Evolution Is Finished!

Evolution Is Finished!

This article will scientifically show that Evolution could NEVER have happened and that Evolutionary science is a fanatical religious fairytale that has NO legitimate scientific evidence for its support!

Other Resources: Evolution – Fact Or Fiction? The Genesis Conflict

I’m including the text of both videos that I have transcribed for the benefit of non-English speakers.

The following is the transcript from Neil’s video above:

Neil deGrasse Tyson’s 25-Minute TAKEDOWN of Christians

I've been brought into some of that conversation just to help people understand what science is and what science is not. And so I think what's unfortunate about how that's turned is religion is becoming sort of the enemy of science, or science the enemy of religion, and that's only because religious forces are trying to put religious writings in the science classroom. Now, there's no tradition of the science professor knocking down the door of the Sunday school telling the preacher to put science in what goes on in the Sunday school class.

There's no tradition of that. There's no scientists picketing outside of churches saying, you know, equal time for a Darwin. That doesn't happen.

It's not how this country was founded. So it's this it's this needless debate going on out there when people need to know if your belief system derives from what's called inspired truths that do not come out of empirical investigation of the physical world. It has no place in the science classroom.

That doesn't mean it has no place anywhere else. Put it in the religious philosophy class. Put it in the history of human thought class.

But it just has no place in the science classroom. And so what concerns me now is even if you're as brilliant as Newton, you reach a point where you start basking in the majesty of God, and then your discovery stops. It just stops.

You're kind of no good anymore for advancing that frontier, waiting for somebody else to come behind you who doesn't have God on the brain and who says, that's a really cool problem. I want to solve it. They come in and solve it.

But look at the time delay. This was a hundred year time delay. And the math that's in perturbation theory is like crumbs for Newton.

He could have come up with that. The guy invented calculus just on a dare practically. When someone asked him, you know, Ike, how come planets orbit in ellipses and not some other shape? And he couldn't answer that.

He goes home for two months, comes back, out comes integral differential calculus, because he needed that to answer that question. And so this is the kind of mind we were dealing with with Newton. He could have gone there, but he didn't.

He didn't. His religiosity stopped him. And so we're left with the realization, of course, that intelligent design, while real in the history of science, while real in the presence of sort of philosophical drivers, is nonetheless a philosophy of ignorance.

And so regardless of what our political agenda is, all you have to say is, science is a philosophy of discovery. Intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance. That's all.

I don't need to see, have you discovered anything lately? If not, get out of the science classroom. But I'm not going to say, don't teach this, because it's real. It happened.

So I don't want people to sweep it under the rug, because if you do, you're neglecting something fundamental that's going on in people's minds when they confront things they don't understand. And it happens to the greatest of the minds, as it happens to everyone else, many, if not most, other people in the public. Don't you sometimes feel sad about breaking all these myths apart? No, because I think it's, some myths deserve to be broken apart, out of respect for the human intellect.

That, no, when you're writhing on the ground and froth is coming out of your mouth, you're having an epileptic seizure. You have not been invaded by the devil. We got this one figured out, okay? I mean, discovery moves on.

So I don't mind the power of myth and magic, but take it to the next frontier and apply it there. Don't apply it in places where we've long passed what we already know what's going on. Do you give people who make this case that that was the beginning and that there had to be something that provoked the beginning, do you give them an A at least for trying to reconcile faith and reason? I don't think they're reconcilable.

What do you mean? Well, so let me say that differently. All efforts that have been invested by brilliant people of the past have failed at that exercise. They just fail.

And so I don't, the track record is so poor that going forward I have essentially zero confidence, near zero confidence that there will be fruitful things to emerge from the effort to reconcile. So, for example, if you knew nothing about science and you read, say, the Bible, the Old Testament, which in Genesis is an account of nature, that's what that is. And I said to you, give me your description of the natural world based only on this.

You would say the world was created in six days and that stars are just little points of light, much lesser than the sun, that in fact they can fall out of the sky, right? Because that's what happens during the revelation. One of the signs that the second coming is that the stars will fall out of the sky and land on earth. To even write that means you don't know what those things are.

You have no concept of what the actual universe is. So everybody who tried to make proclamations about the physical universe based on Bible passages got the wrong answer. So what happened was when science discovers things and you want to stay religious, or you want to continue to believe that the Bible is unerring, what you would do is you would say, well, let me go back to the Bible and reinterpret it.

Then you'd say things like, oh, they didn't really mean that literally. They meant that figuratively. So this whole sort of reinterpretation of how figurative the poetic passages of the Bible are came after science showed that this is not how things unfolded.

And so the educated religious people are perfectly fine with that. It's the fundamentalists who want to say that the Bible is the literally literal truth of God and want to see the Bible as a science textbook who are knocking on the science doors of the schools trying to put that content in the science. But do you have any sympathy for people who seem to feel, only feel safe in the vastness of the universe you describe in your show if they can infer a personal God who makes it more hospitable to them, who cares for them? In this, what we tell ourselves is a free country, which means you should have freedom of thought.

I don't care what you think. I just don't. Think whatever you want.

Go ahead. Think that there's one God, two gods, ten gods or no gods. That is what it means to live in a free country.

The problem arises is if you have a religious philosophy that is not based in objective realities that you then want to put in the science classroom, then I'm going to stand there and say, no, I'm not going to allow you in the science classroom. I'm not telling you what to think. I'm just telling you in the science class, you're not doing science.

This is not science. Keep it out. That's where I, that's when I stand up.

Otherwise, go ahead. I'm not telling you how to think. I think you must realize that some people are going to go to your show at the Planetarium and they're going to say, aha, those scientists have discovered God.

Because God, dark matter, is what holds this universe together. So is that a question? It's a statement. You know they're going to say that.

So the history of discovery, particularly cosmic discovery, but discovery in general, scientific discovery, is one where at any given moment there's a frontier. And there tends to be an urge for people, especially religious people, to assert that across that boundary into the unknown lies the handiwork of God. This shows up a lot.

Newton even said it. He had his laws of gravity and motion and he was explaining the moon and the planet. He was there.

He doesn't mention God for any of that. And then he gets to the limits of what his equations can calculate. Can't quite figure this out.

Maybe God steps in and makes it right every now and then. That's where he invoked God. And Ptolemy, he bet on the wrong horse, but he was a brilliant guy.

He formulated the geocentric universe with Earth in the middle. This is where we got epicycles and all these machinations of the heavens. It was still a mystery to him.

He looked up and uttered the following words. When I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies... These are the planets going through retrograde and back. The mysteries are there.

When I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies, I no longer touch Earth with my feet. I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia. What he did was invoke... He didn't invoke Zeus to account for the rock that he's standing on or the air he's breathing.

It was this point of mystery. And in gets invoked God. This, over time, has been described by philosophers as the God of the gaps.

If that's where you're going to put your God in this world, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance. If that's how you're going to invoke God. If God is the mystery of the universe, these mysteries, we're tackling these mysteries one by one.

If you're going to stay religious at the end of the conversation, God has to be more to you than just where science has yet to tread. So to the person who says maybe dark matter is God, if the only reason why you're saying it's because it's a mystery, then get ready to have that undone. Now, when you talk about these things, somebody in the audience must come up, I assume, and say, well, we only understand 4% of this stuff.

Yeah, that's great. I love it. How is that different from Bill O'Reilly saying, well, in that case, the rest of it's God.

You guys are just expounding beliefs here. You've got no evidence for the 96%. The difference is we do understand the tides.

The tides are part of the 4% we understand. So Bill O'Reilly is giving a list of things that are fully understood. If he had given a list of things that are not understood, that would be a different reaction and it would be less susceptible to comedic mockery than saying tides come in and out.

You can't explain that. It's like, yes, we can. We've known that one for the last couple of hundred years.

Give me a better example. So if he said there's dark matter and there's dark energy forcing an expansion of the universe so fast that it's accelerating, you can't explain that. Right.

We can't explain it. I don't think he knows enough physics to be able to tell us what it is we don't understand yet. That would have been a more interesting exchange with the atheist guy.

I forgot his name, forgive me, but the guy who he was interviewing. Now, if he wants to use that as evidence for God, but then we just have to come back and say, well, it doesn't mean if you don't understand something and the community of physicists don't understand it, that means God did it. Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here's a list of the things in the past that the physicist at the time didn't understand.

And a talk show you might have conducted 200 years ago would have said the planets do retrograde. Can't understand that. Must be a God.

And we'd say, you know, you're right. Then 10 years later, we understand it. So what do you do? So if that's how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on.

So just be ready for that to happen if that's how you want to come at the problem. So that's just simply the God of the gaps argument. It's been around forever.

So, in fact, people who want to make arguments. Wait, wait. And I don't even mind.

I don't even care if someone wants to say, you don't understand that. God did it. That doesn't even bother me.

What would bother me is if you were so content in that answer that you no longer had curiosity to learn how it happened. The day you stop looking because you're content God did it, I don't need you in the lab. You're useless on the frontier of understanding the nature of the world.

And if the world had been if. I'm glad whoever those folks are, there aren't that many of them, because if they dominated the world, we'd still be in the cave. We would have never left the cave because there are mysterious things out there.

And God is doing that. And you don't need to know that and don't even think about it. Where would we be? If their understanding of the world rule the world.

So I don't mind it, but just don't prevent others from conducting that investigation themselves. Do you believe in God? Me? The creator? Yeah. So I'm the more I look at the universe, just the less convinced I am that there is something benevolent going on.

So if you if your concept of a creator is someone who's all powerful and all good, that's not an uncommon pairing of powers that you might describe to a creator. All powerful and all good. And I look at disasters that afflict Earth and life on Earth, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, disease, pestilence, congenital birth defects.

You look at this list of ways that life is made miserable on Earth by natural causes. And I just ask, how do you deal with that? So philosophers rose up and said, if there is a God, God is either not all powerful or not all good. I have no problems if as we probe the origins of things, we bump up into the bearded man.

If that shows up, we're good to go. OK, not a problem. There's just no evidence of it.

And this is why religions are called faiths collectively, because you believe something in the absence of evidence. That's what it is. That's why it's called faith.

Otherwise, we would call all religions evidence. But we don't for exactly that reason. So I'm given what everyone describes to be the properties that would be expressed by an all powerful being in the gods that they worship.

I look for that in the universe and I don't find it. So is there a God then, Neil deGrasse Tyson? I'll be about to have breaking news. I don't know.

Is there a God? OK, so I will tell you is that there are a lot of unknowns in the universe. But just because there are unknowns does not mean there's a deity in the unknown. If you're going to assign a deity to that, which it doesn't mean there isn't.

That's correct. So you're more of an open mind about this, right? Everyone should. If the unknown is the unknown, but the the track record of people saying God is behind this and then you add a little science to it and you find out that we can completely explain it and control it, then that the history of that exercise is so rich with science, discovering the unknowns that were previously ascribed to deity like lightning bolts and weather systems.

There was Poseidon. There was Zeus. There was just look at the history of this.

I'm not given reason to say we're going to find something. God is going to be at the center of that and there'll be no science to apply. I'm going to look for the science first because that's how the history of this exercise has unfolded.

Which is why does religion have such a persistent hold on human thought despite all that we know of science? Yeah, I think there are several ways one can address that question. Let me address it in a... Consider not long ago when so much of the Western world was the state was the religion. And we have actually moved quite a distance from that compared with 200 years ago, 300 years ago, 400 years ago, the era of the Inquisition and this sort of thing.

And so to say that it has such a grip, it has a fraction of the grip that it once did on the operations of human conduct and of society. So the real question is if implicit in that is given what we know of science, why would religion still have any grip at all? Why does it still have a big grip? Because it's not a big grip when you look in the developed world. So, in fact, most of Europe are just their whole countries where religion has essentially disappeared entirely.

And the countries are not full of violence and it's just the assumption that you have to be religious to be moral is a false one. It's empirically false because you just look around in places where that's the case. So that's one fact.

And we pull away from that a little. There's plenty of what goes on in religious texts that has tremendous value to how to think about life and how to treat one another. In fact, Jefferson created what was essentially what you can think of as the Thomas Jefferson, the Jefferson Bible.

I don't know if you ever heard of this. He went through the Bible and I think both the Old and the New Testaments, and he crossed off everything that was sort of mythical, magical, things that clearly violated known laws of nature and kept the rest and said, here is the stuff of the Bible that should have value to any modern person going forward. If you look at people who are religious today who are not in conflict with science, they have viewed their religious text as a spiritual, something that gives them spiritual support, not as a science textbook.

The conflict in society is when you have those who are still religious who want to use their religious text as their access point to understanding the natural world. And persistent efforts of the past to make that happen have just simply failed. The Bible does not work as a science textbook.

In fact, Galileo knew this, and he himself was a religious man. I read a book, Consolation of Philosophy. The main guy Boethius is condemned to death.

He has everything taken from him. All he has is his reason and his sense of self, not even that. But he attempts to console himself to this execution by reasoning that the world has order, that there is something that keeps things together.

And he uses his reason to try and get to the root of why he should be at peace at death. The problem is his source of origin is a belief in God. What would you do? Well, I don't know if I fully understand the question.

I do know that if he's about to be executed. How about you are about to be executed? I'm about to be executed. You have nothing except your knowledge and your knowledge of science, your experience.

I would request that my body in death be buried, not cremated, so that the energy content contained within it gets returned to the earth so that flora and fauna can dine upon it, just as I have dined upon flora and fauna throughout my life. At the one to two minute mark, Neil talks about how even some of the smartest individuals in history, like Newton, had to bask in the majesty of God at some point, after which their discoveries basically stopped. And that isn't the only example of just how dangerous dogma can be.

Two scientific advancements. Nicholas Copernicus, a genius astronomer who proposed that the heliocentric system of the universe had to wait more than 30 years until he was near his death to publish his work because he knew his ideas would be controversial and more than certainly, church officials would punish him for heresy. And he was right to worry because after he published his work, which he titled On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, the church added it to its index of forbidden works for centuries, man.

Even worse, when another genius arose shortly thereafter, Galileo Galilei, and supported Copernicus's heliocentric model of the solar system, the church not only forced him to recant his support under the threat of torture, but they also put him under house arrest for the rest of his remaining life. Just imagine, man, if all these guys and many others like them who are lost to history, just imagine if they existed in a more science-friendly environment. What things would they have uncovered? As Neil deGrasse Tyson points out.

And this actually reminds me of another point. When you're debating Christians and you point out the harms that religion has had on society since the beginning of time, one of the points they'll usually throw back at you is that, well, good things in history have also been done by people who believed in God, such as those that led the abolition movement. But as we've seen, man, most people in history just happened to be Christians, not because the word of God was so seductive and nurturing, but because being anything but a believer and a Christian back then was akin to a life sentence of misery, if not worse.

It's undeniable today that if the likes of Galileo and Copernicus existed today, they'd be the farthest thing from the Bible thumpers running amok in America today. And also, what remains a fact at the end of the day is that holy scriptures, like the Bible, were used to justify some of the worst crimes against humanity. And I personally find it weird that a book some people hail as a rich and perfect trapezoid of love, kindness, and holiness can be used for such evils.

Now, you could argue that since both good and evil people in the past used the Bible to justify their motivations, doesn't that show that the common denominator is humans and they are the problematic piece of the puzzle? I actually agree with that 100%. My only point is that Christians were part of the abolishment movement, were on the losing end of a theological argument. The pro-enslavement Christians were able to point to multiple passages in the Bible where their dark desires were supported and encouraged, but not a single verse in the supposedly huge holy book burned the practice explicitly, man.

Don't you find that weird? Thanks a lot, guys, for joining me today. I really hope you've enjoyed the short video. Please tune in tomorrow.

Well, Neil, you’re in for quite a shocker! Below is a video I found on my 69th birthday today that blows apart the entire Theory of Evolution once and for ALL!

Mind-Blowing Nanobots in All Living Cells!

What are nanobots? Well, they're little robots that are within our cells. They're nano because they're smaller than micro. There are rotary motors, there are linear motors, there are all sorts of things operating within our cells.

They are so sophisticated that they could not have evolved by natural processes. They scream at us intelligent design. If you unravel a string, it gets to a point where it just gets all knotted up and tangled.

Well, with DNA, that tangling occurs. Now there's a special motor which actually cuts the DNA and detangles it. And without that, life is not possible because the DNA tangles without it and there's no way it could have evolved.

That's mind-blowing. What is your actual favourite molecular motor? Probably the most amazing to me is... So Don, when we think of nanobots, we think of Tony Stark in the Marvel Universe. But actually nanobots are in our cells actually keeping us alive right now.

Don, you're a scientist. What are nanobots? So nano is smaller than micro and micro is basically what you can see under a light microscope. So these nanobots are actually little robots or motors and things inside our cells, which are actually, you can't see with a light microscope.

They're actually smaller than that. So you can see the cells with a light microscope, but you can't see these motors. And so these motors are in cells and even smaller.

Really small. That's right. Very tiny.

And are there nanobots that are essential to life? Like you can't live without them? Many of these are essential to all life. Right. What could one of these be then? Well, one of them is ATP synthase.

And ATP synthase synthesizes a chemical called ATP for short, or the long word is adenosine triphosphate. And ATP is necessary for all life. Everything that lives has ATP synthase or ATP and ATP synthase.

And, you know, bodies can make half our body weight in ATP in a day. So how does it work? How is it manufactured? So ATP takes ADP, which is adenosine diphosphate, adds a phosphate. So it makes adenosine triphosphate.

So in the process of joining these two things together, it puts energy into the compound, basically. So it takes a electrical current made of protons, unlike our electric motors, which are driven by electrons. And this drives the motor to spin.

And during that process, it actually puts that electrical energy into chemical energy in the form of ATP. Right. And we know that ATP are rotary motors.

And but if they're so tiny, how can we be sure that they're rotary motors? Yeah, that's a good question. And you can't actually see them rotating, as I said, with a light microscope. So scientists who were studying this back in the 1980s and early 90s proposed that it was probably a motor, a rotary motor.

