Highlight text to annotate itX
DNA falls apart really fast - gee, that's what we said,
more problems with the evolution of reproductive
systems, a brand-spankin' new theory of evolution, and
we get some more toxic waste delivered to our mailbox -
this is Genesis Week.
And a welcome to this episode of Genesis Week - the
weekly program of creationary commentary on news, views
and events pertaining to the origins controversy -
answering your questions, and questioning your answers!
Proudly brought to you by the supporters of CORE
Ottawa, Citizens for Origins Research and Education,
and now carried on the Christianima network - Christian
Cinema at its finest. Excellence in pirate
broadcasting, where we snuck into the Michigan Central
Station to broadcast this week's show, continuing to
bring you the information the anticreationists don't
want you to see or hear. And we continue to give glory
to the Creator while doing it. The Bible does not say
"Be ye transformed by the removal of your mind," but
rather we here at Genesis Week believe God gave you a
brain for a reason! Remember you can find us in
cyberspace at wazooloo.com (that's me) or
genesisweek.com, and you can subscribe to my youtube
channel and get extras like CrEvo Rants and full
interviews with our guests. I'm your host, Ian Juby.
First news item of the day - a study reported...
Uh Joe - you've got the DNA backwards there...oh
Sorry -Joe's the new slide guy, but he's slightly
A study reported in the most recent edition of the
Royal Society confirmed what we've been saying for
quite some time: DNA breaks down really, really fast.
Haile, et al, based their study on 158 fossil bone
samples from an extinct bird called the Moa, from New
Zealand. They performed Carbon 14 dating on the bones,
getting radiocarbon ages of between 600 and 8,000 years
old. Thus by looking at how much the mitochondrial DNA
in the bones had deteriorated, combined with the age of
the bone, they were able to figure out that
mitochondrial DNA has a half life of about 521 years. A
half life means that 521 years from now, half of the
bonds in the mitochondrial DNA will be broken apart. In
another 521 years, half of the remaining mDNA will have
broken apart. In another 521 years, half of that will
have broken apart, etc...
As you can see - it breaks down really, really fast.
But wait - there's much more to this picture. Your DNA
is contained within 24 bundles called chromosomes.
Almost all of these chromosomes are housed within the
nucleus of the cell. Mitochondrial DNA, considered the
smallest chromosome, resides in the mitochondria,
outside of the nucleus.
Mitochondrial DNA is much more hardy and stable than
the other DNA. According to Allentoft and team, regular
DNA breaks down two to two and a half times FASTER than
Mitochondrial DNA. So you can start to grasp the main
point here: DNA, in any form, breaks down really,
really fast. Bearing in mind that there are
assumptions involved with the radiocarbon dates used to
ascertain the age of the Moa fossils. After all,
creationary researchers have performed carbon 14 dating
on dinosaur bones and had ages of 5,000 years returned.
So the fact that the Moa fossils may actually be
YOUNGER than thought accelerates the deterioration rate
DNA is composed of the sides, or backbone, and the
rungs known as bases or base pairs. DNA breaks down in
a couple of different ways: The backbone falls apart
with water. The bases disintegrate when exposed to
oxygen. Heat will break down any hydrogen bonds. If
the DNA is exposed to even a very weak acid, it will
disintegrate at some 1000 bases per day. Sunlight will
rip DNA apart.
A human bone laying in a pond for 30 years had
virtually no recognizable DNA left; 0.000 009 % was
able to be "amplified" in the lab - that was only 30
years of deterioration. Dry and cold (but not
freezing) conditions are the best. One study was
conducted on the DNA left from licking postage stamps
83 years prior. The DNA had deteriorated considerably
in only 83 years, when the letters and stamps were kept
in a dry location. You can read more about all these in
Dr. Theodore Seiks article here.
Now let's apply this information to real world studies.
