Podcasts about neo darwinism

On today's Bible Answer Man broadcast (06/18/25), we pick up where we ended on our previous broadcast and present more of an episode of the Hank Unplugged podcast. Hank is talking with Dr. John West, author of Stockholm Syndrome Christianity: Why America's Christian Leaders Are Failing—And What We Can Do About It. Hank and Dr. West discuss the problems with secularism influencing scientific inquiry, if Neo-Darwinism and Christianity can co-exist, if theistic evolution is the worst of all possibilities, how the evolutionary paradigm is foundational for many of the other problematic “-isms”, and sexual suicide—how the devaluation of marriage within churches came before the culture.

Series: Unraveling Evolution 2025 Spring Gospel MeetingService: Gospel MeetingType: SermonSpeaker: Joshua Gurtler

Series: Unraveling Evolution 2025 Spring Gospel MeetingService: Gospel MeetingType: SermonSpeaker: Joshua Gurtler

Series: Unraveling Evolution 2025 Spring Gospel MeetingService: Gospel MeetingType: SermonSpeaker: Joshua Gurtler

This week we discuss neo-Darwinism vs post-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism meaning a gene centric view of evolution, which is also called the great synthesis since it unifies natural selection with genetics and paleontology and perhaps even human psychology. Post-Darwinism is a view that emphasizes factors outside random mutation, like epigenetics or the assertion that organisms and cells can alter their own genome in a beneficial way. Here Bruce specifically concentrates on the work of biologist James Shapiro's critical look at Richard Dawkins' neo-Darwinism.We consider, does it really make sense to see our bodies and minds as tools governed by our masters DNA? Does post-Darwinism, also called “third way evolution,” offer a meaningful alternative to both neo-Darwinism and the theism of intelligent design? Does this way of looking at biology say something about the very nature of reality and the laws of physics?This is part 1 of a loose series. Part 2 will cover criticisms of Noble and Shapiro. Part 3 will cover the work of Michael Levin. However, you don't really need to listen to them in order and we provide context each time.James Shapiro's Evolution: A View from the 21 CenturySupport us on Patreon

*Top 10 List: Fred Williams and co-host Doug McBurney review their list of the top 10 things people still believe, that science has proven wrong. #10: Vestigial Organs -  The most popular one growing up was the appendix, remember? Until this (from PubMed in 2016). And don't forget tonsils!  #9: GPS won't work without Einsteinian relativity. It will, and does. #8: Junk DNA - There's no such thing! We're only beginning to comprehend DNA. And to have ever assumed any of it was junk was foolishness! #7: Lucy is a Human Ancestor - Poppycock! #6: Plate Tectonics - The fourth-biggest-dumbest theory going, (after Darwinian Evolution, the Big Bang, and Einsteinian Relativity). #5: Dangerous Anthropogenic Climate Change - Fifth biggest-dumbest... #4: Darwin's Tree of Life - That dog don't hunt, and lies like a rug! #3: The Big Bang: See #'s 4 & 5, the James Webb Space Telescope, and our favorite! Genesis One. #2: Evolution: Ha! Yeah.... right! (Also, see Genesis One again). Neo-Darwinism is so laughably preposterous even foolish atheists like Jimmy Shapiro are beginning to re-evaluate the emperor's outfit.  #1: Dinosaurs lived and went extinct millions of years ago. We've long had solid evidence that man and dinosaurs lived together, from cliff and cave drawings to the tomb of Richard Bell, to Chinese calendars... and of course all that dinosaur soft tissue in all those fossils!

*Top 10 List: Fred Williams and co-host Doug McBurney review their list of the top 10 things people still believe, that science has proven wrong. #10: Vestigial Organs -  The most popular one growing up was the appendix, remember? Until this (from PubMed in 2016). And don't forget tonsils!  #9: GPS won't work without Einsteinian relativity. It will, and does. #8: Junk DNA - There's no such thing! We're only beginning to comprehend DNA. And to have ever assumed any of it was junk was foolishness! #7: Lucy is a Human Ancestor - Poppycock! #6: Plate Tectonics - The fourth-biggest-dumbest theory going, (after Darwinian Evolution, the Big Bang, and Einsteinian Relativity). #5: Dangerous Anthropogenic Climate Change - Fifth biggest-dumbest... #4: Darwin's Tree of Life - That dog don't hunt, and lies like a rug! #3: The Big Bang: See #'s 4 & 5, the James Webb Space Telescope, and our favorite! Genesis One. #2: Evolution: Ha! Yeah.... right! (Also, see Genesis One again). Neo-Darwinism is so laughably preposterous even foolish atheists like Jimmy Shapiro are beginning to re-evaluate the emperor's outfit.  #1: Dinosaurs lived and went extinct millions of years ago. We've long had solid evidence that man and dinosaurs lived together, from cliff and cave drawings to the tomb of Richard Bell, to Chinese calendars... and of course all that dinosaur soft tissue in all those fossils!