And a Japanese scientist actually did an experiment where he proved it was. And it was very clever. At the time, there were other scientists who said, oh, it couldn't possibly be a rotary motor, because how could it evolve? Well, it would be a very difficult thing for something to create.

A good question, you know. So how could evolution produce a rotary motor like those? But the Japanese scientist actually attached a filament to the rotating part of the motor. And the filament had a fluorescent tag on it, which under a light microscope with ultraviolet light would fluoresce.

And so he could actually see this actin filament rotating around, turned by the ATP synthase and proved it was a rotary motor. And so the scientists that actually proposed this got the Nobel Prize for it. The Japanese scientist didn't get a look in, but he was the one who actually proved it was a rotary motor by doing something which you could see under a light microscope.

Before we continue, a quick heads up. Stick around to the end of the interview, because we'll be giving away a free stream of our award-winning documentary, Evolution's Achilles Heels. You won't want to miss it.

Now back to the interview. Well, that's so impressive that there's a rotary motor. And I mean, if we have a rotary motor, like where actually is it in our body? Yeah, virtually every cell has these rotary motors.

And they're particularly numerous in things like muscle cells where you need lots and lots of ATP to drive the movement of your muscles. But there are many, many thousands of them in each cell. And they're located in our cells in mitochondria.

In plants, they also have them in the chloroplasts, which is where the photosynthesis occurs. In bacteria, they're embedded in the inner membrane of the cell. So a bacterium just has a cell wall.

It doesn't have membranes within the bacterium. So the ATP synthase is built into the cell wall. So if you had to describe how this engine actually functioned on a very sort of nitty gritty level, because we know it's a rotating engine, but what makes it up? Do we know? Well, yes.

I mean, the structure's fairly well known, although there's still question marks about exactly how it translates this electrical energy into chemical energy. So you've got a stator, which is a static part, like our motors have a stator. So a static part, which sort of holds it all together on the outside.

And then in the middle is a rotor, which rotates. And in the tube, there's a tube that's sort of embedded in the membrane. And it's in that tube that the protons actually flow up through the motor and sort of turn the rotor, which is inside that.

It's a bit like a windmill with the wind turning the windmill or a water wheel with the water turning the water wheel. The protons actually turn the rotor in the middle. And then above the rotor, there's the three parts, which actually is where all the work happens with translating the ADP and ATP.

And as the rotor turns, it changes the shape of each of these three parts one at a time as it turns around. And basically there's a groove, which fits the ADP, adenosine triphosphate. It fits in the groove and then the phosphate fits in also.

And then as it squeezes it, some way or other, it actually forces the mechanical energy generated by the proton current turning of the rotor. The mechanical energy is translated into chemical energy of the bond, which is formed with the phosphate. So the ATP is full of energy, ready to be used somewhere else in the cell.

So this actually is turning physical energy into chemical energy in a bond. Yes. And that's then used back to be turned into some sort of electrical current.

Yeah. So that ATP can be used in all sorts of other things in the cell. So a lot of other machines which actually use ATP, a lot of enzymes use ATP to manufacture proteins, which our bodies are made of and that's the stuff of life.

A protein manufacturer requires ATP. Yeah. Copying the DNA requires ATP.

As I say, moving muscles requires ATP. Cilia, all sorts of things in our body that move require ATP. So if something moves in our body at a molecular level, ATP is involved.

ATP is involved. Yeah. And so as you've said, we produce about half our body's weight, did you say, in ATP a day? A day, yeah.

That's a lot of ATP and that means the motors must be working pretty fast. How fast are they spinning? Yeah, about 9,000 revs per minute. It's about like jet engine speed.

I mean, I was driving my car here today and- I hope you didn't try and drive at that speed. 9,000 revs, my engines are blowing up. That's right.

So that's spinning at some pretty high speeds right there. So how big is this? We know it's a cell. We know it's in the mitochondria.

So how big is the single engine? This is a mind blowing thing. It's so small that 100,000 would sit side by side in a millimeter. So a millimeter is like that much, like 1 25th of an inch.

And 100,000 would sit side by side in a millimeter. That's a lot of them that could fit into our entire body. So how could an entire motor, something that's as functional as it is, evolve? Well, this is a problem for the evolutionary story because all living things have ATP synthase, which strongly suggests that it's necessary for life, particularly when you consider how much bodies need ATP and how much every living thing uses ATP.

And even some bacteria which don't use ATP synthase to make ATP, it's made by another mechanism. But then those bacteria use ATP synthase in reverse, so it can run in reverse. And those running in reverse, it generates a current of protons.

So then that current of protons can be used to drive other things like the bacterial flagellum, which we can talk about in a little while. So the idea that this motor that's part of every cell of our body is the idea that it's actually been evolved or came from sort of a random chance of an amalgamation of things is fairly low. So what is the proposed suggestion? If evolution seems like it's not going to be able to explain this, what is the proposed evolution idea? There's always a story to try and explain things.

And the story with ATP synthase comes from helicase. So helicase is another rotary motor which is used to untwist the DNA. So the DNA has to be untwisted like the double helix of the DNA.

If you're going to read it to make proteins, it'll make messenger RNA, which makes proteins. Or if you're going to untwist it so it can be copied for reproduction or cell division, this helicase is involved in that. So it's actually necessary for that process.

It doesn't happen without helicase. So some people suggest that, oh, you know, the top part of the ATP synthase, the bit that takes the ATP and adds the phosphate to make ADP, just that bit of it is similar to helicase. Therefore, one evolved from the other.

You know, ATP synthase came from helicase. But helicase requires ATP. So we sort of got, I'd like to say the chicken and the egg problem, but one needs the other.

That's right. And the one, the ATP synthase, the more complex one is what's needed to support the other one that was supposedly meant to come before it. Yeah, well, a lot of things actually have the sort of equivalent of the top part of the ATP synthase, because that's where they take the ATP, run it in reverse to generate the energy to do what they're doing.

Right. So it's in fact more responsive from the ATP sort of being there at the same time or earlier. Yeah, they sort of have to both be together, don't they? I mean, you can't have one without the other.

I mean, so this is one of the big problems with the whole evolutionary story, the origin of life is that there's no way you can have life without all the different parts functioning together to start with. There's no stepwise process by which you can get this. I mean, sometimes wave a magic wand of natural selection, you know, but natural selection only works if it works.

It works in terms of differential reproduction. In other words, something is better adapted to survive, more of them will survive to pass on their offspring. But if you don't have a cell that can reproduce, natural selection does nothing.

It can't do anything. So it doesn't explain anything. And the attempt to explain the origin of these things by comparing them with other things, which don't even have all the components.

I mean, not one of the components of the ATP synthase could ever evolve. You can do the maths. I mean, maths shows that even if the whole universe is experiments over billions of years, it would never happen.

So not even one of the components would ever arise by random arrangements of amino acids or anything like that. But to have the cell that functions, you need everything working together. Yeah.

Well, I mean, this whole idea of ATP synthase and how integral it is to a cell kind of screams that there's probably some divine creator out there. If someone, if, you know, it took us however long to design an engine ourselves and however many brains working together. And there are even tinier nano ones that we can barely even see exist in all of our cells.

Yeah. And these, these nanomotors are incredibly efficient. I mean, the ATP synthase is as close as they can measure a hundred percent efficient.

A hundred percent efficient. In other words, there's virtually zero friction or anything like that. You know, it's just like makes our motors look pathetic.

Yeah. And so is there any sort of other rotary motors or something similar to that in, in cells or something that also could back up and say, hey, look, you know, this once-off isn't just a fluke in, you know, humans. There's actually more.

Yeah. There's one in bacteria that was the bacterial flagellum. And it's an amazing rotary motor, much more complex than ATP synthase actually.

Right. I mean, ATP synthase was already sounding very complex. Yeah.

And the bacterial flagellum is about four times the width, a bit over four times the width of the ATP synthase. And it's also driven by a proton current, but actually in the reverse direction. A lot of reversing and proton currents.

Okay. So we have a proton current, not just ATP being used to make the proton current, but there is just a proton current? Yeah. So the proton current in the bacterium actually drives the bacterial flagellum to spin.

Okay. It's a rotary motor. And where does that proton current actually come from? Well, that's another lot of stuff that's actually involved in generating it.

You know, there's other motors and other things involved in generating the ATP or the proton current, you know, there's a gradient in the proton. So there's more protons outside the cell than inside the cell. And that actually drives the motor to spin.

Right. So we've got a proton current that's actually just driven by a difference in the amount of protons outside than inside. Yeah.

So there's more outside than inside, which means there's a drive to go inside. That's the sort of way, and that drive actually spins the motor. Okay.

So we have an even more complex engine in bacterial flagellum than ATP synthase. Yeah, there's about 29 unique components in the bacterial flagellum. Yeah.

Describe it more for me. How does it actually function then? We got 29 proteins. Yeah.

So there's multiples of some of those. I mean, there's actually with the filament of the flagellum itself, there's actually a few proteins which are multiplied many times to get the filament. But if you look down the bottom of the motor, there's sort of like a tubular apparatus.

And that's the first thing formed. And it actually then, it's sort of an assembly apparatus that sort of takes the proteins that make the rest of it and puts them through the middle, and then they assemble on top. And then eventually the last thing that forms is the filament or the flagellum itself.

Right. And so we have a complex engine that has a complex way of forming and is pretty unexplainable already. So what is its actual purpose? So you can imagine it uses some energy.

So you've got this thing actually using energy. So what would be the purpose of having a motor unless it did something useful? That's the question. So what is it doing? Is it swimming in circles? That wouldn't be a waste of energy, wouldn't it? A lot of wasted energy there if you're swimming in circles.

So what the bacterium uses it for is to swim towards food or to swim away from toxins. Right. So how does it know the food's there? How does it know the toxins are there? Yeah, how? I don't know.

Well, it has this sensor array which senses all sorts of chemicals, and then a computer, if you like, which processes information. So for example, if it's swimming or living in a medium with sort of a good source of glucose, for example, over here, it has a sensor which says, oh, there's more glucose on this side of the cell than there is on that side of the cell, so swim in this direction. And then not only that, but it actually has a memory which says the glucose concentration is increasing, you're heading in the right direction.

Or it's decreasing, which means you're swimming away from the glucose. And what happens then? In less than a quarter of a turn, it can actually change the direction of the flagellum and swim another direction. Well, in less than a quarter of a turn.

So how fast is it spinning to start with? Well, here's another mind-boggling thing, is it's spinning at 100,000 revs per minute. 100,000 revs per minute. And it can change direction in a quarter of a turn.

We were talking with ATP synthase, we were talking like 9,000, and now you're giving me just over 11 times faster. And in one quarter of a turn. A quarter of a turn, it can change direction.

It can change direction. And by the way, we're talking about the bacterial flagellum and E. coli, which is considered the simplest one. There are ones in other bacteria which have gears, and like a gear shift type thing, it can actually change gears and actually run faster or slower, and all this sort of stuff.

And a brake, and some of them have got a brake actually stop it. I feel like I'm yet to see a car evolve in my life and do that. And yet this kind of thing is going on in our cells.

Yeah. And again, with virtually zero friction as well. So 100 is sort of close to 100% efficiency.

Yeah, that's right. That is mind-boggling. It is mind-boggling.

And so we talked about how it moves towards food and away from toxins. How precise is it with that? You said there was sort of like a computer that could kind of remember what was going on. Does it still sort of happen that like one will accidentally run into some toxins, or is it pretty accurate? Yeah.

Some of the scientists involved in studying this talked about exquisite precision in terms of the information processing, the sampling, the measurement of the food or toxins or whatever, and feeding it to the system. And then you've got between five and 10 flagella in each bacterium, and they're actually coordinated to actually work together. So it's not just like one at the back of the cell is pushing it, but you have multiple working to direct it in a very accurate and precise way.

That's right. Yeah. And just the ability for that to actually happen in bacteria is mind-blowing because that's so precise, and that sounds like someone's designed it.

Yeah. Yet again, it sort of screams this divine creation. It does.

It's far beyond anything we could contemplate designing or imagining. It's even more. The assembly of the flagellum, so how do they control having five or so, five to 10, how do they control the number, where do they assemble them, is the assembly process, how does that work? I mean, you've got all those components.

I mean, it could get a bit messy if they all arrived at the same time. Yeah, well. So what happens? So you'd have to start with the base and work your way up with all the rest of it.

And that's what happens. You think about, say, building a house, you have the roof trusses delivered first, don't you? Probably not because the roof goes up first. Of course not.

It's going to be crazy. And if the roof trusses get in the way, you wouldn't be able to dig the footings and put the reinforcing metal down, put the concrete in footings, put the foundations down, put the floor down, put the walls down. Then you bring the trusses in at the end.

Well, when the bacterial flagellum is assembled, it works like that. The components are delivered to the site in the order in which they're needed. If you're enjoying this interview so far, you might be interested to know that we also produced the world's most widely read magazine on the creation evolution debate, Creation Magazine.

It's packed with beautifully illustrated articles showing how real science supports the Bible. It's designed for the whole family and is a great tool for strengthening your faith. Sign up now to receive four issues per year.

Follow the link in the description. That's mind-blowing. And so with that being so mind-blowing, and I'm always more inclined to say, you know, I think there's some divine creation going on.

It's sort of rather obvious, isn't it? A little bit obvious. With that, obviously there are going to be people who don't think that's the case. And do they have some sort of explanation to talk about how this might've occurred more naturally? Of course, there's always a story.

So one attempt, probably the only attempt I know of to try and explain this is the certain pathogenic bacteria have a system to inject stuff into other cells like toxins. And this is called an injectosome. And there's some similarities between it and the base of the bacterial flagellum that actually does the assembly process.

So it actually injects the proteins and things into the tube, which then becomes all the different parts of the flagellum. So just that part is somewhat similar to that injection process, injection apparatus. And so the argument was the bacterial flagellum evolved from that.

Well, even from an evolutionary point of view, that doesn't work because when they look at all the different bacteria and how they compare, if anything, the injection process devolved from the bacterial flagellum, where it's not the other way around. Where the injection is a more simplistic version. It's a much simpler, it's just part, just a tiny part of the bacterial flagellum, if it was that.

But actually this comparison of the two actually shows that they're two different for them to be closely related like that in the sense of one evolving from the other. It seems like the more we learn about bacterial flagellum, the more complex it seems to become. So do you reckon it becomes even harder and harder to explain it as evolving to get there? Yeah, exactly right.

The more we know, the more difficult it gets to try and explain it by some sort of natural process. And so I have no hesitation in saying this screams at us, there must be a super, super intelligent creator behind the design of this. I mean, there's even a computer program that actually operates within, I was talking about the assembly process and the order in which things arrive.

We had an article in our creation magazine not long back by a scientist who actually drew up the logic flow. In other words, a computer program type of thing, which actually is used by the bacterium to determine the order in which things are delivered to the site. And, you know, like it's a logic flow diagram that most people couldn't understand.

And yet this is in the bacterium that supposedly made itself by natural processes over, you know, et cetera. So you've got like a computer code that sort of replicates something that happens at such a nanoscale. Yeah, it's all happening in this cell.

You need a microscope to see it and you can't. And you can see the bacterial flagellum in a light microscope, the actual filament and everything, swimming around. But the actual mechanism of the motor is just amazing, just absolutely amazing.

Well, again, circling back to us talking about how, you know, it becomes more and more complex and harder to talk about and explain it as evolution. I've heard some evolutionists accusing creationists of using a sort of God of the gaps scapegoat, if you like, talking about how we don't really understand a lot of things and we might say that to explain it away. What would you say to that? Yeah, so sort of the God of the gaps argument is, oh, we don't understand it, therefore God did it, that sort of thing.

And that's a really bad argument. I don't use that argument. I argue from the point of view of knowledge.

That is, when we look at these things we're looking at, what we know about them actually screams at us that there's a super intelligent creator behind these things. They couldn't have come about by natural processes. And that argument gets stronger with more knowledge, whereas a God of the gaps argument disappears, an argument for God disappears when we understand it.

And I'm not arguing we don't understand it, therefore God did it. I'm arguing we do understand it, therefore God did it. A very different argument.

And a very powerful argument. I understand God did something so, so complex at such a scale that we can't even really comprehend. I think he's smiling at the scientists and saying, hey, get your minds around this, guys.

Check this out, check out what I can do. Yeah, that's right. That's awesome.

Yeah. So, we've spoken about some two different kind of rotary engines that are so microscopic, like nano-level in our cells keeping us alive. Are there any kind of other engines or something similar that are also in cells that are really helpful? Well, we can talk about linear motors, you know, which don't rotate, but they actually move in a linear fashion.

Oh, right. Yeah. Okay.

So, we can talk about a kinesin, for example. And there's actually various forms of kinesin, but the first one that was discovered is a family called Kinesin 1. And it actually walks around our cells delivering parcels. So, could you elaborate on that more? So, it's delivering parcels.

I mean, why do we have parcels in our cells anyway? And what are they walking on? What are they, they're walking, we've got walking things in our cells now. Yeah, they've got walking things in our cells. So, there's a, in our cells, not in bacteria, but in our cells, we have a road network of microtubules and they're made of proteins.

It's actually a very dynamic road network in the sense of, it can be recycled and then built again, depending on where it's needed and so on. So, you can imagine travelling on the highway and the highways appearing in front of you as you're driving, that sort of thing. And that's the sort of thing we're talking about.

But this road network, what happens is the kinesins actually walk along the road network delivering parcels of proteins. So, for example, proteins are made here in the cell, but they might be destined to go to the mitochondrion. So, what happens is the proteins which are destined for the mitochondrion have a label on them, which say, deliver me to the mitochondrion.

And the, you remember in high school, labelling a cell? Mostly, yeah. Well, you had a nucleus and nucleolus and cell wall and Golgi apparatus. You remember Golgi apparatus? A squiggly line looking thing that I didn't really know what it was.

You didn't know what it was or what it did. Well, what that does, we now know, it actually reads the address labels and packages up the proteins that are going to the same destination. So, you can imagine with an address saying, go to Melbourne on your letter.