There have been DOZENS of examples of DNA found that
were claimed to be extremely old - the Denisovans which
we discussed in episode 2 of this season, were just one
classic example. You can start to see why so many choke
on the idea that the DNA extracted was alleged to be
80,000 years old. But it gets to be even more of a
stretch: DNA has been extracted from insects in amber
claimed to be 25 to 40 MILLION years old. Fossil bone
dating to the cretaceous period gave up its DNA,
allegedly 80 million years old! DNA was extracted
from a weevil in amber that was supposedly 120 to 135
MILLION YEARS OLD.
But it gets better - bacteria encased in amber alleged
to be 25 to 40 million years old were REVIVED.
Obviously if the bacteria were awakened from the their
sleep and not dead, then obviously their DNA is quite
intact. But it gets better. There have been multiple
papers written on bacteria that have been found in, and
revived from, salts up to 500 million years old
according to the evolutionary dogma.
Now of course one's skeptical knee jerk starts kicking
in - and it should be - but notice the pains that
Dombrowski went through to remove modern contamination
of bacteria from the salt samples:
McGenity et al evaluated the many accounts of bacteria
from deep underground deposits - their concern was
bacteria possibly attacking buried containers of toxic
and nuclear waste, so they were very keen to figure out
where these bacteria were coming from. They could not
rule out that the bacteria were just already there.
But notice that NONE of the skeptics ever questioned
the AGE of all of this DNA allegedly tens to hundreds
of millions of years old! As the saying goes, the
proof is in the pudding: DNA deteriorates so quickly,
that it is impossible for it to last tens of millions
of years. The most logical and simple explanation is
not contamination of the samples, because the
researchers all went to extraordinary lengths to rule
out contamination. The most logical and simple
explanation is that these deposits and fossils are NOT
millions of years old. They are perhaps thousands of
years old - which of course lines up with the Biblical
account of a young earth, and rules out the possibility
of evolution, as evolution requires deep time.
Having just recently released a new rant on how the
evolution of *** reproduction is flat out
impossible, we encounter a couple of more reasons this
past week in Nature magazine. As I pointed out in
CrEvo Rant #13, not only do you need to evolve two
radically different male and female reproductive
systems, at the exact same time and place on planet
earth, these two systems have to be complimentary and
compatible. And the compatibility is far more complex
than just being able to mate. For example, the female
immune system has to be able to recognize male ***
for what it is, and not destroy it. After all, it is a
foreign entity, and the immune system is designed to
seek and destroy all foreign bodies within the body.
*** has a specific immunosuppressant built in that
the female immune system recognizes so it won't attack
the ***. Remember: this is the reproductive system.
If evolution occurs one small step at a time, when did
the step changes occur in the female and male
reproductive systems? How did the male *** know how
to mark itself so the female reproductive system would
recognize it, and how did the female immune system know
how to recognize the ***? If there is any failure
here, you have no reproduction, and the extinction of
the developing species.
Once the egg is fertilized, we have a heap of other
problems to address: the egg contains foreign bodies,
and in fact the developing baby is a completely
separate entity from the mother: Contrary to the
abortionist's mantra, it is not her body, but rather a
completely different body. The baby has different DNA,
could be male - a different gender, and can have a
completely different blood type! All of these facts
will cause the mother's immune system to attack and
destroy the developing baby as an invader - that's what
immune systems do.
Instead, Rowe, et al show in their paper show why the
mother's immune system not only does not attack the
baby, but instead acts to PROTECT the baby from
invaders as well.
When pregnancy occurs, there is a cascade of chemical
signals that transpire throughout the mother's body.
These chemical signals cause a cascade of physical
reactions in the mother, of which every mother is
already aware. Each and every one of these processes
that take place is crucial to the survival of the baby,
and in some cases, the mother! If any of these steps
is missed, or goes awry, it is the end of reproduction,
and the extinction of the evolving species. One of
those steps in the cascade is the release of a bunch of
regulatory T-cells in the mother's blood which turn off
the immune system's attack on the developing baby.
These regulatory T-cells are called FOXP3 + CD4. Now
when you get an infection, your body produces T-cells
specific to that infection, and the T-cells have a
variety of jobs. However, when you get an infection,
specific T-cells are produced, and your immune system
now has a "memory" of sorts. If you ever get that
infection again, the specific T-cells are already
around, and thus the attack on the invader happens all
the more quickly and aggressively. This is why you
have to get poison ivy twice before you see any
reaction to it. The second time you get it, your body
essentially OVERreacts to it.