* List of Discoveries Squeezing Evolution: Did you know that dinosaurs ate rice before rice evolved? That turtle shells existed forty million years before turtle shells began evolving? That insects evolved tongues for eating from flowers 70 million years before flowers evolved? And that birds appeared before birds evolved? The fossil record is a wonderful thing. And more recently, only a 40,000-year squeeze, Neanderthal had blood types A, B, and O, shocking evolutionists but expected to us here at Real Science Radio! Sit back and get ready to enjoy another instant classic, today's RSR "list show" on Evolution's Big Squeeze! Our other popular list shows include: - scientists doubting Darwin - evidence against whale evolution - problems with 'the river carved the canyon' - carbon 14 everywhere it shouldn't be - dinosaur still-soft biological tissue - solar system formation problems - evidence against the big bang - evidence for the global flood - genomes that just don't fit - and our list of not so old things! (See also rsr.org/sq2 and rsr.org/sq3!) * Evolution's Big Squeeze: Many discoveries squeeze the Darwinian theory's timeframe and of course without a workable timeframe there is no workable theory. Examples, with their alleged (and falsified) old-earth timeframes, include: - Complex skeletons existed 9 million years before they were thought to have evolved, before even the "Cambrian explosion".- Butterflies existed 10 million years before they were thought to have evolved. - Parrots existed "much earlier than had been thought", in fact, 25 million years before they were thought to have evolved. - Cephalopod fossils (squids, cuttlefish, etc.) appear 35 million years before they were able to propagate. - Turtle shells 40 million years before turtle shells began evolving - Trees began evolving 45 million years before they were thought to evolve - Spores appearing 50 million years before the plants that made them (not unlike footprints systematically appearing "millions of years before" the creatures that made them, as affirmed by Dr. Marcus Ross, associate professor of geology). - Sponges existed 60 million years before they were believed to have evolved. - Dinosaurs ate rice before it evolved Example - Insect proboscis (tongue) in moths and butterflies 70 million years before previously believed has them evolving before flowers. - Arthropod brains fully developed with central nervous system running to eyes and appendages just like modern arthropods 90 million years earlier than previously known (prior to 2021, now, allegedly 310mya) - 100 million years ago and already a bird - Fossil pollen pushes back plant evolution 100 million years. - Mammalian hair allegedly 100-million-years-old show that, "the morphology of hair cuticula may have remained unchanged throughout most of mammalian evolution", regarding the overlapping cells that lock the hair shaft into its follicle. - Piranha-like flesh-eating teeth (and bitten prey) found pushing back such fish 125 million years earlier than previously claimed   - Shocking organic molecules in "200 million-years-old leaves" from ginkgoes and conifers show unexpected stasis. - Plant genetic sophistication pushed back 200 million years. - Jellyfish fossils (Medusoid Problematica :) 200 million years earlier than expected; here from 500My ago. - Green seaweed 200 million years earlier than expected, pushed back now to a billion years ago!  - The acanthodii fish had color vision 300 million years ago, but then, and wait, Cheiracanthus fish allegedly 388 million years ago already had color vision. - Color vision (for which there is no Darwinian evolutionary small-step to be had, from monochromatic), existed "300 million years ago" in fish, and these allegedly "120-million-year-old" bird's rod and cone fossils stun researchers :) - 400-million-year-old Murrindalaspis placoderm fish "eye muscle attachment, the eyestalk attachment and openings for the optic nerve, and arteries and veins supplying the eyeball" The paper's author writes, "Of course, we would not expect the preservation of ancient structures made entirely of soft tissues (e.g. rods and cone cells in the retina...)." So, check this next item... :) - And... no vertebrates in the Cambrian? Well, from the journal Nature in 2014, a "Lower-Middle Cambrian... primitive fish displays unambiguous vertebrate features: a notochord, a pair of prominent camera-type eyes, paired nasal sacs, possible cranium and arcualia, W-shaped myomeres, and a post-anal tail" Primitive? - Fast-growing juvenile bone tissue, thought to appear in the Cretaceous, has been pushed back 100 million years: "This pushes the origin of fibrolamellar bone in Sauropterygia back from the Cretaceous to the early Middle Triassic..."- Trilobites "advanced" (not the predicted primitive) digestion "525 million" years ago - And there's this, a "530 million year old" fish, "50 million years before the current estimate of when fish evolved" - Mycobacterium tuberculosis 100,000 yr-old MRCA (most recent common ancestor) now 245 million- Fungus long claimed to originate 500M years ago, now found at allegedly 950 Mya (and still biological "the distant past... may have been much more 'modern' than we thought." :) - A rock contained pollen a billion years before plants evolved, according to a 2007 paper describing "remarkably preserved" fossil spores in the French Alps that had undergone high-grade metamorphism - 2.5 billion year old cyanobacteria fossils (made of organic material found in a stromatolite) appear about "200 million years before the [supposed] Great Oxidation Event". - 2.7 billion year old eukaryotes (cells with a nucleus) existed (allegedly) 1 billion years before expected - 3.5 billion year "cell division evidently identical to that of living filamentous prokaryotes." - And even older cyanobacteria! At 220 million years earlier than thought, per Nature's 3.7 billion year old dating of stromatolites! - The universe and life itself (in 2019 with the universe dated a billion, now, no, wait, two billion!, years younger than previously thought, that's not only squeezing biological but also astronomical evolution, with the overall story getting really tight) - Mantis shrimp, with its rudimentary color but advanced UV vision, is allegedly ancient. - Hadrosaur teeth, all 1400 of them, were "more complex than those of cows, horses, and other well-known modern grazers." Professor stunned by the find! (RSR predicts that, by 2030 just to put an end date on it, more fossils will be found from the geologic column that will be more "advanced" as compared to living organisms, just like this hadrosaur and like the allegedly 100M year old hagfish  fossil having more slime glands than living specimens.)  - Trace fossils "exquisitely preserved" of mobile organisms (motility) dated at 2.1 billion years ago, a full 1.5 billion earlier than previously believed - Various multicellular organisms allegedly 2.1 billion years old, show multicellularity 1.5 billion years sooner than long believed   - Pre-sauropod 26,000-pound dinosaur "shows us that even as far back as 200 million years ago, these animals had already become the largest vertebrates to ever walk the Earth." - The Evo-devo squeeze, i.e., evolutionary developmental biology, as with rsr.org/evo-devo-undermining-darwinism. - Extinct Siberian one-horned rhinos coexisted with mankind. - Whale "evolution" is being crushed in the industry-wide "big squeeze". First, geneticist claims whales evolved from hippos but paleontologists say hippos evolved tens of millions of years too late! And what's worse than that is that fossil finds continue to compress the time available for whale evolution. To not violate its own plot, the Darwinist story doesn't start animals evolving back into the sea until the cast includes land animals suitable to undertake the legendary journey. The recent excavation of whale fossils on an island of the Antarctic Peninsula further compresses the already absurdly fast 10 million years to allegedly evolve from the land back to the sea, down to as little as one million years. BioOne in 2016 reported a fossil that is "among the oldest occurrences of basilosaurids worldwide, indicating a rapid radiation and dispersal of this group since at least the early middle Eocene." By this assessment, various techniques produced various published dates. (See the evidence that falsifies the canonical whale evolution story at rsr.org/whales.) * Ancient Hierarchical Insect Society: "Thanks to some well-preserved remains, researchers now believe arthropod social structures have been around longer than anyone ever imagined. The encased specimens of ants and termites recently studied date back [allegedly] 100 million years." Also from the video about "the bubonic plague", the "disease is well known as a Middle Ages mass killer... Traces of very similar bacteria were found on [an allegedly] 20-million-year-old flea trapped in amber." And regarding "Caribbean lizards... Even though they are [allegedly] 20 million years old, the reptiles inside the golden stones were not found to differ from their contemporary counterparts in any significant way. Scientists attribute the rarity [Ha! A rarity or the rule? Check out rsr.org/stasis.] to stable ecological surroundings." * Squeezing and Rewriting Human History: Some squeezing simply makes aspects of the Darwinian story harder to maintain while other squeezing contradicts fundamental claims. So consider the following discoveries, most of which came from about a 12-month period beginning in 2017 which squeeze (and some even falsify) the Out-of-Africa model: - find two teeth and rewrite human history with allegedly 9.7 million-year-old teeth found in northern Europe (and they're like Lucy, but "three times older") - date blue eyes, when humans first sported them, to as recently as 6,000 years ago   - get mummy DNA and rewrite human history with a thousand years of ancient Egyptian mummy DNA contradicting Out-of-Africa and demonstrating Out-of-Babel - find a few footprints and rewrite human history with allegedly 5.7 million-year-old human footprints in Crete - re-date an old skull and rewrite human history with a very human skull dated at 325,000 years old and redated in the Journal of Physical Anthropology at about 260,000 years old and described in the UK's Independent, "A skull found in China [40 years ago] could re-write our entire understanding of human evolution." - date the oldest language in India, Dravidian, with 80 derivatives spoken by 214 million people, which appeared on the subcontinent only about 4,500 years ago, which means that there is no evidence for human language for nearly 99% of the time that humans were living in Asia. (Ha! See rsr.org/origin-of-language for the correct explanation.) - sequence a baby's genome and rewrite human history with a 6-week old girl buried in Alaska allegedly 11,500 years ago challenging the established history of the New World. (The family buried this baby girl just beneath their home like the practice in ancient Mesopotamia, the Hebrews who sojourned in Egypt, and in Çatalhöyük in southern Turkey, one of the world's most ancient settlements.) - or was that 130,000? years ago as the journal Nature rewrites human history with a wild date for New World site - and find a jawbone and rewrite human history with a modern looking yet allegedly 180,000-year-old jawbone from Israel which "may rewrite the early migration story of our species" by about 100,000 years, per the journal Science - re-date a primate and lose yet another "missing link" between "Lucy" and humans, as Homo naledi sheds a couple million years off its age and drops from supposedly two million years old to (still allegedly) about 250,000 years old, far too "young" to be the allegedly missing link - re-analysis of the "best candidate" for the most recent ancestor to human beings, Australopithecus sediba, turns out to be a juvenile Lucy-like ape, as Science magazine reports work presented at the American Association of Physical Anthropologists 2017 annual meeting - find skulls in Morocco and "rewrite human history" admits the journal Nature, falsifying also the "East Africa" part of the canonical story - and from the You Can't Make This Stuff Up file, NPR reports in April 2019, Ancient Bones And Teeth Found In A Philippine Cave May Rewrite Human History. :) - Meanwhile, whereas every new discovery requires the materialists to rewrite human history, no one has had to rewrite Genesis, not even once. Yet, "We're not claiming that the Bible is a science textbook. Not at all. For the textbooks have to be rewritten all the time!"  - And even this from Science: "humans mastered the art of training and controlling dogs thousands of years earlier than previously thought."- RSR's Enyart commented on the Smithsonian's 2019 article on ancient DNA possibly deconstructing old myths...  This Smithsonian article about an ancient DNA paper in Science Advances, or actually, about the misuse of such papers, was itself a misuse. The published research, Ancient DNA sheds light on the genetic origins of early Iron Age Philistines, confirmed Amos 9:7 by documenting the European origin of the biblical Philistines who came from the island of Caphtor/Crete. The mainstream media completely obscured this astounding aspect of the study but the Smithsonian actually stood the paper on its head. [See also rsr.org/archaeology.]