may look good on a forum post but it has no basis in reality. No scientist disputes evolution and there are plenty of "transitional" forms and features.

Here's where the creationist textbook is taken apart, piece by piece by a rather prominent paleontologist, in court.

http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/Padian/Padian_transcript.html

In doing so he mentions quite a number of transitional forms, from fish to amphibians, from dinosaurs to birds, reptiles to mammals, land mammals to whales and so on. I note the defense did not attack the existence or interpretation of these fossils.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Young foolish Christian who doesn't read his bible, it is best if you say nothing at all. You are way off on this.

I'm afraid not, Nick. I'm re-reading my Bible as we speak- going through Corinthians II, as it happens, and being inspired by Paul's revelation. Here's the thing, though:
I turn to the Word for spiritual knowledge, not scientific understanding. When I want to know things about THIS world and the creatures that inhabit it I turn to science. There's a reason for this.

And if you had any idea of the mountain of evidence for creation, you wouldn't side with Satan all time.

I am aware of the "evidence" for creationism. It's all emotional appeals and desperation moves.

PB, the reason jokia doesn't like Dr Brown, is that he has done work as an objective reporter. You know, the thing CNN and Fox pretend to do.

The problem with Brown is that he is offering up what some people want to hear but frankly is well beyond his area of expertise and has already been discredited.

All he did was show the palentologists findings, and how it doesn't add up. That is why jokia said Darwin didn't know everything, when in fact, all of his projections were not just wrong, but the oppposite of what is needed for evolution.

Darwin's main points, that the competition of individuals for resources on a grand scale is what drives evolution, stand even more firm today than when he first articulated them. Certain mechanics and representations have been tuned, but ToE is alive and well. I would say that the changes between our modern understanding and his are less than Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's, for example.

For example;


Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dawkins
And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.”

Delighted creationists, much to his dismay.

Does he show any dismay at the idea or are you projecting over this mined nugget?

His book is filled with research from noncreationists who verify the Bible claim of creation. Not intentionally of course. I don't think Richard is a fundie. Well, not of my type.

On that, I think we can agree. There are atheist fundies, and the Dawk is certainly that. Don't let your distaste completely color your view, though. He is set in his ways, but not stupid. He is not throwing anything out there unintentionally, and he is NOT the spokesperson for ToE.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey S. Levinton, Scientific American, Vol. 267,
“Evolutionary biology’s deepest paradox concerns this strange discontinuity. Why haven’t new animal body plans continued to crawl out of the evolutionary cauldron during the past hundreds of millions of years? Why are the ancient body plans so stable?”

Why indeed? Delve into the world of biology for the answers to those questions, Nick. This idea doesn't shake the notion of evolution like you seem to think it does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T. Neville George, Science Progress, Vol. 48, No. 189
Granted an evolutionary origin of the main groups of animals, and not an act of special creation, the absence of any record whatsoever of a single member of any of the phyla in the Pre-Cambrian rocks remains as inexplicable on orthodox grounds as it was to Darwin.

That's the thing about science, Nick: it isn't settled. It isn't homogenous. It's a bunch of people all trying to make a name for themselves, findind areas where our current understanding is lacking and attacking. This produces an appearance of division that some people would like to exploit, but none of it actually changes our current understanding of the age of the earth or the origin of species- it calls into question our understanding of HOW it happened. Even the notion of Pre-Cambrian rocks, for example, is a tacit acknowledgement of the current model. It would take a lot more than just questioning the nuts and bolts of natural selection to throw this model into doubt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck himself, The Origin of Species
But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth

The discussion over transitionals is overplayed. Whether the YECers want to recognize them or not we have a wealth of transitionals. Simply saying that they aren't what they are doesn't change that.

Fast forward; This article was called conflicts between Darwin and palentology. Because in order to have transition, the fossil record would have to show it. He surmised after digging longer, we would. Guess what...


Quote:
Originally Posted by David M. Raup, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50,
Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky

Surprisingly in his personal view.

and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.
By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information—what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.

This still supports ToE.
It's just not the neat, ordered progression that a Victorian mind would have envisioned. What of it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by David S. Woodruff, Science, Vol. 208,
But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition

The first part merely supports catastrophism and the second is a gross overstatement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gaylord Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press
This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate. A fortiori, it is also true of the classes, themselves, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants

Again, questioning the speed at which changes accumulate in isolated populations hardly calls ToE into doubt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Jay Gould,Natural History, Vol. 86
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. ... We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

Just so you know PB, Gould is not a creationist. He shook his fist at God every chance he could. He created that retarded theory I posted that says more or less, an arm just turned into a wing in an instant, because there is no God, and evolution didn't happen. The trade secret of paleontology. Meaning, it is kept from kids in school.

I know who Gould was. I've read his many books on the subject of evolution. Have you?

And jokia's pathetic response to discredit Dr Brown, as though this is his work. He is only reporting what the diggers found. Got to go, Jurrasic Park is on.

Enjoy, Nick. I highly suggest you pick up a few of Gould's collections of essays. He was a believer both in evolution and in Christ, and an entertaining and articulate champion of science.

 

[Stripe]

Right, I've yet to see any of this mountain of evidence for creation. There don't seem to be any posts on it on ToL.

Perhaps you haven't looked hard enough. I have no trouble finding threads with evidence for a young earth. :idunno:

 

[Nick M]

Why should he ever listen to real science friday? His brain might get taxed in ways he doesn't want. As Richard Dawkins says in plain english, it is as though the fossils were just put there. But there is no evidence that they were created and just put there. Stupid is as stupid does.

Romans 1:20

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse

Speaking of denial, the Evel Knievel testimony with that nincompoop Robert Shuler, he comments on that very thing. He was an atheist, but in his mind, he knew there was a God. Just like what God told Paul, relayed in Romans. Everybody knows. But he had a problem with Jesus. Because he stood for everything right. Jesus wasn't just sinless in action, but righteous in nature.

You can be any religion you want, and atheism and the secular world will accpet you. You speak of Jesus, and satan fights back. Just like when Andy Curry jokingly said he became Wiccan, and one of the idiots here said "cool". As long as it isn't Jesus, because that is the path to the Father.

edit: I had to remove a comment about alate. It was true, but the testimony I used to back it up is wrong. It was a different atheist that said that. My mistake.

 

[Stripe]

edit: I had to remove a comment about alate. It was true, but the testimony I used to back it up is wrong. It was a different atheist that said that. My mistake.

:rotfl:

:mock: Atheists.