Real Science Friday: Now, Two Million Year-Old Leaves?

[Jefferson]

RSF: Now, Two Million Year-Old Leaves?

This is the show from Friday, April 13th 2012.

SUMMARY:



* Real Science Friday: Co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams discuss some inside baseball from the creation community, and the Spring 2012 editions of the Creation and Answers magazines!

* Yup! More Not-So-Old Things: This time, it's leaves! "When we started pulling leaves out of the soil, that was surreal, to know that it's millions of years old..." sur-re-al: adjective: a bizzare mix of fact and fantasy. In this case, the leaves are the facts. Earth scientists from Ohio State and the University of Minnesota say that wood and leaves they found in the Canadian Arctic are at least two million years old! For 2013, Bob and Fred will add these leaves to their annual classic, the RSF List of Not So Old Things!

For this show, RSF recommends Dr. Carl Werner's Living Fossils video
and its prequel, Evolution, the Grand Experiment!



* Darwinists Did NOT Predict Biological Universals (like DNA) and Do NOT See Evolution as Falsifiable: Evolutionary scientists claim that Darwinism predicted biological universals (such as all life being built upon the same molecular genetic mechanisms). Darwinists also claim that they see evolution as scientifically falsifiable. But if these alleged beliefs of theirs were themselves false, how could someone go about demonstrating that they don't really believe what they claim to believe? That seems tough to do. Well, Bob and Fred accomplish this by observing that the typical evolutionist believes in highly evolved aliens! That proves that they don't really believe their own claims. For more information on the evolutionary implications of alien physiology, see RealScienceFriday.com/Dawkins#aliens.



* Jesus Is a Young Earth Creationist: Jesus said that, "from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female," (Mark 10:6). Typically, and over time, Christian organizations that reject the Bible's teaching on a young earth eventually reject many other fundamental Bible teachings, including for example the very existence of Adam and Eve. As you'll recall, RSF corrected Christianity Today's cover story in which they denied the existence of Adam and Eve! Also, if Adam and Eve had been created 15 billion years after the Big Bang, then the Lord would have been wrong, and they would have been created at the END of creation, NOT at the BEGINNING! But Jesus is the Creator. So He's not wrong.

Today’s Resource: Get the fabulous Carl Werner DVD Living Fossils and his great prequel, Evolution: The Grand Experiment! And have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store? Check out especially Walt Brown’s In the Beginning and Bob’s interviews with this great scientist in Walt Brown Week! You’ll also love Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez’ Privileged Planet (clip), and Illustra Media’s Unlocking the Mystery of Life (clip)! You can consider our BEL Science Pack; Bob Enyart’s Age of the Earth Debate; Bob's debate about Junk DNA with famous evolutionist Dr. Eugenie Scott; and the superb kids' radio programming, Jonathan Park: The Adventure Begins!

 

[The Barbarian]

Darwinists Did NOT Predict Biological Universals (like DNA)

Actually, that's not true. For example, Irwin Schrödinger in his essay on biology, What is Life? predicted, on Darwinist grounds, that when the basis of heredity was found, it would be in the form of an "aperiodic crystal."

Not bad.

Do NOT See Evolution as Falsifiable:

Haldane's observation that a rabbit in undisturbed Cambrian deposits would effectively falsify evolution remains the gold standard. There are many other conceivable falsifications, of course. Would you like to see some more?

Evolutionary scientists claim that Darwinism predicted biological universals (such as all life being built upon the same molecular genetic mechanisms).

What? I don't think so. Can you show me an example of that?

Darwinists also claim that they see evolution as scientifically falsifiable.

Indeed. See above for one possible way.

But if these alleged beliefs of theirs were themselves false, how could someone go about demonstrating that they don't really believe what they claim to believe?

Happens a lot. For example, Darwin's theory included the possibility of inheritance of acquired characters, and the idea of heredity by blending like mixing paint. Both of those turned out to be false, and after falsifying them, Darwinists removed them from the theory.

That seems tough to do.

Science is a tough game, um? But very little humans do, works better.

 

[Jukia]

Haldane's observation that a rabbit in undisturbed Cambrian deposits would effectively falsify evolution remains the gold standard. There are many other conceivable falsifications, of course. Would you like to see some more?