* Also Squeezing Darwin's Theory: - Evolution happens so slowly that we can't see it, yet - it happens so fast that millions of mutations get fixed in a blink of geologic time AND: - Observing a million species annually should show us a million years of evolution, but it doesn't, yet - evolution happens so fast that the billions of "intermediary" fossils are missing AND: - Waiting for helpful random mutations to show up explains the slowness of evolution, yet - adaption to changing environments is often immediate, as with Darwin's finches Finches Adapt in 17 Years, Not 2.3 Million: Charles Darwin's finches are claimed to have taken 2,300,000 years to diversify from an initial species blown onto the Galapagos Islands. Yet individuals from a single finch species on a U.S. Bird Reservation in the Pacific were introduced to a group of small islands 300 miles away and in at most 17 years, like Darwin's finches, they had diversified their beaks, related muscles, and behavior to fill various ecological niches. So Darwin's finches could diversify in just 17 years, and after 2.3 million more years, what had they evolved into? Finches! Hear this also at rsr.org/lee-spetner and see Jean Lightner's review of the Grants' 40 Years. AND: - Fossils of modern organisms are found "earlier" and "earlier" in the geologic column, and - the "oldest" organisms are increasingly found to have anatomical, proteinaceous, prokaryotic, and eukaryotic sophistication and similarity to "modern" organisms AND: - Small populations are in danger of extinction (yet they're needed to fix mutations), whereas - large populations make it impossible for a mutation to become standard AND: - Mutations that express changes too late in an organism's development can't effect its fundamental body plan, and - mutations expressed too early in an organism's development are fatal (hence among the Enyart sayings, "Like evolving a vital organ, most major hurdles for evolutionary theory are extinction-level events.") AND: - To evolve flight, you'd get bad legs - long before you'd get good wings AND: - Most major evolutionary hurdles appear to be extinction-level events- yet somehow even *vital* organs evolve (for many species, that includes reproductive organs, skin, brain, heart, circulatory system, kidney, liver, pancreas, stomach, small intestines, large intestines, lungs -- which are only a part of the complex respiration system) AND: - Natural selection of randomly taller, swifter, etc., fish, mammals, etc. explains evolution yet - development of microscopic molecular machines, feedback mechanisms, etc., which power biology would be oblivous to what's happening in Darwin's macro environment of the entire organism AND: - Neo-Darwinism suggests genetic mutation as the engine of evolution yet - the there is not even a hypothesis for modifying the vast non-genetic information in every living cell including the sugar code, electrical code, the spatial (geometric) code, and the epigenetic code AND: - Constant appeals to "convergent" evolution (repeatedly arising vision, echolocation, warm-bloodedness, etc.) - undermine most Darwinian anatomical classification especially those based on trivialities like odd or even-toed ungulates, etc. AND: - Claims that given a single species arising by abiogenesis, then - Darwinism can explain the diversification of life, ignores the science of ecology and the (often redundant) biological services that species rely upon AND: - humans' vastly superior intelligence indicates, as bragged about for decades by Darwinists, that ape hominids should have the greatest animal intelligence, except that - many so-called "primitive" creatures and those far distant on Darwin's tee of life, exhibit extraordinary rsr.org/animal-intelligence even to processing stimuli that some groups of apes cannot AND: - Claims that the tree of life emerges from a single (or a few) common ancestors - conflict with the discoveries of multiple genetic codes and of thousands of orphan genes that have no similarity (homology) to any other known genes AND (as in the New Scientist cover story, "Darwin Was Wrong about the tree of life", etc.): - DNA sequences have contradicted anatomy-based ancestry claims - Fossil-based ancestry claims have been contradicted by RNA claims - DNA-based ancestry claims have been contradicted by anatomy claims - Protein-based ancestry claims have been contradicted by fossil claims. - And the reverse problem compared to a squeeze. Like finding the largest mall in America built to house just a kid's lemonade stand, see rsr.org/200 for the astounding lack of genetic diversity in humans, plants, and animals, so much so that it could all be accounted for in just about 200 generations! - The multiplied things that evolved multiple times - Etc. * List of Ways Darwinists Invent their Tree of Life, aka Pop Goes the Weasle – Head and Shoulders, Knees and Toes: Evolutionists change their selection of what evidence they use to show 'lineage', from DNA to fossils to genes to body plans to teeth to many specific anatomical features to proteins to behavior to developmental similarities to habitat to RNA, etc. and to a combination of such. Darwinism is an entire endeavor based on selection bias, a kind of logical fallacy. By anti-science they arbitrarily select evidence that best matches whichever evolutionary story is currently preferred." -Bob E. The methodology used to create the family tree edifice to show evolutionary relationships classifies the descent of organisms based on such attributes as odd-toed and even-toed ungulates. Really? If something as wildly sophisticated as vision allegedly evolved multiple times (a dozen or more), then for cryin' out loud, why couldn't something as relatively simple as odd or even toes repeatedly evolve? How about dinosaur's evolving eggs with hard shells? Turns out that "hard-shelled eggs evolved at least three times independently in dinosaurs" (Nature, 2020). However, whether a genus has an odd or even number of toes, and similar distinctions, form the basis for the 150-year-old Darwinist methodology. Yet its leading proponents still haven't acknowledged that their tree building is arbitrary and invalid. Darwin's tree recently fell anyway, and regardless, it has been known to be even theoretically invalid all these many decades. Consider also bipedalism? In their false paradigm, couldn't that evolve twice? How about vertebrate and non-vertebrates, for that matter, evolving multiple times? Etc., etc., etc. Darwinists determine evolutionary family-tree taxonomic relationships based on numbers of toes, when desired, or on hips (distinguishing, for example, dinosaur orders, until they didn't) or limb bones, or feathers, or genes, or fossil sequence, or neck bone, or..., or..., or... Etc. So the platypus, for example, can be described as evolving from pretty much whatever story would be in vogue at the moment...   * "Ancient" Protein as Advanced as Modern Protein: A book review in the journal Science states, "the major conclusion is reached that 'analyses made of the oldest fossils thus far studied do not suggest that their [allegedly 145-million year-old] proteins were chemically any simpler than those now being produced.'" 1972, Biochemistry of Animal Fossils, p. 125 * "Ancient" Lampreys Just Modern Lampreys with Decomposed Brain and Mouth Parts: Ha! Researches spent half-a-year documenting how fish decay. RSR is so glad they did! One of the lessons learned? "[C]ertain parts of the brain and the mouth that distinguish the animals from earlier relatives begin a rapid decay within 24 hours..." :) * 140-million Year Old Spider Web: The BBC and National Geographic report on a 140-million year old spider web in amber which, as young-earth creationists expect, shows threads that resemble silk spun by modern spiders. Evolutionary scientists on the otherhand express surprise "that spider webs have stayed the same for 140 million years." And see the BBC. * Highly-Credentialed Though Non-Paleontologist on Flowers: Dr. Harry Levin who spent the last 15 years of a brilliant career researching paleontology presents much evidence that flowering plants had to originate not 150 million years ago but more than 300 million years ago. (To convert that to an actual historical timeframe, the evidence indicates flowers must have existed prior to the time that the strata, which is popularly dated to 300 mya, actually formed.) * Rampant Convergence: Ubiquitous appeals to "convergent" evolution (vision, echolocation, warm-bloodedness, icthyosaur/dolphin anatomy, etc.), all allegedly evolving multiple times, undermines anatomical classification based on trivialities like odd or even-toed ungulates, etc. * Astronomy's Big Evolution Squeeze: - Universe a billion, wait, two billion, years younger than thought   (so now it has to evolve even more impossibly rapidly) - Sun's evolution squeezes biological evolution - Galaxies evolving too quickly - Dust evolving too quickly - Black holes evolving too quickly - Clusters of galaxies evolving too quickly. * The Sun's Evolution Squeezes Life's Evolution: The earlier evolutionists claim that life began on Earth, the more trouble they have with astrophysicists. Why? They claim that a few billion years ago the Sun would have been far more unstable and cooler. The journal Nature reports that the Faint young Sun paradox remains for the "Sun was fainter when the Earth was young, but the climate was generally at least as warm as today". Further, our star would shoot out radioactive waves many of which being violent enough to blow out Earth's atmosphere into space, leaving Earth dead and dry like Mars without an atmosphere. And ignoring the fact that powerful computer simulators cannot validate the nebula theory of star formation, if the Sun had formed from a condensing gas cloud, a billion years later it still would have been emitting far less energy, even 30% less, than it does today. Forget about the claimed one-degree increase in the planet's temperature from man-made global warming, back when Darwinists imagine life arose, by this just-so story of life spontaneously generating in a warm pond somewhere (which itself is impossible), the Earth would have been an ice ball, with an average temperature of four degrees Fahrenheit below freezing! See also CMI's video download The Young Sun. * Zircons Freeze in Molten Eon Squeezing Earth's Evolution? Zircons "dated" 4 to 4.4 billion years old would have had to freeze (form) when the Earth allegedly was in its Hadean (Hades) Eon and still molten. Geophysicist Frank Stacey (Cambridge fellow, etc.) has suggested they may have formed above ocean trenches where it would be coolest. One problem is that even further squeezes the theory of plate tectonics requiring it to operate two billion years before otherwise claimed. A second problem (for these zircons and the plate tectonics theory itself) is that ancient trenches (now filled with sediments; others raised up above sea level; etc.) have never been found. A third problem is that these zircons contain low isotope ratios of carbon-13 to carbon-12 which evolutionists may try to explain as evidence for life existing even a half-billion years before they otherwise claim. For more about this (and to understand how these zircons actually did form) just click and then search (ctrl-f) for: zircon character. * Evolution Squeezes Life to Evolve with Super Radioactivity: Radioactivity today breaks chromosomes and produces neutral, harmful, and fatal birth defects. Dr. Walt Brown reports that, "A 160-pound person experiences 2,500 carbon-14 disintegrations each second", with about 10 disintergrations per second in our DNA. Worse for evolutionists is that, "Potassium-40 is the most abundant radioactive substance in... every living thing." Yet the percentage of Potassium that was radioactive in the past would have been far in excess of its percent today. (All this is somewhat akin to screws in complex machines changing into nails.) So life would have had to arise from inanimate matter (an impossibility of course) when it would have been far more radioactive than today. * Evolution of Uranium Squeezed by Contrasting Constraints: Uranium's two most abundant isotopes have a highly predictable ratio with 235U/238U equaling 0.007257 with a standard deviation of only 0.000017. Big bang advocates claim that these isotopes formed in distant stellar cataclysms. Yet that these isotopes somehow collected in innumerable small ore bodies in a fixed ratio is absurd. The impossibility of the "big bang" explanation of the uniformity of the uranium ratio (rsr.org/bb#ratio) simultaneously contrasts in the most shocking way with its opposite impossibility of the missing uniform distribution of radioactivity (see rsr.org/bb#distribution) with 90% of Earth's radioactivity in the Earth's crust, actually, the continental crust, and even at that, preferentially near granite! A stellar-cataclysmic explanation within the big bang paradigm for the origin of uranium is severely squeezed into being falsified by these contrasting constraints. * Remarkable Sponges? Yes, But For What Reason? Study co-author Dr. Kenneth S. Kosik, the Harriman Professor of Neuroscience at UC Santa Barbara said, "Remarkably, the sponge genome now reveals that, along the way toward the emergence of animals, genes for an entire network of many specialized cells evolved and laid the basis for the core gene logic of organisms that no longer functioned as single cells." And then there's this: these simplest of creatures have manufacturing capabilities that far exceed our own, as Degnan says, "Sponges produce an amazing array of chemicals of direct interest to the pharmaceutical industry. They also biofabricate silica fibers directly from seawater in an environmentally benign manner, which is of great interest in communications [i.e., fiber optics]. With the genome in hand, we can decipher the methods used by these simple animals to produce materials that far exceed our current engineering and chemistry capabilities." Kangaroo Flashback: From our RSR Darwin's Other Shoe program: The director of Australia's Kangaroo Genomics Centre, Jenny Graves, that "There [are] great chunks of the human genome… sitting right there in the kangaroo genome." And the 20,000 genes in the kangaroo (roughly the same number as in humans) are "largely the same" as in people, and Graves adds, "a lot of them are in the same order!" CMI's Creation editors add that "unlike chimps, kangaroos are not supposed to be our 'close relatives.'" And "Organisms as diverse as leeches and lawyers are 'built' using the same developmental genes." So Darwinists were wrong to use that kind of genetic similarity as evidence of a developmental pathway from apes to humans. Hibernating Turtles: Question to the evolutionist: What happened to the first turtles that fell asleep hibernating underwater? SHOW UPDATE Of Mice and Men: Whereas evolutionists used a very superficial claim of chimpanzee and human genetic similarity as evidence of a close relationship, mice and men are pretty close also. From the Human Genome Project, How closely related are mice and humans?, "Mice and humans (indeed, most or all mammals including dogs, cats, rabbits, monkeys, and apes) have roughly the same number of nucleotides in their genomes -- about 3 billion base pairs. This comparable DNA content implies that all mammals [RSR: like roundworms :)] contain more or less the same number of genes, and indeed our work and the work of many others have provided evidence to confirm that notion. I know of only a few cases in which no mouse counterpart can be found for a particular human gene, and for the most part we see essentially a one-to-one correspondence between genes in the two species." * Related RSR Reports: See our reports on the fascinating DNA sequencing results from roundworms and the chimpanzee's Y chromosome! * Genetic Bottleneck, etc: Here's an excerpt from rsr.org/why-was-canaan-cursed... A prediction about the worldwide distribution of human genetic sequencing (see below) is an outgrowth of the Bible study at that same link (aka rsr.org/canaan), in that scientists will discover a genetic pattern resulting from not three but four sons of Noah's wife. Relevant information comes also from mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) which is not part of any of our 46 chromosomes but resides outside of the nucleus. Consider first some genetic information about Jews and Arabs, Jewish priests, Eve, and Noah. Jews and Arabs Biblical Ancestry: Dr. Jonathan Sarfati quotes the director of the Human Genetics Program at New York University School of Medicine, Dr. Harry Ostrer, who in 2000 said: Jews and Arabs are all really children of Abraham … And all have preserved their Middle Eastern genetic roots over 4,000 years. This familiar pattern, of the latest science corroborating biblical history, continues in Dr. Sarfati's article, Genesis correctly predicts Y-Chromosome pattern: Jews and Arabs shown to be descendants of one man. Jewish Priests Share Genetic Marker: The journal Nature in its scientific correspondence published, Y Chromosomes of Jewish Priests, by scie