And so, all the ones going to Melbourne get parceled up in the same bag. Well, this is happening in the cell. So, all the proteins going to the mitochondrion get parceled up together.

And then the kinesin comes along and grabs it, attaches itself to it, and then walks along the road network of microtubules and delivers them to the destination. And so, we have these things walking around on these little highways delivering proteins. What's the purpose of the proteins? Why are they actually so important? So, the mitochondrion wouldn't work without the proteins.

Now, you probably ate some starch for lunch. You had a sandwich with starch in the bread and starch breaks down the glucose. When you put that in your mouth, your body said, you need amylase to digest the starch.

A signal went to your salivary glands and the salivary glands manufactured amylase. How did it get into your saliva? Well, the amylase was transported by the kinesin, dumped outside your cell into the saliva. How quickly did that happen? All within seconds.

So, I've taken a bite of my BLT that I actually did have at lunch. You're right, there was bread as part of that starch. I take a bite, and before I even really know what's going on, there's been chemicals dumped so I can digest.

Enzymes to digest the starch and make glucose out of it. That's amazing. So, how fast are they moving then? You might have seen the animation of it plodding along like this sort of thing.

That's quite misleading. I mean, it's sort of done at that speed so I can see what's happening, but they actually walk at 100 to 200 steps per second. Yeah.

So, we're talking how many steps across a cell, do you reckon, or how fast is that moving? Well, looking at 125,000 steps in a millimetre, so that's how small it all is, but a cell is a fraction of a millimetre total diameter. So, it doesn't take very long for the kinesin to do what it needs to do. In fact, I can illustrate it even better.

Put your hand on a hot plate. Yeah. How long does it take to react? No time at all, really.

I've realised it's hot and I've taken my hand off very quickly. But your brain is involved in that process. Yeah.

Because your brain's processed a signal which says your hand's burning, pull your hand away. Yeah. And then your muscles have to react and all that, and that actually uses ATP.

But your brain process, so you've got neurons in your brain, and then the electrical signal comes from your hand saying your hand's burning, but your brain has to process that. And so, in the synapse between the two neurons, there's a little gap, tiny little gap, but chemicals have to be transmitted across that gap for that signal to be processed by your brain to tell you your hand's burning. And there are neurotransmitters, there's over 100 of those known, and things you've probably heard of dopamine and serotonin, acetylcholine, and there's about 100 of them that I know about.

And depending on what happened with your nerves, depends on which neurotransmitters are dumped into the synapse to actually get the right reaction. Adrenaline might be one of those. So yeah, if I touched it, I wouldn't feel calm, I'd feel like- That's right, you'd feel panic.

Panic. Pull your hand away. So, all this happens by kinesins.

Kinesins actually have these neurotransmitters sitting there, ready to dump into the synapse. How quickly does all that happen? Well, within a fraction of a second. Fraction of a second, that's right.

All the way from there. They're involved in this. The research on things like Alzheimer's and brain degeneration diseases, one of the things they're finding is that these tangles of proteins that interfere with things, interfere with the neurotransmitters being dumped into the synapse by the kinesin.

And so- They actually bind to the microtubules, so the kinesins can't walk along and dump the stuff in. And so, that's actually blocking us from being, blocking the synapse from working. Yeah, the synapse doesn't work properly and you get the symptoms of dementia.

Oh, wow. So, they're really, these things are just absolutely amazing and what they do and how important they are. That's just one of the families of kinesins, kinesin one.

Yeah, and this sounds like it's got so many purposes. Are there any more purposes that you can think of that actually kinesins use? So, you've probably seen the pictures of a cell division under a microscope. Yeah, yeah.

The chromosomes all line up across the middle in the spindle and then they'd separate out and they pull apart and form two new cells. Kinesins are involved in that. But a different type of kinesin, it's a kinesin five family, they're called.

And they have a walkie thing on each end. So, rather than a walkie thing on one end and attached to a bag on the other, the vesicle, they've actually got a walkie thing on both ends. And so, they walk on microtubules on both ends.

Right, yeah. So, they're actually involved in pulling the chromosomes together in the middle and then pulling them apart to make the new cell. Right.

And so, that's a completely different kind of kinesin, but same family. It's the same mechanism in the sense of it's got the walkie thing and it walks along the microtubules. But the microtubules attach to the chromosomes and then they actually pull them apart or pull them together, depending on which way the microtubules go.

And so, kinesins are sounding more and more essential to my life. They're absolutely essential to your life and mine and everything which has a cell with a nucleus and chromosomes. So, everything from yeast to humans actually have kinesins.

Bacteria don't have them. Bacteria don't have them. Don't have them, no.

So, if bacteria evolved into us supposedly, where did these kinesins come from? Exactly. Where did they come from? How could they possibly evolve? And not only where did a specific type of kinesin come from, where did all the versions of kinesin come from? Well, I mean, you look at the kinesin 5 family and how does cell division occur without them with cells that have chromosomes? Bacteria have a circular chromosome of DNA, but there's no chromosome structure like with proteins and things wrapping around and all that sort of thing. So, bacteria don't need kinesins to divide and reproduce, but everything from yeast to us does.

And so, if bacteria became yeast or something like that, how did they invent the whole chromosome replication, separation, cell division, all that stuff that depends on kinesins and also the delivery system with kinesin 1 delivering proteins to the right places. I mean, our bodies can make at least 100,000 different proteins, different cells make different proteins, possibly as many as a million. We don't really quite know how many.

So, what would happen if those proteins were all made together and they weren't actually labelled and separated and delivered the way they want to be? They interfere with one another. Well, it would be like, as you said, like a postage system if I didn't tell you where the addresses were, you'd just have to try and figure it out and mail would go to the wrong spots. That's right.

It'd be a total mess. So, they're totally essential to life as we know it, and they're not in bacteria. How do you invent a delivery system that depends on labels on the proteins, reading the labels, packaging them up, delivery system, the microtubules.

So, you've got a road network to deliver on and all that has to happen properly or it doesn't work at all. It's not as if you can have a stepwise process by which you can get some sort of function and then a little bit of advantage. It has to all be functional for it to work at all.

So, it's quite totally beyond any natural evolutionary process of lucky accidents called mutations in bacteria to generate such a thing. And so, I've heard evolutionists speaking of natural selection like a bit of a magic wand, saying that, you know, you can work a little bit of a miracle. What would you say to that? Well, it depends on mutations, not natural selection.

The mutation is the only mechanism I have for generating the new proteins. So, for example, if you have bacteria that don't have kinesin, how do you get kinesin for the next stage of evolution? And what's the point of having kinesin? So, if you have, even if you've got the kinesin, which the actual active part of the kinesin is 350 amino acids, just the active part, not the whole lot, you do the calculations of 20 amino acids. One over 20 is a chance of getting the first one right.

One over 20 is a chance to get the second one right. One over 20 times 350, multiplied by itself 350 times, you've got the chance of getting that sequence of the active part of the kinesin. Which is a very, very negligibly small number.

Which is never going to happen. It's never going to happen. And if you got that, what would be the purpose of it? Unless you had the microtubule road network system for it to happen and something for it to do that made it actually worthwhile.

Otherwise, it's using up ATP for no purpose whatsoever. Which in some sort of natural selection method would actually probably be bred out then if it's not actually serving any kind of positive purpose. Exactly right.

So, if you had this part system which are wasting energy, natural selection would get rid of it. Yeah. So, it actually looks more like you would be more likely to lose any kind of information.

Yeah. Any step towards the functional system would be detrimental and natural selection would get rid of it. So, design wise, these engines are crazy.

I can't even imagine trying to design one myself in some kind of large scale. What is your actual favourite molecular motor though? We've talked about all these different ones. What's your favourite? Well, we've talked about some rather amazing ones.

But probably the most amazing to me is one called topoisomerase, which is a big word. Sounds very complex and it is. Well, it does sound complex.

So, tell me more. There's actually two types of topoisomerase and these are present in all living things. Bacteria, humans, everything in between.

And topoisomerase has an absolutely essential function in all living things. And it's got to do with the fact that our DNA is a double helix. So, it's twisted like this.

So, to read it, you need to untwist it. Right. Sort of like opening a book, you've got to untwist.

Well, not a book so much as you think about a rope. Oh, I've got a piece of string here. I can sort of illustrate the issue.

Would you say it's like the equivalent though of us opening a book and reading what's inside? That's like that with the DNA. You've got to open the book to read it. That's right.

But in the process of untwisting the DNA so you can read one of the strands, imagine that's the two strands of the DNA and we start to untwist it and we get so far, I don't want to go any further. Yeah. Because it's twisted up and it's actually tangled.

In fact, if we let go, see how it's actually twisted up and tangled? Yeah. It wants to sort of pre-twist itself. It wants to fold back on itself and twist up.

And the DNA does that. And so, what does a cell do? Because if this happened, that'd be the end. There's no reproduction.

It can't reproduce the DNA. Not even bacteria can do it because it'll twist the sign. So, it has this toposomerase actually fixes the problem.

And how does it fix that problem? Well, I talk about type 2. Type 2 is the most interesting one. But type 2 wraps itself around the DNA and actually cuts the DNA, double-stranded, and actually the twisted loop, it feeds back through the cut and then it actually reseals the DNA, rejoins it. And this motor, this amazing toposomerase enzyme motor does that job.

And so, it's got a top part which opens, it's got a bottom part which opens, and it's got a middle section which does the cutting and joining. And it lets the two strands of the DNA in each side, cuts it, feeds it through, and then rejoins it, and then lets it out. So, that is to, in fact, negate the knots that keep forming.

It detangles the DNA. Detangling it as it goes. It's a detangling enzyme, yes.

And so, that's so amazing because that's, in fact, so necessary for the DNA to be untangled. There's no life without it. And that's just casually going along and doing that every time a cell divides.

Yes. And it uses ATP. There you go.

Yet another nanomachine that has to use ATP to function. So, if topoisomerase is so necessary for life, for a self-producing cell, how could life have even started then? Couldn't it? It could not have started without super, super intelligent design, putting things together. I mean, the things we're talking about today, clever scientists have worked out how they're working to some extent, which is just amazing science.

I just love it. I love the science. It's so fascinating.

It is so fascinating. Working out how God's creation works is just so amazing. Those scientists, clever as they are, could never, ever have dreamt of actually inventing those systems.

Well, they're so complex. They're so complex. And they come along after the event and work out how they work to the best of our ability.

And it's a very clever science, very clever science, very clever scientists. They could not have ever dreamt of actually designing those things. And yet, sadly, strangely, some of those very scientists go on about evolution, how this evolved or that evolved.

It doesn't make any sense. Yeah, especially with how complex it is and the chances of such complexity having to come together at the same time. So, it doesn't lose that information.

It's actually useful that there's such an infinitesimally small number that it's almost, it feels like it's screaming at you in the face. It's screaming at you. In fact, I spoke at a church in Melbourne some years ago and a young guy came to me afterwards and he said, I'm studying, doing a PhD in molecular biology at the University of Melbourne.

And he said, totally agree with what you, I just said a little bit about these motors in my talk. But he said, I totally agree with what you're saying about these things. He said, I cannot understand my colleagues who study this stuff daily and can't see the hand of God.

So, it just doesn't make any sense. It doesn't seem to make sense. And I mean, I know I'm just a regular uni student asking a scientist a bunch of questions, but even to me, it seems like that is such an obvious answer.

And I mean, it might be a difficult answer to agree with. It has so many implications that if there is intelligent design, there's an intelligent designer and that actually means a lot for me. Yeah, that's right.

Yeah. That's the problem. I mean, problem is that the science points to an intelligent designer far above us.

Who could that be other than the creator of God revealed in the Bible? There's no other option really. So, that's the reason there's so much resistance to following the evidence wherever it leads, which is towards, I mean, Romans chapter one says that God's attributes are seen in what he's created. So, people are without excuse.

Yeah. And here with these nanomachines, we see that this is so complex and this has to be the hand of God. This is almost irrefutable evidence for that.

I would say in today's world, people with the least excuse for believing in God are people studying this stuff, molecular biologists who are studying this stuff. Well, delving into nanomachines with you, Non, has been such a pleasure. And I mean, I think I've learned so much.

I don't think I've ever known so much about a cell, even after doing biology in high school. So, life clearly shows us that there's an intelligent creator. So, it's not actually of natural processes, but instead someone who had to have a hand in this creation.

What do you have to say about that? Yeah, absolutely. These things scream at us that there must be an intelligent creator behind everything. And life has a purpose.

That's one of the implications. Life has a purpose. We're not just an accident, a cosmic accident, a rearranged stardust or something, but life has a purpose.

If there's an intelligent creator who designed and purposed life, he did it with a purpose. It wasn't just for fun. And so, we have a purpose, an eternal purpose.

And that's what the Bible's about. That's what creation's about, to point us to our creator, not to live life as if there's no meaning and purpose. And when you die, you become fertilizer.

No, there's an eternal purpose to our lives. So, Don, we have a documentary that you want to tell us about. What have you got to show us? So, it's Evolution's Achilles Heels.

There's eight chapters, but there's 15 PhD scientists who explain why cosmic evolution, from the beginning of the universe to the origin of life and the diversity of life and the meaning and purpose of life, all covered. It's very, very entertaining, really high quality, lots of animations and on-site footage and things in it. It's divided into chapters, so you can just watch a little bit at a time if you want to take it in slowly, but really highly recommended.

And this is actually a free stream with the link in the description if you guys want to go check that out. Don, thanks for your time yet again. Thank you for walking us through some of these nanomachines that are in our cells.

It's genuinely just some of the most fascinating stuff I've ever heard. Thank you for all the work you do. It's been my pleasure.

It's been my pleasure. Thanks, James.

Evolution: Strike 1!

Am I finished yet? Not quite! We still have quite a bit to cover!

105 - The Genes of Genesis / Genesis Conflict - Walter Veith

Tonight's lecture is titled The Genes of Genesis, and somebody pointed out to me that there's quite a similarity there between genes and genesis. One could actually read, "genes is." And that's quite an interesting observation.

You see, God also says, I am. He is, so why can't genes is? Well, we're going to talk tonight about the philosophy behind natural selection and the science of evolution in general. And the founder of this modern theory is Charles Darwin, who accepted a position of ship's naturalist on the HMS Beagle and studied the diversity of organisms while this ship was traveling around the world, in particular to draw maps of South America and the like.

Of course, he didn't actually come up with the original concepts. They have been around for a long, long time, even since the time of the Greeks. And Charles Darwin's grandfather was already a proponent of naturalistic ideas.

He also had theological training. And Charles Darwin believed at the time that he was active on this ship, he God had created immutable, unchangeable species. You see, the mindset at that time was such that people believed that everything that exists on the planet had been created individually by God.

And of course, naturalistic science excludes that possibility. Now, when Charles Darwin was traveling on this Beagle, he came up with the idea of natural selection. And we'll talk about that in some detail in a moment.

Basically, this is the concept. If you have three giraffes, for example, the ones with the longer necks would have a selective advantage when it comes to feeding on high branches. And therefore, they would be selected for and have more offspring and eventually replace those with shorter necks.

That's basically what natural selection teaches. There is a counter concept which was known as Lamarckism. Now, Lamarck taught that the animals tried to reach the higher branches, and eventually the necks got longer.

You see? So those are the two opposing concepts that existed at this time when Darwin formulated his theory. Of course, Darwinism is recognized as the scientifically logical theory, whereas Lamarckism is discredited these days. I always put it to my students this way.

Do birds fly because they have wings, or do they have wings because they fly? Which one is correct? Which one do you believe is correct? Well, obviously, they fly because they have wings. That's why they fly. So you first have to have the wings, and then you can fly.

And if you have different wings, well, then one can fly better than the other one, and then natural selection can start operating. Birds did not wish to fly, and therefore developed wings, because then all of us would have wings too, right? Because man has been wanting to fly forever. So science tells us that the object has to be there before selection can take place, and that is pretty logical.

So Darwinism is superior to Lamarckism. Now, it's interesting that science readily recognizes this, but when push comes to shove, then often they fall back to Lamarckism. That's very interesting.

Remember yesterday, I gave a lecture on the evolution of man, and one of the theories that they have as to why man began walking upright is that he lived in a time when the grasslands took over, right? And so they couldn't see over the grass, and what did they do? They stood up on their hind legs to look over the grass, and this eventually led to the development of upright gait. Is that Darwinism or Lamarckism? That's Lamarckism. Isn't that interesting? So science shoots down Lamarckism, but uses it when it finds it useful.

Actual fact, you should conjecture differently on that issue. Now, remember what I said. When Charles Darwin was traveling on this ship, the Beagle, and he developed all these ideas and took them back into society, he was actually quite a shy man about it, but fortunately for him, he had another man, you can see with a much sterner expression on the face, Huxley, who was then known as Darwin's bulldog, and he took up the challenge and championed Darwinism to the scientific world, and he's credited with conquering false science in a debate with Bishop Wilberforce, which he didn't actually win on the grounds of his science, but won on the grounds of the ridicule and contempt placed upon the science by the bishop.

So you see, the attitude was what determined the winner and not necessarily the message, which is quite sad, and it's a good warning to us to be careful how we approach things. Now, Charles Darwin was very interested when they came around the coast of South America, when they came to this group of islands known as the Galapagos Islands, and on these Galapagos Islands, he found some very interesting creatures, some of which we looked at last night, like these giant tortoises and those beautiful Galapagos marine iguanas and all of those interesting creatures, but amongst them also these finches, and these finches were unique. Some of them had large beaks, some of them had small beaks, some of them had much larger beaks, and these beaks were adapted to certain circumstances.

So, for example, those with the larger beaks could crush hard seeds and open them up and reach inside. Those with the smaller beaks had to feed on different things, so some of them even developed the method of using tools to get hold of grubs and what have you inside the bark of plants, and so each one of these was slightly different. Now, this was something very strange.