What Rowe, et al discovered, was that the FOXP3 +CD4's
also hung around long after pregnancy, and acted like a
"memory" so that the next time a pregnancy occured, the
baby was already recognized by the immune system.
As David Coppedge put it on the Creation Evolution
In a Corallory article in Nature, Alexander Betz
briefly discussed the immunological challenge to the
evolution of reproduction:
Hogwash! Even animals that lay eggs also have similar
problems, because many egg-laying animals still have
internal fertilization of the eggs: and so the female
immune system will attack any *** as invaders, unless
there are complicated safeguards in place - complicated
safeguards that cannot evolved one small step at a
I'm sorry - the EVIDENCE speaks volumes - that "In the
beginning GOD Created them male and female." The two
systems were DESIGNED, right down to the most intricate
details to work with each other.
On that note, the most recent issue of "Science"
magazine had a large special section entitled "forces
on development," looking specifically at things like
evolutionary development and embryo development. Dr.
Stuart Newman proposed an essentially new theory of
evolution - or so it seemed at first. As it turns out,
his theory really is just another rehash of punctuated
equilibrium - the idea that evolution happened in leaps
and jumps, which directly contradicts the long standing
evolutionary thinking: that evolution happens in small
steps. He couldn't be more clear in his paper:
In one sentence, Newman has directly contradicted
conventional evolutionary theory taught in our
textbooks, peer reviewed journals and television
science programs - that life develops one small step at
a time. Instead, based on the fossil evidence, complex
life just appeared - boom! There it is!
To explain this, Newman made an analogy: As animal
bodies develop, the groups and clusters of cells tend
to fold up, extend and even make skeletons with
repeating parts, like the hand or your toes. Newman and
several authors have noted the striking similarities
between these developing cell arrangments and the
natural formations that occur with non-living,
What is a viscoelastic material? A viscoeleastic
material is a substance which is both viscous and
elastic at the same time - like honey. It's thick and
stretches when forces are applied. The molecules of
the viscoelastic materials stick together for a variety
of reasons: electrostatic charge, Van der Waals force,
and other physical reasons. So Newman suggests that
the original clumps of cells stuck together like
viscoelastic fluids, to form the first multicelled
animals. Newman suggests that physics
Newman makes a fatal, glaring error in his paper:
Chemistry and physics do not assemble multicelled
animals: The very precise assembly of certain cells
together into certain configurations is directed by the
information contained in the DNA! It is information
that directs chemistry and physics to assemble
chemicals, and ultimately cells, in an embryo! We
covered this in episode 5 on thermodynamics and
information: Information directs the formation of
biological machines to assemble cells and life. In
fact, BECAUSE OF chemistry and physics, cells WILL NOT
FORM spontaneously. You will NEVER find an instance of
a cell forming without direction from information, let
alone an embryo! End of discussion! Don't believe me?
Remove the DNA from an embryo and watch what happens -
chemistry and physics will break down the embryo and
cells that you might already have. For that matter -
leave the DNA in there, and just scramble the letters
in the DNA around, thus removing the information
conveyed by the DNA - the embryo will not assemble,
because it is INFORMATION that causes the chemistry and
physics to go against the flow. In the words of Dr.
Gary Parker, a former evolutionist,
In his podcast interview on the science website, Newman
says that the original cells had genes
As Brock Lee put it,
Just like the order of the letters in the DNA is not
the result of chemistry and physics, so also is the
assembly of an embryo. It is the result of
INTELLIGENCE, which produced INFORMATION, which
DIRECTED MACHINES (in this case, biological machines)
to counteract chemistry and physics to form LIFE.
The first cause of Intelligence and life must be living
- and I would suggest to you that first life was the
Creator, Jesus Christ, who rose from the dead to show
He was the LIFE.