Why are some prominent biologists and macro-evolutionists admitting that Darwinian evolution is in trouble and what's fueling this newfound skepticism? Dr. Casey Luskin, co-author of 'The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith', joins Frank to examine the flaws in macroevolutionary theory that even staunch materialists are finding hard to overlook. Together, they address the following questions: What are some key differences between micro and macroevolution?What did later research reveal about the Galápagos Island finches and how does it compare to Darwin's findings?What is epigenetics and how does it relate to the case for Intelligent Design?Why are some biologists hesitant to openly share their doubts about Neo-Darwinism, while others are increasingly vocal?What's the difference between Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism?What are the strongest arguments for a common ancestor?Are non-coding regions of the human genome really "junk DNA"?What about the God of the Gaps argument?Are proponents of Intelligent Design religiously motivated?What are the 4 basic L.I.F.E. problems found within macroevolutionary theory?Resources mentioned during the episode:Learn more from Dr. Casey Luskin: https://caseyluskin.com/The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith: https://a.co/d/fku8uAcWhy the Royal Society Meeting Mattered, in a Nutshell: https://evolutionnews.org/2016/12/why_the_royal_s/Digital Voting Guide and Excellent Presentations on Why Christians Should Vote: www.voteyourfaith.net

Denis Noble and Michael Levin - two great minds in biology come together on Live Longer World. Denis Noble is a renowned biologist and pioneer in systems biology, known for his groundbreaking work on the electrical activity of the heart and his influential contributions to the understanding of biological systems. Denis is an advocate for taking a systems integrative approach to biology, as opposed to the reductionist gene-centric view that has dominated the field due to Neo-Darwinism. The gene-centric view has failed us in advancing progress on many diseases, and we need to now take a systems based approach focused on functional networks within biological systems. Michael Levin is an American developmental and synthetic biologist at Tufts University, where he is the Vannevar Bush Distinguished Professor. His research is focused on bioelectricity and he is my co-host for this podcast. We discuss: - DNA is not the blueprint of life - Why biology's reductionist approach is flawed - The errors in Neo-Darwinism - Epigenetic inheritance - How to advance the cure of diseases Episode Show Notes: https://livelongerworld.com/p/dnoble Find me: https://x.com/aasthajs TIMESTAMPS: 0:00 Denis as Mike Levin's hero 0:10 Denis's journey to systems biology; cell voltage is a global property of the cell 3:45 Advice to young researchers pursuing systems biology 7:00 “Absolutely everything is wrong with Neo-Darwinism” 14:10 Epigenetic inheritance 19:12 Genetic vs. other information used by organisms 23:48 Biology textbooks have to expand beyond DNA in 50 years 25:03 Epigenetic processes are ubiquitous 28:58 If not DNA, what is the blueprint of life 36:15 Rewriting biology textbooks is fundamental 39:57 “A lot of time has been wasted” (in biology) 46:52 Darwin on the “Origin of Species” 55:38 “Unfortunate that Philosophy and science have diverged” 1:00:31 Importance of Functional networks; DNA does not predict disease AASTHA, LIVE LONGER WORLD: Twitter: https://x.com/aasthajs Newsletter: https://livelongerworld.com/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/aasthajs/ LINKS: Michael Levin: https://twitter.com/drmichaellevin Denis's book Dance to the Tune of Life: https://a.co/d/3hvh5JW Episode Show Notes: https://livelongerworld.com/p/dnoble Michael Levin on Bioelectric Signals for Longevity: https://youtu.be/XboYI_wxDr8?si=WrQ_iI8ABbG6eibm