You see, on the mainland, songbirds are credited with this variety, but here the finches showed this amazing variety. Now, if you imagine the timeframe in which Darwin worked, genetics was unknown. Gregor Mendel had done his work, but it lay somewhere on a dust pile in some monastery.

Nobody knew anything about genetics, so how inherited characteristics were transferred was unknown, and then there was this idea that God had created immutable, unchangeable species, and there was a scientist by the name of Linnaeus who took all the creatures that he knew and classified them according to what was to be known as the binominal nomenclature, so everything got two names. So, for example, we are Homo sapiens. We are Homo sapiens, two names, and each creature got its name, and it was considered to be a unique creation, and so the species numbers increased enormously until we today have millions of species around.

Now, when Charles Darwin looked at these creatures, he thought about this and said, now, isn't it possible that we started out with one finch family some time ago on these islands and that all of these evolved out of that original parent pair? Isn't that a logical assumption? And yes, it is a logical assumption. It is quite probable that this is a variation that developed there on these islands, but what Charles Darwin did then is he said, well, then God did not create immutable, unchangeable species. In fact, there is no such thing as a creation.

So God was thrown out of the equation. Was it necessary to throw God out? That is the question that we will have to answer tonight. The fact of the matter is it does seem as though whatever was there was not unchangeable.

Well, science has come a long way since then, and we have a whole theory of how everything came into being, and let's take it from the beginning and see what science teaches today. So how did life begin? Well, science teaches that this Earth originally was very different to what it is today. There was volcanic activity.

The atmosphere was totally different to what it is today. In fact, the atmosphere consisted of gases like methane, ammonia, hydrogen, water, these components, and a scientist by the name of Stanley Miller came along and he simulated this atmosphere, passed some sparks through it, and then trapped whatever was formed at the bottom and analyzed it in a laboratory, and lo and behold, here were organic materials, and so he conjectured that originally on the planet there could have been an organic soup with lots of organic molecules which then fortuitously formed themselves over long periods of time into the molecules which are necessary for life, and then through processes eventually came together to form the first living organisms. Now, that's all very nice and well, except that there are a number of problems with this.

Firstly, the atmosphere would have to be one that excludes oxygen, very important. So the primitive Earth reducing atmosphere is supposed to have had hydrogen, ammonia, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen, and water. And where did these come from? Well, they stated from volcanic gases, although volcanic gases are also associated with carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, so it doesn't really quite fit, but nevertheless if it had however been like the present atmosphere which contains oxygen, then the evolution of molecules would have been impossible because oxygen burns up everything.

Oxygen would destroy everything as it developed through the process of oxidation. So all scientists agree it would have to have been a reducing atmosphere. Now, what did Haldane do? He passed sparks through such an atmosphere and then trapped whatever was formed and analyzed it.

If he had left it there in the atmosphere for another cycle, then everything that would have formed would have been destroyed by the next process. So he had to have a trap. Would there have been a trap somewhere on the planet before? Probably not.

But there's another problem, and that is the various molecules of life that had to form needed very different circumstances. For example, if you look at the amino acids, you have different amino acids, and each one of these amino acids has this NH2 group, this amino group over here. And this NH2 group had to, of course, be derived from this atmosphere, and it comes from the ammonia.

But now, if you have ammonia in the atmosphere, then sugars don't form. So here is a big problem. Plus, you need a very acid environment in order for these to form, and then you would have to have only the right ones to form, and that would not happen because when you pass these sparks through it, you get left-handed ones, you get right-handed ones, and you get all kinds of amino acids where the amino group is attached to any one of these carbons along the chain, and not necessarily to that first carbon next to this group over here, which is the carboxyl group.

And so, if you have just one wrong amino acid somewhere in a chain, everything is nonfunctional. So here's a major problem, that you needed the right circumstances, plus you needed mechanisms of selecting just those amino acids which are useful to life. One wrong one in there, and you would have a problem.

Plus, even if you get the amino acids, how do you get them to come together and join together? You need enzymes for that. That means you need a protein to make a protein. So who was first, the protein or the protein that makes the protein? See, it's a bit of a problem.

The next problem is, if you want to have the building blocks of our DNA, what our genes are consisted of, formed of, then you need totally different circumstances. For these to form, you have to take all the nitrogen out of the atmosphere, change it into a cyanide solution, multiply that by 10, dissolve it in the ocean, and then you can get these molecules. But then you wouldn't get anything else.

If you're going to make these sugars, again, as we spoke about earlier, that you need in the DNA molecule, for example, like the ribose, well, then you're not allowed to have ammonia. If you don't have ammonia, you don't have amino acids. So you would have to have many planets in order to create these things.

Now, one of the scientists is saying it's not possible here, so maybe it happened in space. You have a theory there which is called panspermia. Now, this DNA molecule is another amazing story of life.

Even if you get all the building blocks to form, how would you get it to form a string containing all the information that you need for life? How would you get it to do that? It has never, ever been demonstrated in a laboratory. It needs a very complex enzyme system that will form these high-energy bonds that are locked into this molecule. And the probability of these molecules forming is so remote so that we could say they are non-existent.

So let's have a look at what the probability would be, for example, of a bomb exploding under a pile of wood, going boom, and then falling down from the sky and forming this perfect, functional little house. What would the probability be? Well, the probability is very, very remote. Let's give it a very good probability, or a very poor one.

In fact, it's even much worse than this. Let's say the probability is one in 10 to the power of 80. Hmm.

Now, what is that? That sounds like a very small figure. 10 to the power of 80 is what physics claims is the number of particles in the entire universe. Particles.

That means not only atoms, but sub-particles, electrons, hadrons, quarks, neutrons, protons, in the entire universe. How many atoms in a pinhead? Billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions, right? So imagine how many atoms in the entire universe. It sounds mind-boggling, but it's only 10 to the power of 80.

It's not a very big number when you look at it, but that is really a mind-boggling number, 10 with 80 zeros behind it. So that would be the probability. What would be the probability of a simple gene coming into existence by chance? Well, there are three nucleotides needed to code for one amino acid in a protein.

And let's take a simple protein that has 100 amino acids. Your hemoglobin, for example, has 600 amino acids. So let's take a simple protein, 100 amino acids.

You need 300 nucleotides in the right sequence. Hmm. What's the probability of that happening by chance? Well, the probability is 10 to the power of 127.

That is, unfortunately, boom, New York City has been established by a nuclear explosion. Do you believe that? You would have to have that kind of faith. Now, if we look at this DNA molecule, it is a masterly construction.

It consists of these double helixes forming the framework of phosphorus molecules, then the bases in between. And in the sequence in which they occur, these bases, you have the information for everything that happens in the cell. Now, these genes we call the genotype.

And when these genes are expressed, we call that the phenotype. All right, let me explain these terms. It's very important that we understand how science pictures the evolutionary events around the genetic system.

The genotype consists of all the genes actually present in a zygote. That's a fertilized egg. So all the genes that I have, that's my genotype.

But not all the genes that I have are expressed. So that which is expressed is my phenotype. So if you want to have a look at your phenotype, go and stand in front of a mirror, and you'll see it.

That's your phenotype. Now, there's a law in evolution which states the following. Natural selection can only operate at the level of the phenotype, never the level of the genotype.

You got that? Repeat it. Natural selection can only operate at the level of the phenotype, never the level of the genotype. Why not? Well, let me illustrate with an example.

Two people walk in wherever, game park, in a game park. And let's say there are wild animals around in the game park. And the one person is long and lean, and the other person is short and plump.

And now a predator comes from behind the bush and attacks them, a lion, a bear, whatever you would like it to be. And they both take off like greased lightning. Which one is probably going to end up being a meal? The short, fat one, right? OK.

So short, fat was the what? The phenotype. That's right. Short, fat phenotype hasn't got a snowball's hope in hell against the lean, mean phenotype.

So by natural selection, short, fat goes. Long, lean, mean stays. Is that correct? That's how it works.

The animal is not concerned with all the other information in your genes. It's just interested in how you look and how fast you run. Is that correct? That's it.

So natural selection does not work at the level of the genotype. So what does work at the level of the genotype? How are genes changed over time? Not by natural selection, but by mutations. That's right.

And how do mutations take place? They are random. They take place by chance. And once they are expressed in the phenotype, then they can be selected for.

Does that make sense? Now, remember, Charles Darwin didn't know anything about this. Let me simplify this for you so that everybody can understand this. Now, I know that I'm speaking to some who have biological training and some who have no biological training.

So I'm trying here to target all of you. So if I shoot over your heads tonight, there will be plenty that you can take home with at the end of the day in spite of that. If I shoot too low for your liking, then please tolerate that, because there are people here that would otherwise take nothing home with them.

Is that fair? Good. So let's sum up. This is your genotype.

That's the information in your genes, in your DNA. The phenotype is what you look like. That's what we said.

Natural selection operates at the level of the phenotype. It doesn't operate at that level. That's where chance operates, chance through mutations.

Fine. Let's put that into another model. Here we have a book of instructions on how to build an aeroplane.

OK? Here's a book of instructions with detailed instructions on how to build an aeroplane. The book of instructions, in our analogy, is what? The genotype. The DNA is a book of instructions on how to build a human being.

Isn't that correct? All right. And the phenotype is the actual aeroplane. Now, question.

Who wrote the book? Well, who wrote the book? Obviously, some intelligent designer wrote the book in this case, right? Correct? But in our analogy, who wrote the book? Chance. Or as you guys said, chance. I can say it.

Chance wrote the book. Just so that you have another accent to contend with. All right.

Chance wrote the book. That's incredible. With all the information as to how to build the aeroplane.

Now, that's fascinating. That is really monstrous. That's terrific.

Let's play this game out. I have a book. Here it is.

And let's assume, for argument's sake, that this book has now come into existence by chance. Mutations. And all the information for whatever it is we're going to build is in here.

In this case, all the information for my aeroplane has now by chance appeared. And here it is in this book. This is great.

So now I'm going to take this book and I'm going to put it down over here on the floor. There it is. It's in my bookshelf.

There it is. And I'm going to wait for the aeroplane to appear. After all, I have all the information.

It has come about by chance. There it is. And it's all there.

Now, all that has to happen is the aeroplane must come. How long am I going to wait? How long am I going to wait? Well, come on. Forever.

I'm going to wait forever and ever and ever. Is it enough for the information to come into existence by itself? Yes or no? No? If I don't have a mechanism that will translate this information into the aeroplane, then my aeroplane will never appear. Is that correct? Is that correct or not? OK.

So my book by itself, even if it should come into existence by chance, is totally what? Useless. Thank you. OK.

Now that we've solved that problem, let's think about that. All right. So my book is really useless without a method of transcribing the information into the aeroplane.

Now, what do I need to change the information into an aeroplane? You tell me. Well, I need some factory, don't I? And I need someone to intelligently interpret what is in that book so that I can get the aeroplane constructed. So I need some assembly line, and I need some workers.

Or if I don't have workers, what do I need? I need tools and machines, robots, if you like, that will do it for me. Is that correct? So question, where or how did the design mechanisms get translated? How did the factory come into existence? And how did the robots come into existence that will eventually build my machine so that I can test fly it? According to my analogy, natural selection will only start operating when what has happened. The aeroplane's there.

So the whole mechanism to convert the information into the aeroplane, how did that have to come into existence? You tell me. You have two choices. Two choices.

Because natural selection will only work once the aeroplane is there. Then I can only see, oh, it flies or it does not fly, right? So how did the mechanism come into existence? Give me the choices. The first one is chance.

The second one is design. Design. That's your only possibility.

Either it's chance or it is creative design. Those are the only two possibilities that we have. OK.

Which one does science choose? Chance. Science chooses chance. Good.

Now, when we read the DNA, this is a very complex situation. In fact, we don't even read the whole of a gene. We read only portions of it called introns and exons.

And the exons are transported and translated and taken outside. And then there is a highly complex factory with robots that changes the information from the gene, in other words, reads it, and then translates it here into another form of messenger, which then passes out through the cell, combines with a structure we call a ribosome, which is an assembly line, a factory. And this factory then manufactures a protein, which in turn is manipulated and folded by another factory and transported, like with a railway system, if you like, to where it is needed and built into place.

How did all of that come into existence? Well, we're still not with anything tangible. We're just building something tangible. So how did it come into existence? You tell me.

You have two choices, chance or design, because natural selection will only operate once the object is actually there. Wow, that's mind boggling. Do you want to see what it looks like? Well, let's have a look.

Here's an illustrious media video, which is titled Unlocking the Mysteries of Life, the Scientific Case for Intelligent Design. You can actually get it at the back. It is sold at the back.

And you can have a look at an animation of what happens. With computer animation, we can enter the cell to view this remarkable system at work. After entering the heart of the cell, we see the tightly wound strands of DNA, storehouses for the instructions necessary to build every protein in an organism.

In a process known as transcription, a molecular machine first unwinds a section of the DNA helix to expose the genetic instructions needed to assemble a specific protein molecule. Another machine then copies these instructions to form a molecule known as messenger RNA. When transcription is complete, the slender RNA strand carries the genetic information through the nuclear pore complex, the gatekeeper for traffic in and out of the cell nucleus.

The messenger RNA strand is directed to a two-part molecular factory called a ribosome. After attaching itself securely, the process of translation begins. Inside the ribosome, a molecular assembly line builds a specifically sequenced chain of amino acids.

These amino acids are transported from other parts of the cell and then linked into chains often hundreds of units long. Their sequential arrangement determines the type of protein manufactured. When the chain is finished, it is moved from the ribosome to a barrel-shaped machine that helps fold it into the precise shape critical to its function.

After the chain is folded into a protein, it is then released and shepherded by another molecular machine to the exact location where it is needed. It came about by how? Chance or design? That's the only option. There is no other.

In actual fact, what you saw in this animation is highly, highly oversimplified. When you consider what happens in a cell as that DNA unfolds and the enzyme systems that are required to produce this molecule, it is mind-boggling. And when it passes through that nuclear pore, it passes through with such precision that nothing else may enter and leave while this huge molecule is passing from one side to the other.

Everything is highly precise with recognizing symbols and all kinds of structures. And one mistake, and you're a cabbage. And it came about by chance or design.

Because until that protein is actually there, natural selection cannot say whether it will work or whether it won't. Now, any modification in the genes, in the genotype, to bring about any changes in the phenotype must also occur only through chance, through mutations. So if we take my book scenario, here's my book.

If this book has instructions for an airplane, and I now want to change the instructions to get another airplane, then how must those changes take place in here? By chance. That's right. You've got it.

By chance. Or by design. One of the two.

So now you get basic types of mutations, point mutations, chromosome mutations. Point mutations involve a chain or change in only a single nucleotide pair. You can have base substitutions, additions, deletions, all of those.

Now, we've already said that the DNA code is a triple code. So let's say you have adenine, guanine, thymine, guanine, cytosine, adenine, et cetera, all along the line. There are four nucleotides.

And let's say you deleted one. You deleted one. Boom.

You take it away. Then instead of having A-G-T-G-A-G-G-C-A, you would have A-G-T-A-G-G-C-A-T-T-C-A-G-C-G-G-C and the T. And that means that the entire message from the second one on would be changed. What does that mean? Let's make that simple.

Let's use a triple letter code. The cat and the hat. And I'm going to delete the C, and then my sentence would read "the a-t-a-n-d-t-h-e-h-a-t."

That means that mutation would have made garbled junk out of the rest of the genetic information. Is that correct? So that is why mutations generally are harmful, incredibly harmful. And this is not a mutation.

He's just there to look cute. But what intricate design features are built into this creature really boggle the mind. And is there such a thing as a mutation that is useful? Science will tell you yes.

They will quote sickle cell anemia and say, well, that's a useful one. You see, if you have the sickness, sickle cell anemia, and you happen to live in a malaria country, then the malaria parasite cannot get into that sickle-shaped red blood cell. And the people don't get malaria so readily, whereas other people do.

So there you go. It is positive. No, it's not positive.

Someone with sickle cell anemia is pretty sick. He's pretty sick. So it's not a positive mutation at all.

It just happens to be so that in the case of malaria, he'll be slightly less sick than the one that has malaria, but he's still sick. So there is no real positive mutation whatsoever. Now, imagine now the first little cell comes into existence just by chance.

Highly improbable. The molecules, well, they would not have come into existence by chance under the different circumstances. Even if they did, would they form life? Highly improbable.

You'd have to imagine, boom, little house, boom, little house, boom, little house, boom, little house. Thousands of times over. And you'd really have to believe that, because chance or design is your only option at that level.

And then, let's say, fortuitously, besides all that, a cell appeared. Now you have one cell. Now, of how many cells do we consist of? Thousands.

And they're all different. So now, how do you account a unicellular little creature through evolution, eventually giving rise to a multicellular organism? Well, a chap by the name of Heckel came along and said, German scientist, that's not so difficult. What happened is the following.

One cell came, and when it divided, that's another kettle of fish. How did it divide? But let's leave it at that. It divided, and the cells stuck together.

And eventually it formed the ball of cells, and eventually this structure, because the ball, when it moved along, how did it move along? How did it get the structures to move along? That's another kettle of fish. Let's leave that out. And let's say it developed a dent, and eventually this dent was like this, and eventually the dent went all the way through, and then you have the basic body plan of every single living organism that is multicellular.

Like we, for example. We look like this, with a dent all the way through. We have a tube going all the way through, right? The one opening is where? There, ha! And the other one, you can imagine.

So that's the basic body plan. Now, think about this. If a cell divides, and it has genetic information, and it sticks together, then both cells will have the same genetic information, right or wrong.

And if it divides again, it'll still have the same genetic information. And if it divides and makes a ball, they'll all have the same genetic information, and no matter how many times you divide it, it'll have the same genetic information. Haeckel says, we can see in the evolution of animals that this happened because the embryos of the various animals look the same.

Of course, they don't tell you that he really cheated in this process, tremendously, and was even reprimanded at the highest level because of this. And how do you account then for this amazing feat of a mutation changing cells? Now, I can assume that a mutation can change the shape of a cell into something else. Let's say that's possible, but that's not what we want.