In closing, I like the way TCRCreation put it on his
excellent blog response to the article:
Yes - Newman pointed to the very evidence that
contradicts the evolution paradigm to bolster his
theory of evolution which runs counter to conventional
theory. Of course, if Newman is wrong, and it would
appear he is for multiple reasons, then where does that
leave conventional evolutionary interpretation?
What does the Bible say about aliens? Is there life on
other planets? What can science tell us about the
possibility of aliens? Ian Juby gives answers to these
and many more questions in this
fascinating and highly disturbing subject.
Looking analytically at the subject, complete with
testimonies of people who claim to have been abducted
by aliens. The answers will probably surprise you. In
this 1 and a half hour lecture, Ian
that the alleged "aliens" are a problems, and that
Jesus is the solution. Order on line today at Ian's
[scary, dramatic music]
Wahoo! Mail for me?
[sounds of a geiger counter]
Hmmmm...I wonder what it tastes like?
[scary, dramatic music]
LOTS of viewers writing in for the last two shows, some
obviously more unimpressed than others:
In response to my example of a frog in a blender, or a
pile of rotting sawdust or hay, Eviscera09 wrote in:
Actually, I'm glad he brought this up, because he (or
she) is correct that in my example, a lot of the heat
comes from bacterial activity. I was aware of this, but
due to time constraints on that particular show, I had
to cut out a LOT, and I was trying to keep things as
simple as possible. The point I was making still
stands, in that even some of the heat released by the
micro-organisms breaking down organic matter is the
energy from the organic matter itself being released,
however, there is also a lot of heat produced by action
of the micro-organisms, thanks for writing in.
I got two separate requests regarding starlight from
distant stars in a young universe:
I covered this in more detail in "Complete Creation"
part 17, including that naturalistic models have a
suprisingly similar problem - so distant starlight is
an interesting challenge for both the old universe and
young universe paradigms. For the sake of time, here's
a brief synopsis of one creationary model, put forward
by Dr. Russel Humphreys. Multiple times in the
scriptures, it refers to God "stretching out the
heavens" - which would include space, light and time.
Time is actually a variable - for example, clocks
actually run faster on a mountain top than they do in
death valley. This is because time is actually affected
by gravity - this is called time dilation. The Big ***
theory has two philosophical assumptions: That there is
no edge to the universe, and no center. Humphreys went
on the assumption that there is a center to the
universe, and earth is at or near the center, and that
this stretching out of the universe leaves a gravity
well with earth near its center. Thus there is a whole
pile of gravity, near earth, which slows down time, and
time out at the stars is going much faster. According
to Humphrey's time dilation calculations, the universe
is only a few thousand years old here according to
clocks on earth, but at the edge of the universe, a
clock could read billions of years old. You can read
more of his model in his book "Starlight and time."
Apparently a number of people didn't understand what I
said in the episode on thermodynamics, as several
skeptics argued with me, saying that energy from the
sun or heat from the earth can reverse entropy, I
challenged them to please provide an example. Several
people wrote in, citing examples like plants. Well
waitaminit that's what *I* said in the very video they
were criticizing. I'm well aware that plants cause a
local decrease in entropy - that's just my point:
Decreasing entropy requires a machine - the plant is
the required machine - in this case, a biological
So the whole point I was making with thermodynamics was
that evolution requires an increase in order over time
- which is accomplished by a local decrease in entropy,
which is accomplished by a machine converting available
energy, which requires information on how to build and
operate the machine, which requires intelligence, which
is outside of nature. It all points a creator.
Well that's it for this week's show - thanks again for
watching, and please join us again next Genesis Week.
Remember you can send in your questions and comments in
a number of ways - like email, sending us a tweet, or
finding the latest show on our YouTube channel and
leaving a comment. I'm your host, Ian Juby, reminding
you of those words of warning and hope from our
Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ who said "I am the WAY,
the truth, and the life - no man comes to the Father
but through me." We'll see you on the flip side.
We need your support to help keep this program on the
air. You can help by making a tax-deductible donation
to CORE Ottawa.
You can also sign up for Ian's newsletter, detailing
current news and research at ianjuby.org