We're joined by Dr. Denis Noble, Professor Emeritus of Cardiovascular Physiology at the University of Oxford, and the father of 'systems biology'. He is known for his groundbreaking creation of the first mathematical model of the heart's electrical activity in the 1960s which radically transformed our understanding of the heart. Dr. Noble's contributions have revolutionized our understanding of cardiac function and the broader field of biology. His work continues to challenge long-standing biological concepts, including gene-centric views like Neo-Darwinism. In this episode, Dr. Noble discusses his critiques of fundamental biological theories that have shaped science for over 80 years, such as the gene self-replication model and the Weissmann barrier. He advocates for a more holistic, systems-based approach to biology, where genes, cells, and their environments interact in complex networks rather than a one-way deterministic process. We dive deep into Dr. Noble's argument that biology needs to move beyond reductionist views, emphasizing that life is more than just the sum of its genetic code. He explains how AI struggles to replicate even simple biological systems, and how biology's complexity suggests that life's logic lies not in DNA alone but in the entire organism. The conversation covers his thoughts on the flaws of Neo-Darwinism, the influence of environmental factors on evolution, and the future of biology as a field that recognizes the interaction between nature and nurture. We also explore the implications of his work for health and longevity, and how common perspectives on genetics might need rethinking. All the topics we covered in the episode: -The critique of Neo-Darwinism and the future of evolutionary theory. -Systems biology: Understanding life beyond the gene. -The complexity of biology: Why reductionism falls short. -Evolution and inheritance: The role of environment in shaping species. -Health implications of Dr. Noble's work: Longevity, lifestyle, and the limits of genome-based predictions. Join us for a thrilling discussion on the future of biology, evolution, and the practical implications for health and science. Follow our host, Waheed Rahman (@iwaheedo), for more updates on tech, civilizational growth, progress studies, and emerging markets. Timestamps: (00:00) - Intro (03:04) - Why Was The Last 80 Years of Biology Wrong? (08:17) - Where does Logic come from? (13:03) - Is Evolution Truly Random or Driven by Purpose? (22:05) - Is Nurture more important than Nature? (29:06) - Denis Noble calls for a rewrite of all Biology textbooks (32:48) - Is Neo-Darwinism Just a Model? Understanding the Difference Between Evolution and the Creationism Debate (39:22) - Natural Selection vs. Lamarckian Evolution: How Darwin Changed Our Understanding of Survival Traits (46:03) - Reductionism vs. Integrationism in Science: How the 'Third Way' Challenges Neo-Darwinism (49:43) - What Does Epigenetics Mean for the Average Person? How Denis Noble's Paradigm Shift Impacts Everyday Health and Life? (69:29) - Is Western Science Facing a Paradigm Shift? Rethinking How We Determine Truth and Health in Light of Eastern and Western Influences (75:21) - Why Reductionism Dominates Science: The Political and Practical Challenges of Embracing a Systems Biology Approach (82:49) - Can We Trust AI to Behave Ethically? The Need to Connect Philosophy with Technology in AI Development (86:46) - Outro