We want to develop different cells. So, for example, let's take two. A muscle cell and a nerve cell.

Two very different cells. Did they exist in the beginning, yes or no? Let's say, fortuitously, a little blob of protoplasm started to go bloop, bloop, bloop, bloop, bloop, bloop, bloop in the ocean. Would there have been a muscle cell and a nerve cell, yes or no? No, that would have been some later innovation, right? So, how did the muscle cell and the nerve cell get its genetic information? You see, a muscle cell must have genes which say you are a muscle cell.

And a nerve cell must have genes which say you are a nerve cell. Does that make sense? Okay, but none of these existed in the beginning. But let's say that the first cell looked something like this.

That could account for this shape, but it couldn't account for the next shape. Where did that new shape come from? So, what we actually need is we need a new gene which says, hello, you are now a nerve cell. Does that make sense? But that's not enough.

If I had a nerve cell in my body and I had a muscle cell here in my arm, what would it help me if the two never talked to each other? Would it help me? No. Would it help me if I had muscle cells and nerve cells all jumbled up in my body, yes or no? Of course not. Where do I want my nerve cells? Well, I want them in the right place.

For example, it would be very useful if you want to study to have them all up here. Isn't that right? And if you wanted to pick something up, to do it up with a brain cell, pick it up with a brain cell would be pretty useless. So you want your muscle cells down here, right? Okay, so how do I tell the cell the genes for muscle must be switched on here and the genes for brain must be switched on over there? How do I tell my brain that or my muscle that? Well, I need a switch.

I need a switch. If I have two lights, one over there and one over there, and I want that one on and that one off, or that one on and that one off, how many switches must I have at the back? Two, that's right. So now I need a switch because I've got two cells.

But the original cells didn't have two kinds of cells, so they didn't need the switches. So now I have a question. Where does the extra gene come from? That's genotype.

How did it come into existence? You have two choices, chance or design. So, boom, little house. Where did the switch come from? In fact, you need two switches.

Where did they come from? Boom, little house, boom, little house. That's where they came from. That's what you have to believe.

There's no other choice, no other choice whatsoever. And this highly complex mechanism for switching on genes and switching off genes had to come about by chance or design. But that's not enough.

You need a gene which says you look like this, you need a gene which says you look like that. That's two genes. You need a gene which says you're switched on, you're switched on.

That's another two genes. Those are the switches. That's not enough.

You also need genes to control the physiology so that this one will function differently to that one, and you need genes controlling the embryology so that they will work together. Hello, where do those genes come from? It's genotype. Natural selection doesn't work there until this thing actually works.

Boom, little house, boom, little house, boom, little house, boom, little house, boom, little house, for a week you have to say that. You need one heck of a lot of faith for that. All right, we have been discussing in this previous little section of how the genes actually came into existence.

They could only have come into existence by chance, and then you have this high improbability of it actually happening. Now you have another problem, and that is the problem of irreducible complexity, something that is so complex that has to be complete before it will function has to also come about by chance. For example, a wing to fly and a feather to hold the bird up has to come into existence and actually function as a feather before it can be tested as to whether it will work or whether it won't work.

Isn't that correct? So these structures, where do they come from? These are questions that are really causing Darwinism quite a headache. As you can see over here. Here's a problem for you.

Assume now you find a highly complicated biochemical pathway in a bird. Something very, very complicated. Let's say the Krebs cycle.

For any student who has studied this, you know there are many, many reactions and many, many genes required to make the Krebs cycle work. Then you find the Krebs cycle in this reptile and you find the Krebs cycle in that insect and you find the Krebs cycle in that crab and in that worm and in that worm and in this echinoderm and in these sponges. Now you find the Krebs cycle in all of them.

What does that tell you? It tells you that they must all be related and since a bird and a sponge are very, very far apart, that means that this highly complex system must have been there from the beginning. Wow. So if you take all the complex biochemical pathways that are shared by every living organism under the sun, that means they were all there from the beginning.

Whoo. Now we're thinking, boom, New York City. Boom, New York City.

With all the elevators working and the doors having locks and the whole tutti with the sirens blowing the works. Everything coming about by chance. You really have to have a lot of faith for that.

Let's have a look at selection. Selection eliminates deviant phenotypes and normalizes the population if it's stabilizing selection. Let's look at just one form of selection.

What does it do? It eliminates deviant phenotypes. Okay. We have two aeroplanes.

One flies well. One does not fly well. I will select one and scrap the other.

That's what you do. That's selection. Let's take that to biology.

Let's look at the peppered moth. Because the population possess dark genes, peppered moths have been adapted to increasingly sooty industrial areas of England. That's the theory that they go.

And then they show you this model where you have a light moth on a light background and a dark moth on a light background or vice versa, a black moth on a black background and a white moth now on a black background. And they say it changed because of the soot. Actually, that's a lie.

It didn't happen like that. It didn't happen like this at all. They stuck these onto dark and light backgrounds.

This is not what really happened. They just supposed that this could happen. All right.

But let's run along with their theory. It's a nice theory. And say now, let's say the area was generally black.

Which moth over here would have a greater chance of survival? Obviously the white one. No? No? The black one. Why? Because the birds can't see it.

So the bird comes and eats the white one. What eventually happens to the white one? It disappears. What do we call that in science? Extinction.

Natural selection eliminates those genotypes which cannot survive under these circumstances. All right. Let's do a little bit of mathematics.

You started with how many moths? Two. Natural selection has eliminated one. How many you got left? One.

All right. Has natural selection now made more or less? Less. That's right.

All right. Natural selection has taken two, eliminated one, and you have one left. Now my question to you is the following.

How can you use a process, natural selection, that makes less and less to make more and more? Because you start with few animals and now you want to get lots and lots of animals on the planet. Isn't that right? How do you do that? You cannot use a mechanism that makes less and less to make more and more, so this doesn't make any sense. In the past there used to be a lot more variety than there is today, so natural selection is surely doing away with things.

Now here you have the dog family, and you have small dogs, two large dogs, and you have all these dog shapes and all these ear shapes and all these strange little creatures. Look at the ear shapes. Long droopy ears in the bloodhound, this ear in the collie, and all these hair types that we see over here, all of them present in the dog family.

Question. Obviously the ancestor, all these dogs were bred from the wolf, must have had genes for all of these appearances. Isn't that right? Must have been there.

Question, where did the genes come from? Two choices. Chance or design for all of that variety. It didn't come about by natural selection.

Natural selection doesn't create anything. It only chooses between things that are already there. So in the past they would say every single one of these snails is a different species.

Today we know this is one species. Under some circumstances, some sets of genes are activated. Under other circumstances, other sets of genes are activated, and so this is actually one set.

Some butterflies, for example, have different appearances in different seasons, and some of these creatures, like this pigeon, actually must contain all the genes for what has been bred out of the wild pigeon. That means large pigeons, small pigeons, black pigeons, white pigeons, funny pigeons. All kinds of weird pigeons have been bred from the wild type.

Where do all those genes come from that were there? Either they were built in by some designer or they came into existence by boom, little house, boom, little house, boom, little house. That's what you have to believe in terms of the probability. Look at the variety here from black to white, from black to white, from small to large.

It's an interesting creature. It's known as the quagga. It's an extinct type of zebra that only had stripes up to a certain area, and then the rest was stripless, and it went extinct some 300 years ago.

And then they found a skin in a museum, and while they were cleaning it, the taxidermist discovered, wow, there are some blood vessels still stuck to the back in the dried fat, and that contained red blood corpuscles. So what did they do, or blood cells in general? Well, they sent it for DNA analysis, and when the tests came back, they were surprised because the DNA was identical to the plain zebra that lives today. Wow.

And so they took the plain zebra, and they started breeding in a breeding program to breed the quagga back, and they've got the quagga back. Now, is that evolution, or was it just variety in the gene pool? What do you think? What was it? It was just variety in the gene pool. Here you have two ladybirds, the typical one with the red and the black, and then this black one.

Originally, they were two species until they discovered, now wait a second, this one appears in the fall, and this one appears in spring. So obviously, there are two sets of genes in this creature, and the one set of genes is activated in the fall, and the other set of genes is activated in the spring. So you have two alleles over here, two possibilities.

Now, two genes coding for different appearances. Where do those genes come from? Chance or design? That's your only option. In all of these, it's exactly the same story.

Now, let's imagine these are insects. Now, insects go through various stages. At first, there's a larva.

What's a larva look like? It looks like a worm. Then there's a pupa, which looks like a little bag hanging from somewhere, and then you can have a butterfly or whatever develops out of that. Wow, that means there must be complete batteries of genes coding for those totally different organisms.

If you knew nothing about insects, and I gave you a big, fat caterpillar, wouldn't you classify it as a totally different species to a butterfly? Yes or no? Sure you would. So where do all those genes come from that code? Under one set of circumstances, caterpillar. And then what happens to those genes? Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, switched off.

And another set of genes in the DNA are activated. Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, pupa. And then those are switched off.

And another set is activated. Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, and you have a butterfly. Three complete sets of genes in that organism, each gene having to come about by chance or design because natural selection doesn't operate at that level.

Wow. Mind-boggling. So if you want to have a mouse that you cannot see on the background, like Perogonatus californicus on a white background or on a black background, two sets of genes each time.

Boom, little house. Rabbits that can change their colours in different seasons. Boom, little house.

Boom, little house. Lizards that can do the same. Any process that modifies the genotype to increase the variation.

Now, of course, science thought about this and said, wow, we have a problem. We have a huge problem here. So if DNA cannot be controlled through natural selection, everything happens by chance, and the genes have to come about by chance, and then natural selection still comes and destroys parts of them and only keeps some, we're getting less and less.

How do we get more and more? It's a problem. And then they came up with the idea, ah, we know. Sexual reproduction increases the variety.

Well, that's very nice. So one of the processes that can modify the genotype to increase variation is sexual reproduction. But how does it come about? It had to come about by chance.

Because unless the babies are there as a result of the union, you won't have more variety. Does that make sense? Well, let's think about that. So, fertilization, the whole process of sexual reproduction, the whole process of meiosis, one of the most complex structural processes, independent assortment, crossing over, all of these things came about by chance, male and female, came about by chance.

Wow. Because unless you have a male and a female, and unless that male and the female pair, and unless that offspring is actually born, we won't have an increased variety. So how did everything come into existence up to that point? You have two options.

Chance or design. Now what does the Bible say? The Bible says that God created them, male and female. Is that correct? And everybody knows that everything comes from the female.

Isn't that correct? Alright, is anybody here born from a male? Hello? Anybody here? No? Well, the Bible says that Eve came from whom? From Adam. Now, is that scientifically logical? Shouldn't Adam have come from Eve? Yes or no? Yeah, sure, that's the only logical way to think about it. But let me tell you something, Eve could only have come from Adam.

Why? Well, let me put it to you this way, as I stand here before you, ladies, whether you like it or not, I have every gene in me that it takes to make a woman. But do you have every gene that it takes to make a man? Nope. Why don't you have? You don't have a Y chromosome.

But I have an X chromosome, but you don't have a Y chromosome. So you don't have every gene that it takes to make a man, I always tell that to my wife, and I say, so don't you forget it, she gets very upset with me. So, Eve could only have come from Adam.

The Bible is quite right on that score. But sexual reproduction and all the processes associated with it had to come about by chance. Here you have what happens.

Here's a chromosome, let's assume that's from Dad, and there's one that lines up that is identical, that's from Mom, that has similar genes on it, with different alleles on it, so you could have variety come into there. So we have 23 pairs of chromosomes, half of them are from our mother, and half of them are from our father. And during meiosis, they line up like this.

This whole process that makes them do this is just rearranging my letters in a book. It doesn't create an aeroplane. Until the aeroplane is created, I don't know what's happening, I'm just jumbling up letters.

It doesn't mean anything yet, in terms of natural selection. And so they come together, they divide in this complicated process, and then they do something amazing. They exchange genetic information.

Wow! So, when I produce germ cells, or my wife produces ova, and those two come together, then this process has already happened. So from my mother, and from my father, I create a mix of genes by crossing the genes over. Now, wow, that's not so easy.

Now, what you need is you need an enzyme that runs along the DNA, and then you need another enzyme that comes along like a pair of scissors and cuts the one. Ligase. And then you need another one which sticks them together.

In the meantime, you've unwinding the structure, causing a knot, so you need stress-reducing enzymes which release the stress. Magnificent setup. And then you link them together so that they are exactly in the right place.

And if you cut one nucleotide too far, and there are millions of them, and this reaction is taking place all over in the cell, one snip, one nucleotide too far, and the next gene reads... Instead of being a human, you end up a cabbage. No mistakes allowed. No mistakes allowed.

Wow! And then you look like this, and all this has to be unraveled, and in order for this to happen, there have to be twists and turns and recombining. It's a highly complicated system. But all it does, it rearranges the letters in my book.

It's like taking a computer program and clipping portions out and putting them in another place. But it doesn't produce anything yet until it's built. So how did the mechanism come into existence? This highly complicated mechanism that is as complicated as what you saw in the video just now, how did it come into existence? Chance or design?

That's your only possibility. So here we have some cave fish. Notice that they haven't got eyes.

Oh, that's a new species, says science. That's a new species. Well, that's interesting.

Here are some blind cave beetles. Here are blind crayfish, cave crayfish. Here's a blind cave salamander, and here's a blind cave cockroach.

All new species. Did you know if you go to Hawaii and a new island forms, very soon the cockroaches invade the new crevices, and then within just a few months, those within the caves don't have eyes. Evolution? I don't think so.

I think what happened is under those circumstances without light, it's not necessary for the eyes to develop, and the genes which have all these nice little switches are just tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, switched off. So is this a new species? No, it's not a new species at all. It's just a modified species because we have these nice genes and these switching systems which had to come about how? By? You have two choices.

Chance or design. Okay. Birds that lose their wings, you have flightless quails, flightless pelicans, flightless cormorants, flightless this on islands.

Why? Because if you're far out on an island and you go for a flight, then the wind takes you away and you don't find your island sooner or later. That's the end of you. So they develop flightlessness very quickly.

Is this a mutation in all of these creatures? I don't think so. I think it's switch off, switch off, switch off, switch off, switch off. Now there's a chicken that has lost its feathers.

And why hasn't it got feathers? Because this one has a mutation. Now you see the difference? This one is a mutation. Something's gone wrong and it doesn't develop feathers.

That's something different. But you can get all these different kinds by just switching on and switching off genes. This is a cross between a zebra and a horse.

So you can get new varieties by crossing things. Here is a cross between a leopard and a jaguar. There's a cross between a tiger and a lion.

It's called a liger. Wow, interesting animal. There is a cross between a dolphin and a whale.

It's called a wolfin. A cross between a horse and a zebra. It's called a zoos.

And a cross between a zebra and a donkey called a zonkey. Now most of these can end up infertile. But when you cross insects or plants, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to be infertile.

So it works. Here's a cross between a sheep and a goat. But you can't do this naturally.

So what they do is they take an embryo of one, take a few cells from that and a cell from the other one, link them together, put them into a surrogate mother. And then you have an animal that develops part goat, part sheep, part goat, part sheep, part goat, part sheep, part goat, part sheep. This animal is a total catastrophe.

All right. So all these switching genes and things that you have to create all these varieties are only able to come into existence by chance or design. Now here we can do something else.

If you have a chromosome and you take another chromosome and you link it to it, you can get a long chromosome. We call that a fusion, a tandem fusion. Now here's an animal that has such a fusion.

This is the eelite, the largest antelope in the world. Notice that it has stripes on the side and it has this twirled horn. Notice? The largest antelope in the world.

Here's one with a similar fusion. It has the stripes down the side. This is the kudu.

And it has a twirled horn. Here's one with a similar one. This is the female of the kudu.

There's the lesser kudu, which is a smaller variety. Same stripes. The male will also have the horns.

This is an interesting animal. If you didn't know there were one species, you'd make them two. This is the female nyala with the stripes.

Here's the male nyala. You can see the stripes very faintly there. And the interesting twirl in the horn.

There is the bongo with the stripes and the same twirl in the horn. There's the sitatunga, which is a very small antelope. Stripes and the horn.

Now they all have this fusion. Now my question to you is this. Do you think this is one kind or is it different species? Well, the world makes it all different species but they all have the same aberration.

So I would say this is just variety of one. Let's take this a little further. Here I have the wolf.

The wolf has 76 chromosomes. That's more than what we have. And these are the varieties of wolves and they interbreed readily so they don't change shape too much because they interbreed so readily, the various clans.

But when you come to the foxes, it's a different kettle of fish. They all look different. And what is more, some of them have 38 chromosomes and some have 78 chromosomes and everything in between.

But if you take one with 38 chromosomes, the chromosomes are very long. If you take one with 78 chromosomes, the chromosomes are very short. So what they did is they checked them out and they said, wow, you know what? It's the same information.

It's just rearranged. So my question is this. If you look at these creatures and you look at the wild dogs and the dog races today, here's an Afghan and a Belgian Shepherd and a Papillon.

There they are. We know that is one species. There's the variety.

And these are the wild ones. And these are all different species. But in actual fact, they actually all have the same genes, just slightly differently arranged.

It's not new material. It's just rearranged material. So, questions.

Of all these wild dogs and dogs and wolves and coyotes, how many do you think went onto the ark? One pair. One pair. And out of that one pair, all of this variety came into existence.

Of all those antelope I mentioned, how many needed to go onto the ark? Well, I tricked you there. Seven pairs. Why? Because they were clean animals.

These are unclean animals. But, again, the reduction in number that you need to take onto the ark is actually quite incredible. If you take the jackal, the fox, and the coyote, they're three species.

Well, in your mind's eye, add the wolf. Now, the coyote will breed with the wolf. Did you know that? In Canada, in central Canada, where the coyotes are very large, they will breed with the wolf.

On the coast, the coyote is smaller and will not breed with the wolf. But the coyote is capable of breeding with the wolf. And the jackals would be capable of breeding with the coyote.