You don't really expect Pastor Bob and his buddy to want to see some real science do you? Your patience amazes me. You ask this question all the time. Ever had a positive response on TOL to that question?

 

[Frayed Knot]

Wait, Jukia got banned? And Granite too?

'Sup with that?

 

[The Barbarian]

You don't really expect Pastor Bob and his buddy to want to see some real science do you? Your patience amazes me.

I'm a very patient guy.

You ask this question all the time. Ever had a positive response on TOL to that question?

Yeah, but not often. BTW, a long time ago, Fred wrote me a very nice message about realizing I was a committed Christian, and that he respected my opinions. And we had a prior history as antagonists on a board that was once described as having the "ambience of a bar-room brawl."

So Fred has my respect, and his willingness to forgive and bury the hatchet is evidence he is indeed a Christian who tries to live up to that name.

 

[Bob Enyart]

Thanks Barbarian for Fact Checking our RSF Shows!

Thanks Barbarian for Fact Checking our RSF Shows!

Barbarian, thanks for not giving up on us! Hey, in your post, did you BOTH:
- Deny that Darwinists say they predicted biological universals, AND
- Claim that Darwinists did predict biological universals?

Here's the part where I think you denied it:

Evolutionary scientists claim that Darwinism predicted biological universals (such as all life being built upon the same molecular genetic mechanisms).

What? I don't think so. Can you show me an example of that?

[The] finding of the same genetic code in microbes, plants, and animals (except for minor variations in intracellular organelles) spectacularly confirms a strong evolutionary prediction.

That's Bernard Davis writing in 1985 in Perspectives in Biology and Medicine.

Now comes the part where you claimed Barbarian that they DID predict it.

One part of your criticism is especially constructive, so I rewrote my original subhead:

Darwinists Did NOT Predict Biological Universals (like DNA) and Darwinists Do NOT See Evolution as Falsifiable

to this:

*DarwinISM* Does NOT Predict Biological Universals (like DNA) and Darwinists Do NOT See Evolution as Falsifiable

When I first wrote that subhead, it was only relating to the Prediction, and I had written DarwinISM. But then I expanded it to include Falsifiability, and I changed ISM to ISTS without realizing that I introduced an error, which you caught. Good job:

Actually, that's not true. For example, Irwin Schrödinger in his essay on biology, What is Life? predicted, on Darwinist grounds, that when the basis of heredity was found, it would be in the form of an "aperiodic crystal."

Not bad

Here's some of the evidence that shows that DarwinISM (i.e., evolutionism) does not predict biological universals:

1. Leading Darwinists researching abiogenesis posit early life forms WITHOUT DNA, w/o predominantly left-handed amino acids, w/o RNA, w/o cell membranes, w/o proteins, etc.

2. Many leading Darwinists believe in aliens, and the alien physiology, sight-unseen, they assure us would have arisen not via creation but by Darwinian mechanisms.

3. Darwinism requires variability but not stasis (nor biochemical stasis), thus leading evolutionists have claimed that abiogenesis could have occurred on Earth (& in outer space) multiple times, and in fundamentally different ways.​

So Barbarian, yes, evolutionists and creationists (and even Buffon writing a century before Darwin, as reported by Donald Johanson) see a unity of life. Toward that end, Schrödinger wrote about the need for "negative entropy" (what we today credit "information" for accomplishing in a localized way). And that's of course why he described it as "aperiodic," because information is not made up of strictly repeating patterns (as in snowflakes and crystals), but in irregularity. (A book would lose it's information if it's letters were lined up in alternating vowels and consonants, or alphabetically, or in some other regularly repeating pattern.) But Darwinism, as opposed to creationism, does not predict one biochemical pattern for all life.

So I assert Barbarian that Darwinism cannot rightly be credited with predicting biochemical universals when many of its proponents in mainstream publications continue to DENY universals (for example in early lifeforms) without fear of ridicule.

And you have more great comments to discuss, but (sort of like evolution) I'm running out of time! Thanks for your thoughts!

-Bob Enyart
RealScienceFriday.com

 

[The Barbarian]

Hey, in your post, did you BOTH:
- Deny that Darwinists say they predicted biological universals, AND
- Claim that Darwinists did predict biological universals?

Nope.

Here's the part where I think you denied it:

Bob writes:

Evolutionary scientists claim that Darwinism predicted biological universals (such as all life being built upon the same molecular genetic mechanisms).

