Real Science Friday Interviews Walter ReMine

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
RSF Interviews Walter ReMine

This is the show from Tuesday, July 6th 2012.

BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:
There are a lot of illusions the Darwinians created about ancestors. And along in the mid 1970s there arose up other evolutionists who disagreed with the classical Darwinians. And they created a new tradition of selling evolution to the public. What they did is basically say, “We don’t need to identify ancestors.” They can’t. They can’t identify the ancestors. They weren’t quite that direct about it, but the modern tradition now is to avoid identifying specific ancestors and lineages. It’s quite a hoot to see.

SUMMARY:



* Illusions of Evolution Exposed by Information Engineer: Real Science Friday's Bob Enyart and Fred Williams interview electrical engineer and information expert Walter ReMine to identify the specific illusions offered by evolutionists when they claim to have established ancestors and evolutionary lineage. ReMine's classic book, The Biotic Message, makes a signficant contribution to the anti-evolution literature.

* Do Body Parts Evolve Into Other Body Parts? After a century of looking for the ancestors and lineage that Darwinists expected to find among millions of fossils, frustrated evolutionists invented various illusions to make it seem as though they have identified the origin of countless species. Consider a first example. Organs don't reproduce. That is, eyes don't give birth to baby eyes, and kidneys don't give birth to baby kidneys. Rather, organisms reproduce, and taking them as a group, a species can reproduce. However, increasingly avoiding the problematic attempt to identify the particular species that allegedly evolved into another species, instead Darwinists now present various alternative arguments, and provide the illusion that they have identified a ancestry. For this particular illusion, they select body parts from diverse organisms (even from creatures that they will admit did not evolve from one or the other) and then provide a chart implying that the one body parts demonstrate an evolutionary history. ReMine documents an example of this in the 1985 debate between atheist Philip Kitcher and creationist Duane Gish in which Kitcher presented a chart of body parts from unrelated animals, including two forms that were later, admittedly, fabricated.

* Humans Close to Koalas, Octopus, and Sponge: When building a claimed evolutionary tree, evolutionists compare arbitrarily selected features of anatomy. For humans, if considering fingerprints, then we're close to koalas. Considering the human eye, then we're close to the octopus. But 70% of the genes in the lowly sponge are just like our human genes. So depending upon an arbitrary selection of hundreds of bodily organs or millions of various segments of DNA, any number of conflicting evolutionary trees can be drawn.

* Punctuated Equilibrium: Walter ReMine explains that when some of the world's most famous and respected evolutionists introduced the belief that most species evolved relatively quickly, without leaving a fossil record of their transitions, they did so based on three observations:
1. Clear-cut ancestors and lineages are systematically absent over the long term and instead what appears throughout the fossil record is diversity.
2. Large morphological gaps in the fossil record.
3. The lact of identifiable ancestors and the large morphological gaps cannot be brushed aside by claiming the fossil record is incomplete.
ReMine points out that these are essentially creationist observations which some of the world's leading evolutionists, like Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldgridge, themselves acknowledged and created an entire new line of evolutionary theory to deal with. Gould famously admitted that the morphological gaps (like the lack of transitions between invertebrate and vertebrate, or anything and a turtle) were the trade secret of paleontology, and also, that if anyone found evidence of gradual evolution, they would thereby falsify his theory. And the fossil record is beleived to be largely complete because for a century now, with millions of fossils excavated, when a new batch of fossils are brought in from the field, typically they can be sorted into the existing patterns of life already documented within taxonomy.

Our Dinosaur Soft Tissue Page Update: We're continuing to updated our database! Last month microscopy expert Mark Armitage complimented our RealScienceFriday.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue listing as the web's most complete catalog of peer-reviewed journal papers confirming the existence of original biological tissue from dinosaurs!



Today’s Resource: Get the greatest cell biology video ever made! Getting this on DVD:
- helps you to share it with others
- helps keep Real Science Friday on the air, and
- gets you Dr. Don Johnson's book as a bonus!
Information is encoded in every cell in our DNA and in all living things. Learn how the common world view of life's origin, chemical evolution, conflicts with our knowledge of Information Science. Finally, information Science is changing the way millions of people think about all living systems!