If you go to Australia, there's the dingo and there's the dog. And you see how very similar they are. And, in fact, the dingo is going extinct.

Why? Because it breeds with the dog. So, question. What is a dingo? A dingo is a dog.

That's right. You see, we like, as scientists, to split everything up into hundreds and hundreds of species when really a kind is a much bigger thing than that. All you need is one wild type and out of that you can get all the canids.

Dingoes and foxes and wild dogs and all the canids out of one pair in the ark. And you could get it as rapidly like that because the genes are there. For example, if you take two short chromosomes and you fuse them into a long one, that would be using the information in a different way.

And so you have mice that have this. You have mice with a few chromosomes and they are very long like this. And you have mice with short chromosomes like this, but the information put together is exactly the same here as in those two.

So the house mouse and the field mice and all of these mice have just got jumbled up information. So how many of the mice went onto the ark of all those different mice? One pair. Very interesting.

Then you have differences in heterochromatin. All kinds of interesting things. We have something else that increases variety.

We have genes which we call transposons where you can take a piece of information and take that piece and translocate it onto another piece of DNA. Don't think that this is a simple thing. All this happens at the level of the gene.

You have to cut this gene out, transport it to another location, make a snip, open up the DNA, put it in, close it up again, and it's got to be read in the new place. And what can happen then? In the new position, the gene might be read more and in one generation you go from a small mouse to a giant mouse. One generation.

Just go, boom, and it's big. All you've done is taken the one gene and put it in another position. You can do it with a dark mouse, you can do it with a light mouse, it doesn't matter.

One simple step. But if you'd taken that gene and you'd cut it one letter too far, what would have happened? Then it would have read... Rubbish. It has to be a precise process.

So let's think about this. Built-in variety in the gene pool so that we can get every kind of colour that you can imagine, every hair type that you can imagine, all of these things built into that wild animal, the wolf. Where did all those genes come from? What's your choices? Chance or design? Now imagine this.

Everything I'm showing you here is genotype. So it happened by chance. All those genes.

Boom, little house, boom, little house, boom, little house, boom, little house, boom, little house, all that variety. By chance. Reproductive exchange.

That we have a male and a female means nothing until the children are there. Boom! New York City. Now we have male and female. Came about by chance. The mechanism, the meiosis, the most complicated systems known to man. Boom! Came about by chance.

The whole mechanisms to build everything came about by chance. The crossing over during meiosis whereby I can have infinite numbers of children. Did you know just from the independent assortment during meiosis, I can have 80 trillion different children? Whereas if I add crossing over, it is limitless.

Will the two that are exactly identical in this hall please stand up? Why is nobody getting up? Because you are all different. Why are you all different? Because your genes have different alleles and even if they don't, they are differently expressed. That's variety in the gene pool.

Recombination of chromosomes which gives you all these wolf types and wild dogs and all these antelopes. Chance of design. Transposable DNA.

This DNA that can jump from one place to another. Chance or design? Some animals, when they are under stress, will totally rearrange their DNA.

They'll take it and jumble it up. And a whole new batch of offspring develops. For example, naked mole rats are like that.

Amazing. There's one queen, she breeds. If times get tough, then she has all these different ones.

And all of these mechanisms were totally unknown to Darwin. And all of them could only occur by chance or design. So now, imagine that you are now equipped with this new information.

And you are a new Darwin. And you come to the island and you find, instead of the finches, you find loxops. And you see all these varieties.

What would you say? What would you say? Would you say, well, because there's so much variety and they all come from probably one pair, therefore God did not create? Would you say that? You would no longer say that. You would say, wow, what a built-in variety in the gene pool. Wouldn't you say that? Absolutely.

So the variety must have been built in. So then let's go to the human race. There are all the different races.

And you can look at the different features. The men, of course, are far more handsome than the women, as usual. You can see that.

And the different groupings. And let's stick to the children. Because then we stay out of controversy.

And you have some very interesting differences in features. This one here is white. Well, he's actually not white.

He's just light. And this one here is dark. And this one over here, the eye structure is slightly different.

Here as well, in this Filipino boy, the eye structure is slightly different. All the different races. Where'd they come from? What's the difference between them? Is the one superior to the other, as people would imagine? Well, if you are equipped with this information, then you will know that there is no difference between them whatsoever on the genetic level.

White versus black, for example, is just the way in which the gene for melanin production is expressed. I can produce melanin. I have the gene, therefore, for melanin.

If I lie in the sun, I go darker. So I produce more melanin. A black person just has a more active expression of the same gene that I have.

So there's no genetic difference there. Just the controlling mechanism is activated differently. That's all.

What about the difference in eye shape that we have in the Eastern and the Western societies? Well, it's just the way in which the fat is deposited in the eyelids that is different. It's a purely biochemical process, which is activated by the same genes as we have, because I also have fat in my eyelids. So is there a difference? No, the expression is different.

The eye color, how is that determined? By different batteries of alleles. So I have brown dominant, blue recessive, et cetera. So if you have, for example, two parents with bright blue eyes and blue is recessive, then their children will have what color eyes? Blue.

If you have one parent with brown eyes and one parent with blue eyes, then what will the color of the eyes be? It can be any one. If the brown-eyed one has only the dominant gene, then the children will have brown eyes. If he has recessive in the other one, it can be any one of them.

So I always explain it to my students like this. If both your parents have brown eyes, or one of them has brown eyes, and your brothers and sisters have all kinds of eyes, that's fine. If both your parents have bright blue eyes and your brothers have brown eyes, well, then the father was probably the postman.

But even then I could be wrong. Even then I could be wrong, because sometimes you can have the gene and it's not expressed. Let's say you have the gene for brown and it's not expressed and it ends up being a different color.

It could be blue. So what we are seeing here is a tremendous capacity for variety. Here you have Drosophila mulle and Drosophila digressa, and they look totally different.

Notice that this one has very red eyes, this one has almost black eyes, some of them have white eyes, some of them have no eyes, some of them have long wings, some of them have short wings, some of them have no wings, some of them have one body, some of them have two bodies, but they're all fruit flies. One more question. There's a piano.

Imagine that the keys on the piano are the genes. How many tunes can I play on the piano? An infinity, an enormous number, infinity number of tunes. Is that correct? Yes.

And if I had a guitar over here, how many tunes could I play on the guitar? An infinite number of tunes. And so I could go through every musical instrument, but how many guitar songs could I play on the piano? None. It remains a piano, and I can express it in various tunes.

Same with our DNA. So God must be a lover of variety. Does that make sense? And all the gene systems and all the varieties that we see must be an expression of that love for variety.

That's your only choice, unless you want to believe that all of these structures, with all their complexity that we spoke about tonight, came about by chance. I believe you need more faith than anything else to believe that. Nobody in his right mind, if he picked up a watch, would say, that came about by chance.

And the processes that we saw in the cells that had to come about by chance are millions and millions of times more complex than anything man has ever devised, including everything it took to travel to outer space. Nothing comes even close to the complexity of what happens in a cell. And it came about by chance? As for me and my household, I prefer to believe in a designer.

But the choice is yours. You can, if you want to, believe in Boom, Little House. Thank you.

Evolution: Strike 2!

103 - Bones in Stones / Genesis Conflict - Walter Veith

Tonight's lecture is titled Bones in Stones, because we're going to talk about the fossil record this evening. And fossils have always piqued the interest of young and old, so what are all these bones in stones, and why are they so different from what we see today? You see, science would like us to believe that everything happened millions and millions of years ago, and that these creatures roamed the earth at some stage in the history, and represented a totally different life form to what we have today. As we looked at in the last lecture already, we went through the geological column, which nowhere exists in total, and then we also mentioned that there were creatures in that geological column, which science says reflect an evolution of life from simple to complex.

That's at least how it is put in the textbooks, how it is presented at the schools, and basically the theory goes that the eukaryotes, that's the unicellular organisms, from the simpler ones to the ones that have a nucleus like we have, they evolved over millions of years, and then from some 600 million years ago, suddenly we have this tremendous record of life on earth, starting with all these creatures through time until we get to the hominids in the later periods of this development, and we are told that this evolution is one that reflects simplicity to complexity, so that is how it is presented in the schools. In the lower areas, they will say you have primitive creatures such as these, but in actual fact you don't have primitive creatures. Let's get this thing straight.

There is no such thing as a simple organism. Every organism on this planet is highly, highly complex, and what we have here is marine animals, marine sessile animals largely in the base of the column, so creatures that crawl around on the bottom. When we go a little bit higher in the column, we have things which move and swim, but there is nothing simple about these organisms.

They have highly, highly complex biochemical systems, anatomical systems, all is there. Everything has been developed. As we go higher into the Silurian, you have some more creepy crawlies and some materials.

Then we come to the Devonian, which is known as the age of the fishes. So, we have many, many fish in the Devonian, and the record is just covered in fish. Some very interesting fish fossils, we'll have a look at those in a moment.

Then we go higher, we come to plant material, and it's interesting that the plant material that we have represented in the Mississippi and Pennsylvania excludes many of the flowering plants or the modern ones, so it is assumed that these came first and the others came later, although there are some very interesting anomalies which we will deal with later. So, that's more or less what science says it looked like. It was an age of ferns and cycads and interesting organisms like that.

Then come the age of the larger creatures. First you went through the amphibian phase, then you come to the age of the reptiles, the Triassic, the Jurassic, the Cretaceous, suddenly we have this blanket destruction of everything, and then comes the age of the mammals and the birds. And we are told that this is a record of how life evolved.

But there's more than one way to get a record. For example, if I have a pond in my back garden, and a bulldozer comes along with a pile of mud and covers my pond from the side in some catastrophe, and at the bottom of the pond there were some plants and creepy crawlies, and then some snails on the mud at the bottom, and some goldfish swimming in my pond, and a duck on top. And if all of these were buried, they would be buried in that sequence.

So if I dug them up one day, and I found the worms in the mud at the bottom, and the snails a little bit higher up, and the fish, my goldfish, preserved in mud a little bit higher, and a duck still higher, would I then conclude that the worms gave rise to the snails, to the fish, to the duck? Not necessarily, right? Mammals and birds tend to float, so there are other ways of explaining this structure that we find in the fossil record. And we don't have to go into great details, we'll see what the general picture actually is all about. So now fossils that we find determine the age as well.

For example, this is the principle of fossil correlation, if I find this particular fossil in one layer at a particular place, and I find the same fossil in another area also in a layer, then I conclude that the two layers are of the same age. So how is the age of the layer determined? By the fossil that is in the layer. So this layer gets its age from the fossil, and this fossil gets its age from what? From the layer.

That's circular reasoning. So it's as old as the layer because the fossil is as old as the layer, and the layer is as old as the fossil because the fossil is as old as the layer, get it? But there's no age, so whatever age you want to put at it, well that's fine, whatever you want. Now, even the old textbooks say, if covered by moist sediment, weathering is prevented, and for these reasons, quick burial is perhaps the most important condition favouring fossilisation.

Things have to be buried quickly in order not to rot away and disappear. And then also, waterborne sediments are so much more widely distributed than all other agents of burial, that they include the great majority of fossils. So everything seems to be buried in water, and everything had to be buried rapidly.

What buries a whale or a dinosaur rapidly, except some major catastrophe? And everything seems to be buried in water sediments, but there was no water catastrophe, no flood. Does that make sense? It doesn't really make sense. So, if you have modern textbooks, you'll see pictures like this, dinosaurs, and then there is an eruption of some volcano, these are Allosaurus and Stegosaurus walking around, they get buried, and then after a while, there's some erosion that takes place, and they are exposed, and then you can find them and study them, and then this is how it happened.

But this is not what we really see. What we really see is organisms washed into position by water. Now how long does it take for something to fossilise? We've already looked at that, it doesn't take very long.

Remember those teddy bears that fossilise in water that is high in the minerals that are needed for the purpose? Here is a hat, this is a miner's hat, and it's in a museum in Australia, it comes out of a mine that was vacated some 30 years ago, and it's solid stone. So it turned into solid stone in a very short period of time. Alright, let's have a look at this fossil record.

Here are some fish fossils, and you can see here are pretty intact fish over here, and there are sometimes huge areas covered in fish. In Africa, South Africa, we have an area which we call the Eka, it's one of these Devonian periods, and there are just hordes of these fish. What is also interesting is that many of the fish that we find are intact, but many seem to be headless.

When I was a student going around looking at all these paleontological finds, I thought to myself, wow, it looks like these fish lived in the French Revolution, because most of them lost their heads. But what is interesting about fish is when a fish lies in water and is dead and is rotting, the first thing that happens is the ligament attaching the head rots away, and the head drops off. Eventually, it puffs up and all the scales fall off, and then it deteriorates, and in a very short period of time, that fish is gone.

So we don't have fossilisation of these creatures today, they just disappear and dissipate, and the bacteria, and the scavengers, and what have you, they come and that thing is gone. Gone. But here, something happened, and many of them are perfect, that means they must have been buried instantaneously.

Some of them, or lots of them, don't have heads, that means they floated in the water for a few days, not a long time, and then were buried. We find fish like these, with heavy bony scales, and when we see those, that's primitive. That's a pretty advanced feature, heavy bony scales, and if we look at modern fish, like the sturgeon, that has heavy bony scales.

So what do they say about the sturgeon? That's a primitive fish. That's a very old primitive fish. Why? Because it looks old and primitive? They do exactly the same with the rhino.

A rhino looks kind of folded and ancient, doesn't it? And we look at it and say, well that's a pretty ancient animal, it must have an ancient origin. But in actual fact, it's a mammal, hello, when did the mammals appear? In recent times, even according to evolutionary theory. So we cannot have our mindset dictate data.

You have to take it for what it is. Here is a modern fish with bony scales, and it is not ancient, it's living today. This is the sturgeon, that's the one you get caviar from, if you're into that sort of thing.

Then we find fossil beds just covered in scales. Nothing like that happens today. The scales dissolve in the sea after a while.

You can go digging in the bottom of the sea, you won't find piles of scales that could fossilise, doesn't exist. So this is catastrophism. It's much like the bark that was stripped of trees when they rolled in the water and get buried as bark layers, which doesn't make any sense if you don't have a catastrophe.

Here are some interesting features, fish, small, large, buried together, and sometimes you have fossils where a fish is actually eating another fish while it is being fossilised. So what was happening here? Obviously, during this event, this fish was swimming around, took a bite, and before it could say, Jack Robinson, what happened? It got buried. It was gone.

That's exactly what happened. This is catastrophism, and this fossil over here, this is a fish that is absolutely perfect. You can even see the little ripple marks around it.

This fish was literally buried alive, instantly, because the preservation is perfect. The oxygen was cut off instantly. Science will tell us that we don't have a complete record of the fossil record because soft-bodied creatures don't fossilise readily.

That's not true. There are millions of fossils of soft-bodied creatures. Here's one.

This is a jellyfish. You can see it's perfectly preserved. We have all kinds of creatures, soft-bodied and non-soft-bodied, perfectly preserved in the fossil record.

There is no reason to say that they don't occur in the fossil record because they would not fossilise readily. In the book Evolution of Life, we read, time and again, wind, water, and ice have cut and destroyed rocks that have been elevated to form continents. That there is a fossil record at all seems rather remarkable.

This is a fascinating point. Think about this. Here you have all the geological layers and they contain all these fossils.

Let's take a mountain range, for example, that's eroding quickly. You erode it away and you're removing it. What are you removing? A record of time with all the fossils in it.

We say, for example, the Himalayas, they are eroding away at a thousand metres or at least two metres every thousand years. That's the exact figure that they give. About two metres every thousand years.

So that's just over two yards gone. Now what's very interesting is if that is so, if you're rubbing it out, why is the mountain still there? Well science gives the answer and says the mountain is still there because it is being uplifted. We call that orogeny, uplift of the mountain.

Now that's fine. That's a pretty good theory and the mountain actually is still rising. You can measure the rate of rise and that more or less keeps up with the rate of eradication at the top.

But now there's a problem. If this process has been going on for millions of years, rubbing out the top and still having the height because you're lifting it up from the bottom, can you still have the record of the history of the world in the top? Yes or no? You cannot have your cake and eat it. You cannot rub it out and say it's eroded away but it's still there because we've lifted it up.

Then you should have only the stuff right at the bottom that is still there. But no, we have the whole record there. So that cannot be.

So somewhere there's a flaw in the story. Somehow there's a problem. How can we still have a fossil record when it's been eradicated over and over again by a process called erosion over millions and millions of years? And so some scientists have this tongue-in-cheek statement, historical geology is a record of events, most of which never took place in time, much of it's never existed.

Well, let's have a look what science has to say. Well, Time Magazine picked up from the scientists and splashed it all over the world so that the youth and everybody should become acquainted, evolving at supersonic speed. You see, when I was a graduate student at the university, I was taught Darwinism.

Darwinism has a logic about it. But Darwinism requires what we call gradualism. Gradual change over time from one form to another.

That's gradualism. But if you look at the fossil record, you don't see gradualism. Gradualism means that you should be able to pick up small differences over time and then have a picture from primitive to advanced in the fossil record.

Isn't that logical? That's what you would expect. But you don't find it in the fossil record. Indeed, what you find is that the creatures are there.

So now you have a problem. So then the neo-Darwinists come along, people like Stephen Jay Gould and all of those that worked at Harvard, and they said, no, what happened is the following. We had long periods of stability and then rapid change, and that's why we don't see any of these links between them.

So evolving at supersonic speed, how quickly did things evolve? When life exploded. The big bang of animal evolution. This is now the scientific paper, and it was published in the journal Scientific American, a summary of the events as we know them today.

Now let's have a look who published this. The person here is Geoffrey Leventon, Professor and Chair of the Department of Ecology and Evolution at State University of New York, Stony Brook. And so he is a person who is well qualified to tell us what the state of affairs is today.

So let's ask scientists themselves what the status quo is. He writes, the Cambrian explosion, that's that lowest layer where life suddenly appears, was characterized by the sudden and roughly simultaneous appearance of many diverse animal forms almost 600 million years ago. No other period in the history of animal life can match this, note the words, remarkable burst of evolutionary creativity.