Denis Noble is a renowned biologist and pioneer in systems biology, known for his groundbreaking work on the heart and his influential contributions to the understanding of biological systems. Listen on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b92xAErofYQA7bU4e Become a YouTube Member Here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdWIQh9DGG6uhJk8eyIFl1w/join Patreon: https://patreon.com/curtjaimungal (early access to ad-free audio episodes!) Join TOEmail at https://www.curtjaimungal.org LINKS: - The Music of Life (Book) - https://amzn.to/4drSFSP - The Selfish Gene (Book): https://amzn.to/3zYLyTx - Understanding Living Systems (book): https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Living-Systems-Life/dp/1009277367 - Denis' article: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00327-x - The Third Way of Evolution (website): https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/ Timestamps: 00:00 - Intro 02:05 - Overview of Lecture 04:30 - What is the Genome? 07:22 - Is the Genome the Book of Life? 12:16 - 20th Century Gene-Centric Biology is Wrong 18:03 - Neo-Darwinism is Incorrect 19:42 - Implications for Medical Science 27:17 - Next Steps for Biology 33:10 - A Challenge to the World's Scientists Support TOE: - Patreon: https://patreon.com/curtjaimungal (early access to ad-free audio episodes!) - Crypto: https://tinyurl.com/cryptoTOE - PayPal: https://tinyurl.com/paypalTOE - TOE Merch: https://tinyurl.com/TOEmerch Follow TOE: - NEW Get my 'Top 10 TOEs' PDF + Weekly Personal Updates: https://www.curtjaimungal.org - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theoriesofeverythingpod - TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@theoriesofeverything_ - Twitter: https://twitter.com/TOEwithCurt - Discord Invite: https://discord.com/invite/kBcnfNVwqs - iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/better-left-unsaid-with-curt-jaimungal/id1521758802 - Pandora: https://pdora.co/33b9lfP - Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b92xAErofYQA7bU4e - Subreddit r/TheoriesOfEverything: https://reddit.com/r/theoriesofeverything Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdWIQh9DGG6uhJk8eyIFl1w/join #science #biology Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