Also, have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store? You just might LOVE IT! We offer a 30-day money back guarantee on all purchases.
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
RSF Interviews Walter ReMine

This is the show from Tuesday, July 6th 2012.

* Do Body Parts Evolve Into Other Body Parts? After a century of looking for the ancestors and lineage that Darwinists expected to find among millions of fossils, frustrated evolutionists invented various illusions to make it seem as though they have identified the origin of countless species. Consider a first example. Organs don't reproduce. That is, eyes don't give birth to baby eyes, and kidneys don't give birth to baby kidneys. Rather, organisms reproduce, and taking them as a group, a species can reproduce. However, increasingly avoiding the problematic attempt to identify the particular species that allegedly evolved into another species, instead Darwinists now present various alternative arguments, and provide the illusion that they have identified a ancestry. For this particular illusion, they select body parts from diverse organisms (even from creatures that they will admit did not evolve from one or the other) and then provide a chart implying that the one body parts demonstrate an evolutionary history. ReMine documents an example of this in the 1985 debate between atheist Philip Kitcher and creationist Duane Gish in which Kitcher presented a chart of body parts from unrelated animals, including two forms that were later, admittedly, fabricated.

* Humans Close to Koalas, Octopus, and Sponge: When building a claimed evolutionary tree, evolutionists compare arbitrarily selected features of anatomy. For humans, if considering fingerprints, then we're close to koalas. Considering the human eye, then we're close to the octopus. But 70% of the genes in the lowly sponge are just like our human genes. So depending upon an arbitrary selection of hundreds of bodily organs or millions of various segments of DNA, any number of conflicting evolutionary trees can be drawn.
Wrong Science Friday strikes again since what you've said above is a misrepresentation of the truth.

No, 70% of the genes in a sponge are not "just like" human genes. They are analogous. Both humans and sponges will have, for example, a gene for actin but the actual sequence of those two genes are quite different. Mind you, I've corrected Bob on this at least once before.

Now if you look at the sequence of say a human and a chimpanzee actin, yes they will be "just like" one another. And as you get farther away on the tree, genes and entire genomes get less and less similar.

Here's a whole genome phylogeny from last year, showing only placental mammals, the numbers on the end branches indicate the number of DNA differences per 100 bases.
29%25E3%2581%25BB%25E4%25B9%25B3%25E9%25A1%259E.png


For once I hope Bob can finally get the terms "homologous" and "identical" straight. Yes, ALL animals have the same basic set of genes, but those genes are not identical to one another, and it's not just genes that make the organism. I'm sure Bob knows that by now. Just more cherry picking and data twisting to fit the "message".

Walter ReMine explains that when some of the world's most famous and respected evolutionists introduced the belief that most species evolved relatively quickly, without leaving a fossil record of their transitions, they did so based on three observations:
1. Clear-cut ancestors and lineages are systematically absent over the long term and instead what appears throughout the fossil record is diversity.
2. Large morphological gaps in the fossil record.
3. The lact of identifiable ancestors and the large morphological gaps cannot be brushed aside by claiming the fossil record is incomplete.
ReMine is an electrical engineer who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. Again I always wonder why it's engineers that think they know something about biology.

Arguments over gaps in the fossil record is like being upset that there are gaps in the video tape of a murder, when we already have the weapon, the victim and copious evidence.Creationists will always move the goalposts, no amount or type of fossils are ever enough.
 
Last edited:

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I read the pdf from Steven Gould. I can't say it is any dumber than Darwin's piece. A bird just grew a wing one day isn't any more preposterous than to say it slowly changed over time.

He did it because as Walt Williams points out, the fossil record goes against Darwins incorrect hypothesis.
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
I read the pdf from Steven Gould. I can't say it is any dumber than Darwin's piece. A bird just grew a wing one day isn't any more preposterous than to say it slowly changed over time.

He did it because as Walt Williams points out, the fossil record goes against Darwins incorrect hypothesis.

What an incredible misunderstanding of Gould's ideas.

And yeah those fossils really go against Darwin don't they? :rolleyes:
anchiornis.jpg


New Microraptor
 
Top