It's very interesting. And then he talks about the creatures that were present. It is evidence that was obtained from sequencing, 18S ribosomal RNA, that suggests that various species and many phyla, now what's a phyla? That's a huge category of animal.

For example, all the snails, all the slugs, all the marine mollusks, all the squids and the octopuses and all of that constitutes one phylum. And then you have the arthropods, all the jointed legged ones, all the crabs, all the insects, every little crayfish, all of those that walk around, that's another phylum. So these are huge categories of animals.

And they're suggesting that the phyla, many phyla, appeared almost simultaneously. That means, boom, they were there. Stephen Jay Gould writes, fast turns out to be much faster than anyone ever thought.

This is an article in the journal Nature, in the paleontology section. That's the best journal, so the world believes, in the world. The article, of it, not above it, says, older textbooks proclaim that our phyla.

Now, let me put this into perspective. The group that we as humans belong to is supposed to be the pinnacle of evolution. Where does that fit in? Right at the end of the process, isn't that right? We should appear last, this phylum.

So older textbooks proclaim that our phylum, the Kodata, did not appear until the Peruvian period, and that this later evolution must imply advanced status. But, the burger shale contains a Kodate. What does that mean? Well, they identified a Kodate from the Chang'an fauna, and now seals the fate of this misguided effort in asserting specialness for our ancestry.

Kodates arose in the Cambrian explosion. Oops. What does that mean? This means that every phylum, every group, including the one that we belong to, was there from the beginning.

This is a major problem. During the past decade, however, the discovery and development of another fauna of marvelously preserved soft-bodied Cambrian organisms in China has proven that, note, full diversity was reached within the explosion itself. That means everything, every life form, kind, that exists today was there from when? From when? From the beginning.

Now, I'm not making this up. These are the top scientists in the field in the world. Everything was there from the beginning.

In my own life, I started off with my thinking as a gradualist. That's the only logical alternative. Darwinism is the only logical alternative.

Now please don't confuse logic with correctness. Something can be perfectly logical, but it can be perfectly wrong at the same time, okay? So, Darwinism is a logical alternative in science. We'll look at Darwinism and see what the flaws in Darwinism are, but everything appearing at the same time, that cannot be.

So you had to change. So we became what was called punctuated equilibriumists. Sounds very nice.

That means equilibrium, long periods of nothing, and then, boom, punctuated, rapid change, and everything's there. But you know, it's not too far a step to take one step further and to say, if everything was there from the beginning, then it could also be what? Creation. Right? Doesn't that make sense? Could also be creation.

Now, is this something totally new? No. He writes, Charles Darwin faced this challenge to his gradualistic preference. Things changed slowly over time, with characteristic honesty, writing in the first edition of Origin of Species, strange that it disappears later, the case at present must remain inexplicable and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.

So they've known this from the beginning. So is there such a thing as an evolutionary record which shows things developing from simple to complex? Answer is no. No.

What we have is fully complex organisms there at the same time. Now, when they put in evolutionary trees like this, actually you don't have evolutionary trees. You have what we call evolutionary lawns.

Now, a tree has a trunk. That means it starts with one, and then it goes up, and then it branches out into all the various branches. So everything started simple, developed, and then all the different things started developing.

That's the tree of life. All these different creatures all over the place, starting from one organism and becoming more and more and more. That's what science would like to teach, but unfortunately it didn't happen like that.

What we have is a lawn. All the blades, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, they're at the same time. So the frogs look like this today.

The frogs have always looked like that, right down into the record, and the fish have looked like that, and the sharks have looked like that, and whatever else, the lampreys and all of these have looked like that, and some of them are not around anymore, but we have similar ones living today, and so they link them all together, suggesting that they come from a common ancestor. But this bottom piece over here of linking them together is what? Is conjecture. Where does it come from? It comes from the mind.

It doesn't come from the fossils. That's very important that we realise that. So if we look at the reptiles, the turtles, for example, you never find a half-formed turtle, or a quarter turtle, or a third turtle, or a piece of something developing into a turtle.

When a turtle appears in the fossil record, it's a what? It's a turtle, finished. If the lizards appear, they are lizards, snakes are snakes, et cetera, et cetera, all the way through, and the linkages are conjecture. Let's have a look at some of the criteria.

Evolutionary processes require, number one, advancement from simple to complex. That would be logical, right? That's what evolution requires. Number two, evolution requires development from small to large.

That's called the law of Carroll. Carroll was a scientist who said everything had to start from small and develop to large. There is no other way.

That's logical. Think about it. You don't start with a rhinoceros and end with an amoeba.

You start with an amoeba and you develop all the way up to the rhinoceros. That would be logical. Is that correct? That's a perfectly logical assumption that you would make if evolution was correct.

And also, if life started somehow fortuitously somewhere on the planet, suddenly it was there, then there would have only been one, and eventually they could have become more and more and more and more and more if the theory is correct, so we start with low diversity to high diversity. That's logical. That's what you'd expect.

But what do we have? We don't have that at all. We have irreducible complexity. Suddenly they're there.

Boom. And some of the features in what we have cannot be simplified. They will not work if they are simplified, so they have to be complete.

Everything has to be there. Boom. Some of the organelles and structures in living organisms are so complicated and need so many building blocks and parts that if they're not complete, they wouldn't work.

So, boom, everything has to be there at the same time. So we don't have advancement from simple to complex. Everything was always complex.

Do we have small to large? No. If we go into the past history, everything was bigger and larger and more magnificent than it is today. Today we have but a fraction of what used to exist in terms of size and in terms of diversity.

We have reverse diversity. We would expect low to high, but we find far more creatures in the past than exist today. In fact, we only have a fraction left of what used to live.

So we find exactly the opposite to what is to be expected. Well, that's a problem. S. Gould, in his article, Return to Hopeful Monsters in Natural History, now these are the top scientists.

Stephen Jay Gould is dead now, but still his work lives. The family trees that adorn our textbooks are based on inference. They come out of the mind, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils.

So Darwin's theory of this is what we would expect is logical if it were true, but we don't find that. We find exactly the opposite. And the family trees are based on inference.

So when you go into the fossil record and you look at the evolution of the horse, this is how it's depicted. So you go from this tiny little creature, which used to be called Eohippus, or it used to be called Hieracotherium, then they changed it to Eohippus, develops all the way through to the modern horse. And this strange little one down here, Hieracotherium, is depicted like that, but its name was Hieracotherium because it looked like a hyrax, a rock hyrax.

In fact, it was nothing other than a type of rock hyrax. Then if we go to the other creatures all the way up and to the horses, they arrange the horses from small to large. That's logical, but is it necessarily right? If I gave you a pile of dog skulls, imagine this now in your mind, I gave you a pile of dog skulls, every conceivable dog type on the world, and I said, there it is, and you've never seen dogs before, and I say, design for me an evolutionary tree, what would you do? What would you do? You would arrange them from what? From small to large, so the Chihuahua would be right at the bottom.

There he is. And then how would you develop your tree? What would you do? Well, you would put all the creatures that had sort of flat, stocky, bulls, flat faces, you'd put them on the one branch, isn't that right? So you would have your bulldog and your pug and all of those on the one side and the boxer arranged on the one side, and in the middle you'd have the sort of in between sturdy ones, and on the right what would you have? Something like the lean sort of slim long machines, the whippets and the afghans with their long snoots, and you'd have a beautiful tree, and it would be perfectly logical, would it be right? No, it would be absolutely wrong. Why? Because they didn't come out of the Chihuahua in the first place, in fact they came out of the wolf breeds and the evolution is non-existent.

This is the variety that is found within the gene pool, from the smallest to the largest, so it's not something that you would think reflects evolution at all, it comes out of the mind. So the same over here, these creatures, were they buried in the fossil record in the sequence from small to large, yes or no? The answer is no. They were all there at the same time, they were contemporary, and you're giving a pile of bones to a scientist and he, in the laboratory where he sits, designs the tree.

It's based on inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils, that's the fact of the matter. So, today, do we have tiny horses, yes, that's the smallest horse, look how small it is relative to that hand, and that's the largest horse. That's the variation in the horse breed today, this has nothing to do with evolution, nothing to do with evolution, is that an ancient horse and this a modern horse, no, they both live at the same time.

You have the entire range over there. These horses are magnificent creatures, but they are totally different to other horses. These are the very special breed of horses that you find on Iceland alone.

They have got features which are totally different from modern horses, but we know that these horses are derived from normal horses that the Vikings took to Iceland 1,200 years ago. So these changes that we see have to be accounted for, but this is nothing other than a normal horse. So then let's go to the dinosaurs and all these interesting creatures.

Well, here was an article in Time Magazine about dinosaurs, surprised, just about everything you believe is wrong. Well, that's nothing new. What did they look like? What were they? Did they give rise to birds, as is being told in the world today? Here's a sort of artist's impression of the Mesozoic period with all these creatures running around.

Did they die in hot water? How did they die? Why did they only exist here in the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous? Why are they gone now? This is a typical tree of the dinosaur evolution, starting with the amphibians and then how they all evolved and there are all the modern ones sitting on top of the tree. Is this true or is this conjecture? What is it? It's inference, conjecture, but it's not based on the fossils. So how did they get that? They had all the creatures, they're all in these layers, they take them and then they put them together.

Is there anything leading up to a stegosaur or any one of these, a brontosaurus or a tyrannosaurus rex or a triceratops over there? Is there anything leading up to it, yes or no? No? When they're there, they're there. That's it. That's what you got.

Everything's finished and ready. Here in your country, the great formations are the Morrison Formation where you have many, many dinosaurs, but you have a selection. You have largely one, Allosaurus, where's the rest? And he was supposedly a carnivore, what did he eat? Why aren't those fossilised as well? There are strange assemblies of fossils and then if you look at them, these creatures are orientated in the direction of stream flow.

There's an Allosaurus for you. Or this one over here, the terrible pterosaurus rex. Now what happened to him? Was he a vicious, vicious carnivore? What did Jurassic Park do with this creature? Everybody was running around screaming in fear, is that correct? Because this vicious carnivore was going to destroy everything in its path.

Why is it a vicious carnivore? Because of its teeth, right? Now if you look at this creature, you have to remember a few things. This was a giant animal walking on two legs with tiny little hands in the front. If it had to catch something, with what would it have to catch it? With its front little paws and it would have to bend down and try and catch it with its mouth while this creature was trying to run away.

Now there's a law in science which determines what can be a carnivore and what cannot be a carnivore. You see, an elephant would make a very poor carnivore. Why? Because it is too huge.

It is too bulky. It has too much momentum when it is running. Can you imagine an elephant trying to catch a gazelle? And the gazelle is going, the elephant is going, and the gazelle goes, and the elephant goes, for another five miles, makes a U-turn and tries to come back.

Forget it. They will be useless as carnivores. So what do they do? They eat plants.

I could still envision an elephant being a scavenger, maybe, but would he get enough to eat? It would be a catastrophic life if even a fox becomes as thin as a rake from trying to find enough food. Isn't that right? So large animals like these, just by sheer body mass, would be relatively useless carnivores. And then those teeth.

Those teeth are in very shallow grooves. So they are good for crushing, like shredding machines, crushers, but holding on and ripping out, it would not be very effective. So were these creatures really what we make them out to be? Fresh T-Rex bones.

This is in the journal Science. It was like looking at a slice of modern bone, but of course I couldn't believe it. I said to the lab technician, the bones, after all, are 65 million years old.

How could blood cells survive that long? You see, we found bones with blood cells still in them, intact. Could they be millions of years old, yes or no? These are questions which boggled the mind. Maybe these creatures didn't live so long ago, and maybe these creatures were not what science would have us believe them to be.

If you go to a museum of natural history, any one of them, this is what you will see. Dinosaurs running around, and what are they all doing? They're all ripping each other apart. Isn't that right? They're all ripping each other apart, bleeding and blood gushing, one screeching and running while the other one is taking a bite out of the side.

That's what you see out there. Here you see another one. This comes from the British Museum of Natural History.

This one being attacked, and you have much blood and gore and ripping. The displays that you have, you have the blood around the face and the blood around the feet and all of these things. These things are all depicted as highly vicious.

Do we have creatures today that have short little arms in the front and big legs at the back? Yeah, we have kangaroos. They're great carnivores. Have you seen them running around killing everything? Blood all over the place? No, you don't.

You know, the anatomy is just not suitable for that. So what is the story over here? Is it really like that? Well, you had tiny little dinosaurs like this one. Some dinosaurs were just the size of a chicken, not very big.

Did you know that reptiles continue to grow, and they get very, very, very, very, very old? If you take tortoises, for example, if you have a tortoise that's a few days old, how big is it? It's about that big. It's about that big. And if you come back in 300 years, if you survived that long, how big would it be? It would be about that big, right? And so on the Galapagos Island, you have huge tortoises.

And what if they, if you came around 1,000 years later, how big would it be? Ooh, pretty big thing, right? And we have some very amazing creatures today. Here is one of them in display in the Museum of Natural History in London. You can see by the scale of things, I mean, these things were huge.

This creature was probably a swamp creature, walking in swamps and feeding off the swamps. And here is a triceratops, obviously a plant feeder. Look at its mouth.

It's exactly like any creature that would eat plants. Tortoises have mouths like that, so this was a plant creature. So it had these vicious horns on the top.

Brr, why? Well, you see, it had to protect itself against what? Against all these vicious carnivores. It had this huge defense mechanism to do its job. That's what science is teaching our young people today.

That's the image that we have with us. Hello, what's that? That's a chameleon, and it has three horns on the top. That's a modern triceratops, a small one.

Some chameleons get pretty big like this, some are very small. We have all kinds of varieties, and these horns over here are to protect it against all the vicious carnivores all around. True or false? Very false.

What are those horns for? Those horns are there to look sexy. Exactly. When a female looks at those horns, her knees just begin to wobble.

And that's what happens. Now, this is a very common thing in nature. If you take reindeer, for example.

What do reindeer look like in the breeding season? What does the male look like? He has these huge antlers. He is so impressive, right? And the bigger they are, the cockier he is, right? And then the breeding season comes, and the males, they test their horns, and the females watch and are very impressed. And the guy with the biggest antlers, you know, like the youth today with the best hairstyles, they get the ladies, that's the way it works.

Everything works like that. What happens after the breeding season to a reindeer's antlers? They fall off. Now, what if they were really there to keep all the vicious carnivores away? He would be in big trouble for most of the year, right? Nothing to protect himself.

This is a mindset that is being placed in the minds of men that does not have a basis in reality. And these creatures were probably no different to the lizards and the creatures that we have today, just bigger. Everything was bigger.

We find dinosaur eggs, yes, and then we have museums depicting them in their little nests, breeding out, pretending that everything is very normal, and we can find the eggs, yes. But how do we find these eggs in the fossil record? They are all washed into great washes. They have all been buried in catastrophic flood deposits.

There is no such thing out there as a natural setting that would pretend to be anything like it is today. Dinosaur footprints all over the place. If you look at the way in which the impression was made, then it appears that in the past the animals all walked uphill because most of the footprints seemed to go upgrade.

You can't look at the topography today. You have to look at what it was like because there could have been uplift and downlift. So when these animals made the impressions, they were making impressions in mud, and they all appear to be running uphill.

Why would animals always run uphill? What makes animals go uphill? Maybe rising floodwaters? Is that a possibility? So there are over 100 published theories about the extinction of the dinosaurs, ranging from the fascinating to the absurd. Do any of them explain the death of the dinosaurs? What are the facts? Why so many theories to explain something that is perfectly obvious? All of them that we find are buried in huge floodplains, washed into position, even orientated by floodwaters. Any eggs that there are are washed into position, but none of them died in a flood.

Does that make any sense? Doesn't make any sense to me. Then we come to the birds. But the birds, that's a topic on its own.

So we'll leave that for the next session. All right, did dinosaurs give rise to birds? That's a very interesting question. Science says yes.

That is at least what we are taught. That's what the kids are taught. Oh, yes, there's the oviraptors and the velicoraptors and all these strange-looking creatures all over the place.

And they're depicted as taking care of their little eggs. And we have fossils where there are feathers. And there was a transition from the dinosaurs to the birds.

Archaeopteryx, a very famous fossil, is now generally accepted that Archaeopteryx was a bird with fully formed flying feathers and a wishbone. Here is the prime candidate today for the transition. This is Sinosauropteryx.

And there is the fossil. And if you look carefully, you'll see these little things over here, which seem to be feather impressions, although they're not very clear as feather impressions at all. And we'll see what the top scientists in the field have to say.

These are all publications in journals like the Journal of Science, which is, of course, the equivalent of Nature, so great journals. New research shows that birds lack the embryonic thumb that dinosaurs had, suggesting that it is almost impossible for the species to be closely related. Here's another statement.

A team led by bird expert Alan Faducha, chairman of the biology of the University of North Carolina, studied bird embryos under a microscope and published their studies in the Journal of Science. A team led by John Rubin, a respiratory physiologist at Oregon State, also analyzed the outlines of Sinosauropteryx's internal organs. Its bellow-like lungs could not have evolved into the high-performing lungs of modern birds.

You see, it's more than just feathers. Rubin, an ancient bird expert, Larry Martin believed that the so-called feather tracers are actually frayed collagen fibers beneath the skin. So maybe they're not feathers at all.

Feather expert Alan Brush, University of Connecticut, stores points out that they lack the organization found in modern feathers. So these aren't feathers at all? Is that what they're saying? Well, if we look at lungs, for example, that first story, mammals have lungs like these, where the air goes into a little sack like a balloon, and you breathe in, balloon fills up. You breathe out, balloon empties out.

And that's how you fill your lung. So every time you fill your lung, you mix the air from the outside with the air already in the lung, and there is less oxygen than when that mixing didn't take place. So now, if you go climbing, when you get to a certain height, you become breathless.