David Gornoski sits down with Bryce Hanna for an exciting conversation on Neo-Darwinism, Lamarckism, the amazing truth behind psychic connections, benefits of grounding, how infrared light can enhance metabolism, Co2 retention at high altitude, benefits of magnesium, and more. Follow Bryce Hanna on X here. Follow David Gornoski on X here. Visit aneighborschoice.com for more

Denis Noble is a renowned British biologist and pioneer in systems biology, known for his groundbreaking work on the heart and his influential contributions to the understanding of biological systems. Become a YouTube Member Here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdWIQh9DGG6uhJk8eyIFl1w/join Patreon: https://patreon.com/curtjaimungal (early access to ad-free audio episodes!) Join TOEmail at https://www.curtjaimungal.org Timestamps: 00:00 - Intro 00:20 - Neo-Darwinism is Dead 06:30 - Richard Dawkins Differences 17:02 - Purpose As Individual Agents / Purpose Given 26:05 - Function vs. Purpose in Living Systems 33:30 - Gaia Hypothesis (Lovelock) 37:46 - Anti-Natalist 41:52 - “The Only Free Will Worth Having” 46:52 - Stochasticity 52:50 - Rupert Sheldrake / Morphic Resonance 59:11 - Holism 01:06:32 - Dualism / Separate Laws for Separate Parts 01:18:01 - Multi-Cellularity Emerged Long Ago 01:34:00 - Maladaptive Evolution Happens All the Time 01:39:18 - Denis Noble & Richard Dawkins 01:45:27 - What is Purpose? (For Agents) 01:53:22 - Outro / Support TOE LINKS: - Richard Dawkins book: https://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Anniversary-Introduction/dp/0199291152 - Denis Noble's book: https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Living-Systems-Life/dp/1009277367 - Gerald Edelman's book: https://www.amazon.com/Neural-Darwinism-Theory-Neuronal-Selection/dp/0465049346 - Denis Noble's paper with Daniel Phillips: https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1113/JP284420 - The Music of Life (Denis' book): https://www.amazon.com/Music-Life-Biology-Beyond-Genes/dp/0199228361 - Dance to the Tune of Life (Denis' book): https://www.amazon.com/Dance-Tune-Life-Biological-Relativity/dp/1107176247 - Denis' Progress in Biophysics paper: http://www.voicesfromoxford.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Shapiro-Noble-2021.pdf - The Illusions of the Modern Synthesis (Denis's paper): https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12304-021-09405-3 - The Origin of Species (Charles Darwin's book): https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Species-Charles-Darwin/dp/0517123207 - Dawkins/Noble debate (transcript): https://www.denisnoble.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/TranscriptReferences.pdf Support TOE: - Patreon: https://patreon.com/curtjaimungal (early access to ad-free audio episodes!) - Crypto: https://tinyurl.com/cryptoTOE - PayPal: https://tinyurl.com/paypalTOE - TOE Merch: https://tinyurl.com/TOEmerch Follow TOE: - NEW Get my 'Top 10 TOEs' PDF + Weekly Personal Updates: https://www.curtjaimungal.org - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theoriesofeverythingpod - TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@theoriesofeverything_ - Twitter: https://twitter.com/TOEwithCurt - Discord Invite: https://discord.com/invite/kBcnfNVwqs - iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/better-left-unsaid-with-curt-jaimungal/id1521758802 - Pandora: https://pdora.co/33b9lfP - Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b92xAErofYQA7bU4e - Subreddit r/TheoriesOfEverything: https://reddit.com/r/theoriesofeverything Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdWIQh9DGG6uhJk8eyIFl1w/join #science #biology #richarddawkins Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Can artificial intelligence be applied to the scientific theory of Darwinian evolution to help us evaluate its strengths and weaknesses? On this episode of ID The Future, host Casey Luskin concludes his conversation with two distinguished PhD scientists who are asking tough questions of Neo-Darwinism: Olen Brown, Professor Emeritus of Biomedical Sciences at the University […]

Can artificial intelligence be applied to the scientific theory of Darwinian evolution to help us evaluate its strengths and weaknesses? On this episode of ID The Future, host Casey Luskin concludes his conversation with two distinguished PhD scientists who are asking tough questions of Neo-Darwinism: Olen Brown, Professor Emeritus of Biomedical Sciences at the University of Missouri, and David Hullender, Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at the University of Texas, Arlington. In Part 2, Luskin discusses the latest paper from Brown and Hullender arguing that AI has strong but unrealized potential both for assessing and also solving major problems with the prevailing naturalistic account of life's origins. This is Part 2 of a two-part conversation. Source

If there's anything left to salvage from the Neo-Darwinian theory of life's origins, it must first be rescued from dogma. On this episode of ID The Future, host Casey Luskin begins a conversation with two distinguished PhD scientists who are asking tough questions of Neo-Darwinism: Olen Brown, Professor Emeritus of Biomedical Sciences at the University of Missouri, and David Hullender, Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at the University of Texas, Arlington. Luskin unpacks three recent scientific papers written by Brown and Hullender warning that Neo-Darwinism must be updated if it has any hope of surviving as a theory. This is Part 1 of a two-part conversation. Source