Barbarian asks:
What? I don't think so. Can you show me an example of that?

Originally Posted by B. D. Davis, Molecular Genetics and the Foundations of Evolution
[The] finding of the same genetic code in microbes, plants, and animals (except for minor variations in intracellular organelles) spectacularly confirms a strong evolutionary prediction.

Yes, the Modern Synthesis (neo-Darwinian theory) does include molecular biology and genetics. Darwinian theory did not, and even considered Lamarckism as likely.

It was never part of Darwin's theory; he didn't even know about such things, although if he had bothered to check out an obscure paper in an Austrian journal, he'd have been relieved to see that genetics solved one of the big theoretical problems he had.

Now comes the part where you claimed Barbarian that they DID predict it.

:drum:

One part of your criticism is especially constructive, so I rewrote my original subhead:

Darwinists Did NOT Predict Biological Universals (like DNA) and Darwinists Do NOT See Evolution as Falsifiable
to this:

Quote:
*DarwinISM* Does NOT Predict Biological Universals (like DNA) and Darwinists Do NOT See Evolution as Falsifiable

Haldane's example of a rabbit in Cambrian rocks would still apply, and I don't know of any Darwinists who doubt it. On the other hand, neo-Dawinism did forsee biological universals. I gave you an example of Shrodinger's prediction.


Originally Posted by Barbarian
Actually, that's not true. For example, Irwin Schrödinger in his essay on biology, What is Life? predicted, on Darwinist grounds, that when the basis of heredity was found, it would be in the form of an "aperiodic crystal."
Not bad

Here's some of the evidence that shows that DarwinISM (i.e., evolutionism) does not predict biological universals:

1. Leading Darwinists researching abiogenesis posit early life forms WITHOUT DNA, w/o predominantly left-handed amino acids, w/o RNA, w/o cell membranes, w/o proteins, etc.

Fits Schrödinger's prediction, doesn't it? (Edit: It probably needs to be said that evolutionary theory has never been about the origin of life, but recent discoveries that abiotically-produced amino acids have an excess of L-enantiomer probably changed the views of a lot of scientists.

2. Many leading Darwinists believe in aliens, and the alien physiology, sight-unseen, they assure us would have arisen not via creation but by Darwinian mechanisms.

Don't see anything like that in Darwinian theory, although I suppose some Darwinists might think so. But the fact that some people of a particular persuasion also believe something else, is not evidence that one predicts the other.

3. Darwinism requires variability but not stasis (nor biochemical stasis)

In fact, as Darwin observed, his theory would, in particular circumstances predict stasis. It's called "stabilizing selection."

thus leading evolutionists have claimed that abiogenesis could have occurred on Earth (& in outer space) multiple times, and in fundamentally different ways.

I suppose it could, but I have no data. And I don't see it in any aspect of the Modern Synthesis, although again, some Darwinists might think so.

So Barbarian, yes, evolutionists and creationists (and even Buffon writing a century before Darwin, as reported by Donald Johanson) see a unity of life. Toward that end, Schrödinger wrote about the need for "negative entropy" (what we today credit "information" for accomplishing in a localized way). And that's of course why he described it as "aperiodic," because information is not made up of strictly repeating patterns (as in snowflakes and crystals), but in irregularity. (A book would lose it's information if it's letters were lined up in alternating vowels and consonants, or alphabetically, or in some other regularly repeating pattern.) But Darwinism, as opposed to creationism, does not predict one biochemical pattern for all life.

The Modern Synthesis did, however. And no, creationism did not predict one biochemical pattern. They did concede it, once the geneticists showed it to be true, however.

So I assert Barbarian that Darwinism cannot rightly be credited with predicting biochemical universals

I would be interested to see a prediction of biochemical universals by creationists, prior to Schrödinger's. (1944, BTW)

And you have more great comments to discuss, but (sort of like evolution) I'm running out of time! Thanks for your thoughts!

As usual, a pleasure discussing things with you. You're quite welcome.

 

[OMEGA]

Is there any Gold under those Leaves ?

 

[Stripe]

Wait, Jukia got banned? And Granite too? 'Sup with that?

Oh, no. We'll never be able to see another well written scientific discussion based on rationality and evidence ever again.

:think:

:mock: Jokia