Why? Well, the air gets thinner, there's less oxygen, and you're battling, and you're mixing. So if you go to the top of Mount Everest, what do you have to take with you to survive? Oxygen bottle. You have to take an oxygen bottle.

And then you stand up there with your oxygen bottle and try and survive. And while you're standing and looking at the view, you hear quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack. And what flies overhead? A bunch of geese.

And you think, what have they got that I haven't got? How come they can be up there and I can't be up there? Well, you see, birds have different lungs. They don't have these air sacs where there is a mixing of the air. Like in our case, birds have a bunch of sacs before the lungs and a bunch of sacs after the lungs.

And the air passes straight through in little tubes. So the anatomy and the physiology is totally different in a bird lung to what it is in a reptile lung or a mammalian lung. So the one could never give rise to the other.

And also, feathers are highly complex structures that could never develop incrementally to be efficient. They would have to be there, fully formed, or be useless for flying, or one of the two. So here you have huge problems in the physiology.

Here are some more statements. Storrs Olsen is curator of birds at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institute. And he wrote a response to a National Geographic article which just plasters it across the world that it's a fact.

Birds came from dinosaurs. Isn't that what this expert has to say to them? The feathered dinosaur pictures are simply imaginary and have no place outside of science fiction. Are you ever told this at the school level, yes or no? No.

Nobody hears this. You only hear one-sided propaganda. In fact, that is unfair science because it's based on a lie.

The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic. So there seems to be an agenda in the scientific world who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselyters of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age.

The paleontological equivalent of cold fusion. There's no such thing. And yet, our children are being subjected to it every single day.

He writes here, Alan Feluccia, Chairman of the Biology Department at the University of North Carolina. He writes, it's biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy balancing tails exactly the wrong anatomy for flight. The theropod dinosaur origin of birds in my opinion will be the greatest embarrassment of the paleontology of the 20th century.

Do you think science will heed it? I doubt it. They will preach it and teach it because that is the only solution they have. Because where did the birds come from if they didn't come from something? Because God is not going to be acknowledged ever.

Creation is not going to be acknowledged. Complexity had to fall from the sky. Well, what are these? These are the famous Ica stones from Peru.

What is that? These are stones drawn on by ancient Indian cultures. And what do we have there? That's a triceratops if ever I saw one. There you can see it perfectly clearly.

These are flying reptiles. These are pterodactyls. There's no doubt about that.

And they have a person flying on them. Very interesting. And they have all these creatures on the Ica stones.

Is it possible that man and these creatures live contemporaneously? Where do all the legends come from, from dragons and fighting this? Do you know that ancient writers who are not even writing about science, but poets or just historians writing quite generally just in passing mention that these creatures, which they called dragons, live in Africa or in the jungles here, there, and everywhere? There are many, many, many occasions where there are records of such sightings. And then you have these strange things over here. I don't believe that the lizards in the past were any different to the lizards that we have today.

If you take this modern lizard that lives today, the basilisk, that sprint across jungle streams, and you look at this creature, doesn't he look like something from science fiction? Isn't he cute? I think he's absolutely delightful. But imagine a paleontologist got hold of this fossil. What would he do with it? It would be the most vicious-looking creature under the sun, when actually it's a cute little thing that sits there and is there for the amusement of the eye.

George Gaylord Simpson, one of the doyens of evolution, says, it has been suggested that all animals are now specialized and that the generalized forms on which major evolutionary development depend are absent. In fact, all animals have always been more or less specialized and a really generalized living form is merely a myth or an abstraction. What does that mean in simple language? He says, there's no such thing as a simple animal that became complicated.

It's a myth. When we look at the fossil record, everything is complicated. At the same time, what do we have in the world today? Scientists agree, world faces mass extinction.

A quarter of the mammals face extinction. Only 10% of the big ocean fish remain. That's what the world is, knowing this is a fact.

So everything is disappearing, which explains why everything was more in the past than it is today. Doesn't that make sense? If we are slowly, slowly eradicating things by extinction, sooner or later we'll have what? Nothing left. Natural selection is doing a great job of removing everything from the planet.

So if we look into the past, it was a far greater world than we have today. And science is distorting the picture. It's not what it seems to them.

These creatures were just around. So young folks, if the world were ever restored to what it was, what a delight it would be. How many creatures there would be.

If you look at the fossil record, we had strange creatures in the past that don't live today. But what is an ammonite? An ammonite is a highly, highly complex squid-like creature that lived in a shell and swam through the sea just like modern squids without their shells. So there you have these creatures.

They're complex. There's nothing simple about them. These are the trilobites, depicted as ancient and the first organisms to evolve, which is rubbish because we saw that everything was there at the same time.

And what are they? They're arthropods, highly complex. They don't live today, but there's nothing simple about them at all. They tunneled.

They had all the equipment that they needed. This is nautilus, ancient so-called living fossils. That's the living form.

That's the fossil. They were identical. Nothing has changed.

If we look at the marine organisms and you look at the echinoderms like the sea stars and the brittle stars and all of these creatures, there's the fossil. There's the living forms. Nothing has changed.

Nothing. When they appear, they're like that. And today, they are like that.

These are some of the fossil forms that we can see. Everything is identical to what it is today. Nothing has changed.

So where is the story of simple to complex? It doesn't exist. It's either there or it's not there. Look at these crinoids.

These are sea lilies, highly complex, exactly in the past as they are today. Here are shells in the fossil record, living shells. There's a fossil of a turtle.

There's a living one. No change. No change whatsoever.

Fossils, living creatures, identical. Horseshoe crabs as they were, supposedly millions of years ago, today unchanged. Lingula, millions of years ago, unchanged.

Coelacanths, this is the fish that was discovered in Africa for the first time by Smith. And he said, wow, this is a living fossil. This is the creature that gave rise to the land animals.

And this is what they look like. And because the lobes of the feet are like that, they could walk. We have many fish today that can do that besides this.

All the rockfish have like little walking legs to move around on the rocks, but they don't come out onto land. Some can even hop. Isn't this fascinating? Look at the size of this shark.

That's a fossil, and that's a modern shark. Nothing like it exists today. This is humongous.

And that's a tooth of one of these fossils. It's enormous. There's no such thing that exists today.

The frightening great white is fiddlesticks compared to that guy, really, fiddlesticks. And here is Tuatara. That's the famous Swenodon from New Zealand.

Exactly like he is today, so he is in the fossil record. These creatures over here, like these giant Galapagos turtles, tortoises, exactly in the fossil record like they are today. Now imagine these creatures, these wonderful iguanas.

Give them a thousand years to grow, how big would they be? Wow, you'd probably fill the room with them. That would be scary, or would it? What do these creatures eat? Vicious dinosaurs? Well, if a scientist dug them up, that's what he would say. They would depict them in the museums full of blood, right? What do they eat? Seaweed, that's what they eat.

That's what they eat. Nobody would ever guess that's what they eat. Or the Galapagos land iguana, yes, some of them eat plants.

Some of them eat meat. We will look at that in another lecture. Gila monsters, armadillos, opossums, crocodiles, exactly like they look today, that's what they looked like in the past.

No change, none whatsoever. And we think crocodiles are big? Do you know what? Crocodiles that live today are toys compared to what existed in the past. You want to see the difference? I'll show you the difference.

Look at these huge creatures like armadillos. There is a fossil crocodile, and there is a fully grown modern crocodile. No difference in the anatomy, so there's no evolution here.

There's only one big difference, and that is what? This guy is just enormous. He is so huge you cannot even imagine it. If you came up across this crocodile, you would know that you had seen a crocodile.

It is scary. Now, why is it so big? Why is it so big? Is that evolution? What does evolution teach? You go from what to what? Small to large. But that's not what we have.

We go from giant to dinky toy. I'm aging myself by using dinky toy. They don't exist anymore.

Lego toy. All right, there we go. So what has happened? Why is this creature so large? Maybe the circumstances in the past were ideal.

There was so much food around. Everything was perfect. Temperatures were perfect.

And they had a long time to grow without anybody wiping them off the face of the earth. And there they were, huge, huge. That's not evolution.

We've got devolution. We've gone downhill. Let's have a look at the insect world.

This insect is a fossil, and it has a straight wing. So science says primitive, primitive. Why primitive? Because the wing, they say, is a modified scale.

Big problem. Big problem. Because a scale and a wing doesn't develop from the same anatomical layers.

Big problem. You cannot have the one developing out of the other. But besides that, they have to get the wing somewhere, so it's a modified scale.

Now, this creature cannot fold its wings. Obviously, if you could fold your wing nicely and bury it under or hide it under a covering, that would be an advanced feature, right? So this must be primitive. Yeah, just think of the mindset.

So what is this? Straight out wing. Cannot fold it, bend it, bury it, hide it. Primitive or advanced? Primitive.

Is it? No. They all occur at exactly the same time. So again, it just comes out of the mind of the scientist.

Or this was perfectly formed, but the wings are straight. Primitive? No. Why should it be? Or this one? There's the fossil.

There's the modern one. If you look at this creature over here, you would say, well, that's primitive because it doesn't have a folded wing. Did you know that scientists use the dragonfly to develop the helicopter? And the helicopter cannot do a fraction of what this creature can do.

This creature can go, whatever it wants to do. It's magnificent. The design is absolutely astounding.

We cannot even copy it. It's so perfect. But it's primitive.

Why? Because the wings are straight. And if you can fold your wings like this one, like a beetle wing, that's advanced. Then why do the beetles and the dragonflies occur in the fossil record at the same time? Or what about this problem? Why do we find bees' nests in the fossil record long before there are flowering plants? Hmm? What do they eat? Wait for 50,000 million years to get something to eat? I think there's a problem there.

Here's a praying mantis. And there's a fossil. Unchanged.

Nothing has changed. Here you have an eye of an insect. One of the most intricate structures known in the world today.

The eye, of course, works totally different to ours. Our eye already is a nightmare to evolutionists. But this eye is even more of a nightmare.

Because it's made up of perfectly shaped little mirrors. And each of them has to be absolutely perfect to work. You cannot get this to improve over time.

And there are hundreds of these reflecting the light absolutely perfectly. In fact, NASA used this eye to design the mirrors in the reflecting telescopes that they use in space. They used this as a model.

It's absolutely perfect. How did it come into being? Just like that? Because there's no incremental way in which it will work. It's either there or it's not.

And do we have any evidence in the fossil record that there has been an evolution of the eye? No. Here is. Probably the most ancient insect that you can look at.

And there's the eye. This is in amber. This is a fossil.

Perfect. Perfect. No change.

Here's another insect in amber. They're unchanged. Here's a cricket in amber.

Unchanged. There is no evidence out there for any change. There's an ant.

No wonder this ant is saying to this ant, I can't believe it, Fred. 60 million years since I've seen you and you haven't changed a bit. So is it true what science is telling us, that we evolved from simple to complex? Is it true? No.

The scientists themselves say everything from the beginning has been complex. There's no simple to complex. Doesn't exist.

Is it true that we went from small to large? No. We went from large to small. So did we go uphill or did we go downhill? We went downhill.

Is it true that we went from low diversity to high diversity? No. Extinction is removing more and more and more and more and more from the planet. And scientists out there in the world are screaming and saying, if we don't stop this, we'll have nothing left.

We went from high diversity to low diversity. Is it true that the animals appear gradually over time or do they appear suddenly? What does the scientific evidence say that we discussed over here? It appeared suddenly at the same time. Now, you think about these things.

I'm not making this up. I used to be an evolutionist. I used to believe in evolution.

In fact, I hated God. I wanted nothing to do with God. And I had no option but to be an evolutionist because I left God out of the equation.

I had no option. And so I wasn't being a hypocrite. I just was looking for a solution.

And that was the only option available. Even as an evolutionist, I had to change from gradualism to equilibriumism, punctuated equilibriumism. Why? Because the fossil record didn't tell me what it should be telling me.

It just didn't do it. It cannot do it, as you saw from the scientific quotes themselves. I had to change.

So what's the big deal? If everything was there from the beginning, there's no difference between that and creation except that you've left out what? God. That's it. That's the only thing we have left out, God.

They're calling it sudden burst of evolutionary creativity. And they've just left out God out of the equation. That's it.

So is there a God or is there not a God? Well, you decide. This is the valvitchia. Valvitchias are plants that just don't die.

They just grow and grow and grow until they are very, very, very old. So we have giant valvitchias in Namibia, in the deserts. And they tell us something about how long things have been around.

If you go to the oldest trees in the world, the bristlecone pine is famous for it. The oldest ones around, how old? Well, the oldest valvitchia around is between 4,000 and 5,000 years old. The oldest bristlecone pine, how old is that? Between 4,000 and 5,000 years.

Some years ago, they said, oh, 6,000. But then they realized that they were not dealing accurately with the ring structures. And so today, everybody agrees, 4,000 to 5,000 years.

That's it. Or if you go to the Redwood National State Park, what do you find? Giant trees, huge ones. And these are first-generation forests.

You see, this tree is amazing because its bark is fireproof. So even if a fire sweeps through the forest, the trees survive. It's a first-generation forest, so there's nothing that was there before.

How old are the oldest ones on the planet? Between 4,000 and 5,000 years. If you look at the river systems in the world, you have a Mississippi River over here. It comes down and it deposits whatever it deposits in the Gulf of Mexico.

And there is no subduction there. The mud is not being taken away. It's all nicely enclosed.

So whatever the Mississippi has brought down is where? In the Gulf of Mexico. The same with the Nile. Whatever the Nile has brought down, where is it? In the Mediterranean.

And so if you look at the mouth of the Nile, you'll have a huge delta where all the silt that has come down over the eons has been deposited. Now, they know exactly how much these rivers actually bring down because people build dams in rivers. And a dam will eventually fill up with silt, and then it's no longer a dam.

It gets useless. So they have to work out whether it's economically feasible to build a dam like that. And the way they do that is they put nets and devices into the water to measure how much material comes down per year.

And they do this over a number of years to determine how long would it take before the dam is useless. That makes sense, doesn't it? And so they did that with the Nile. And then it just takes a satellite picture, and you determine how much has this Nile brought down in its entire lifetime.

And you know what? There is no river that's older than between 4,000 and 5,000 years. Doesn't exist. There is no plant that is older than between 4,000 and 5,000 years.

And you will say to me, but whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. We have archaeological evidence. We have evidence from the nations, from China, that everything has been around for much longer than that.

Yeah, when I was a kid, they taught that. When we did Egyptology, what did they say? Egypt was around for how many thousands of years, BC? And then as the evidence piled up, what has happened to those dates? What has happened to them? What has happened to the dates in China? What's happened to the dates in Egypt? What's happened to the dates in Mesopotamia? What happened to them? They got shorter, and shorter, and shorter, and shorter. And now if somebody dares say 3,000 BC, by the way, that's just 5,000 years, they will put a plus minus in front of it.

Why? Because they know that in a couple of weeks time, nyeh, nyeh, nyeh, time will come down. Why? You see, in the past, they used to put the kings all sequential. They'd say that one reigned here, next one there, next one there, next one there, next one there, next one there.

And they had a long list of kings and a long time. Because they knew this king reigned for so many years, that one for so many years, a long time. And then one day, they discovered, oops, yeah, it was father and son ruling at the same time.

Or father and three sons ruling at the same time. And the time went nyeh. And then the time went nyeh.

And so eventually, we're down to a very interesting scenario. Take the history of Europe. Man, if we've been around for millions of years, why can we only trace the history of Europe to a few decades, centuries, perhaps a millennia or two BC? Nothing there before.

England, there was nothing on that island 2000 BC, nothing happening. So really, we're dealing with very interesting phenomena. And these trees, yes, they're huge.

You can drive a car through them. But the bottom line is, everything appeared at the same time. Everything was fully formed.

There is no evidence of change from one form to another. There is top level scientific evidence that one form did not give rise to another, as they teach in our schools every single day. And I believe that these scientists are dealing with one basic problem.

And that is a denial of divinity. That's it. That was my problem.

Denial of divinity. It has nothing to do with science. Science has moved into the realms of faith.

And you can choose for yourself whom you want to believe. That choice is yours. But you don't have to be exposed to lies in order to make a theory fit.

Thank you.

Evolution: Strike 3 – You’re Out!

Now, here are my comments concerning all of these videos!

This Is NOT The First Time Scientists Have Lied! It’s Their Habit!

See Testimony Of Arthur Baldwin, An Engineer Speaks On Evolution, What Is The Bible To Me?

Epilogue

I could have made this article MUCH longer and more convincing! But what is the point of saying these things when scientists are willing to continue a string of blatant lies to support their desire to eliminate God from their conscience?

Evolution is the biggest fanatical religious fairytale ever forced upon the human race by any group of liars! And now it is dying! It should be dead already…but many of those liars still have a very strong emotional need to believe their lies!

Hmm…I just realized what the “strong delusion” is in the following Bible reference:

"6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

2 Thesselonians 2:6-12  KJV

Yes, that “strong delusion” is the “Theory of Evolution.” Let’s see if it fits. It is a worldwide problem, affecting everyone! I think this fits perfectly!

I personally know God the Father, His Son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit! Jesus is my closest Friend, Brother, Savior, and God! I know that Jesus created everything in the entire Universe! God and His Word, the Bible, have gradually cured me of Autism since age 2! I know ALL of the KJV Bible is TRUE, especially the literal 6-day creation week!

If this were not so, then NONE of the Bible would be True because then there would be death before sin, no reason to keep the Sabbath Day holy, and no logic behind ANY of the rest of God’s Word!

God is capable of making light appear anywhere at any time in order to fool scientists into believing that it has been traveling for millions of years! Jesus spoke most things into existence! Do you really think putting light where it belongs is difficult for Him? It’s NOT!

When Jesus said, “Lazarus, come forth,” He was careful to say the name first because who knows how many dead people would have responded!

You will see Jesus returning to this Earth very soon, but then it will be too late to form any relationship with Him! The time to create that relationship is RIGHT NOW! You need to prepare to meet Jesus!

Sincerely,

Arthur Baldwin