Shownotes and Transcript Intelligent Design may not be an idea you are familiar with but it has interested me since I was a child.  I find it impossible to accept that the world we live in and the complexity of human beings is all based on luck and chance. There has to be an intelligent designer.  Stephen C Meyer is one of the most renowned experts on this very topic and his recent appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience has made many people question the theory of a universe without God.  At what point did intellectuals decide that scientific knowledge conflicts with traditional theistic beliefs? Is it even statistically possible for such complexity to just appear? What about the question of who is this intelligent designer?  Stephen Meyer will help you view the world around you with a brand new perspective. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer received his Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge in the philosophy of science. A former geophysicist and college professor, he now directs the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle. In 2004, Meyer ignited a firestorm of media and scientific controversy when a biology journal at the Smithsonian Institution published his peer-reviewed scientific article advancing intelligent design. Meyer has been featured on national television and radio programs, including The Joe Rogan Experience, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, CBS's Sunday Morning, NBC's Nightly News, ABC's World News, Good Morning America, Nightline, FOX News Live, and the Tavis Smiley show on PBS. He has also been featured in two New York Times front-page stories and has garnered attention in other top-national media. Dr. Meyer is author of the New York Times bestseller Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design and Signature in the Cell, a Times Literary Supplement Book of the Year. He is also a co-author of Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism and Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique. Connect with Stephen... WEBSITE           https://stephencmeyer.org/                            https://www.discovery.org/                            https://returnofthegodhypothesis.com/ X                         https://x.com/StephenCMeyer?s=20 BOOKS               https://www.amazon.co.uk/stores/author/B001K90CQC Interview recorded 13.12.23 Connect with Hearts of Oak... WEBSITE            https://heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        https://heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  https://heartsofoak.org/connect/ TRANSCRIPTS   https://heartsofoak.substack.com/ Support Hearts of Oak by purchasing one of our fancy T-Shirts....  SHOP                  https://heartsofoak.org/shop/ *Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast. Check out his art https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on GETTR https://gettr.com/user/BoschFawstin and Twitter https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20  Transcript (Hearts of Oak) Dr. Stephen Meyer. It's wonderful to have you with us. Thank you so much for your time today. (Stephen C Meyer) Thanks for inviting me, Peter.  No, it's great to have you. And people can find you on Twitter @StephenCMayer. It's on the screen there. And also discovery.org, the Discovery Institute. And you obviously received your PhD in philosophy of sciences from England, from University of Cambridge, your a former geophysicist, college professor, and you now are the director of Discovery Institute, author of many books. The latest is Return of the God Hypothesis, Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe, and the links for those books will be in the description. But, Dr. Meyer, if I can maybe, I think I remember as a child, church loyalty, being at church and getting a stamp for attending. I remember asking for a book on creationism then, and we may touch on different creationism, intelligent design. I mean, it was 10 or 11. And I remember being fascinated by this whole topic of how God can be seen in the world around us. Maybe I can ask you about your journey. What has been your journey to being one of the, I guess, main proponents on intelligent design? Well, I've always been interested in questions at the intersection between science and philosophy or science and  larger worldview questions or science and religion the questions that are addressed about, you know, how do we get here and what is, is there a particular significance to human life, what is the meaning of life, in the early part of my scientific career I was working as a geophysicist as you mentioned the introduction and in the city where I was working, a conference came to town that was investigating that intersection of science and philosophy, science and belief, and it was addressing three big questions, and they were the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the origin and nature of human consciousness. And the conference was unique in that it had invited leading scientists and philosophers representing both theism, broadly speaking, belief in God, and scientists and philosophers who rejected theism and who affirmed the more common view among leading scientists at that time, which was materialism or sometimes called naturalism. We have the New Atheist Movement with their scientific atheists and people of more of that persuasion. So it was, let's look at the origin of the universe from the standpoint. What do the data say, what do you theists say about it, what do you non-theist materialists say about it, and it was a fascinating conference and I was particularly taken by the panels on the origin of the universe and the origin of life because surprisingly to me it seemed that the theists had the intellectual initiative that the the evidence in those about the origin of the universe, and then about the complexity of the cell and therefore the challenges it posed to standard chemical evolutionary theories of the origin of life that in both these two areas, both these two subjects, it seemed that there were powerful, theistic friendly arguments being developed, in one case about the, what you might call, a reviving of the ancient cosmological argument because of the evidence that scientists had discovered about the universe having a beginning. And in the other case, what we now call the theory of intelligent design, that there was evidence of design in the cell, in particular, in the digital code that is stored in the DNA molecule, the information and information processing system of the cell. And was it that time? And still to this day is something that undirected theories of chemical evolution have not been able to explain. And instead, what we know from our experience is that information is a mind product, which is a point that some of these scientists made at this panel, that when we see digital code or alphabetic text or computer code, and many people have likened the information and DNA to a computer code, we always find a mind behind that. So this was the first time I was exposed to that way of thinking. I got fascinated with that. A year later, after the conference, I ended up meeting one of the scientists on the Origin of Life panel, a man named Charles Thackston, who had just written a book with two other co-authors called The Mystery of Life's Origin. He was detailing in that book, he and his colleagues were detailing sort of chapter and verse the problems with trying to explain the origin of the first cell from simpler chemicals in some alleged or presupposed prebiotic soup. And the three authors showed that this was implausible in the extreme, given what we know scientifically about how chemistry works versus how cells work. And over the ensuing year, he kind of mentored me and I got fascinated with the subject and ended up getting a fellowship. A Rotary Fellowship to study at Cambridge for a year and then ended up extending on. I did my master's thesis and then my PhD thesis both on origin of life biology within the History and Philosophy of Science Department at Cambridge. And while I was there, I started to meet other scientists and scholars who were having doubts about standard Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories of life's origin. And by the early 90s, a number of us had met each other and connected and had some private conferences. And out of that was born a formal program investigating the evidence for intelligent design in biology, in physics, in cosmology, and in 96, we started a program at Discovery Institute. You were very kind to me to call me the director of the whole institute. I direct a program within the institute called the Center for Science and Culture, which is the institutional home. A network of scientists who are investigating whether or not there is, empirical scientific evidence for a designing mind behind life in the cosmos and and the program just continues to grow, the network especially continues to grow, we've got fantastic scientists from all around the world now who are sympathetic to that position and I would mention too that it's a position that's kind of reviving an ancient view going back to certainly the time of the scientific revolution. In particular, we've discovered back to the scientific revolution in Cambridge where I had been fortunate enough to study. There's a, in the college that I was part of, St. Catherine's, there was back in the 17th century, one of the founders of modern botany, who was also one of the first authors of what's called British National Theology. His name was John Ray. Ray was the tutor of Isaac Barrow, a mathematician who in turn tutored Newton and so this whole tradition of seeing the fingerprints of a creator in the natural world is something that was launched in Britain, particularly in Cambridge there were other figures like Robert Boyle who were in other places but the Cambridge tradition of natural theology was very strong from that time period in the 17th century, late 17th century, right up to figures like James Clerk Maxwell, the great physicist in the late 19th century who was critical, sceptical of Darwinism and articulated the idea of design. And I think that's now being revived within contemporary science. There's a growing minority of scientists who see evidence of design in nature.  Now, the understanding of intelligent designer, that's a new thinking, but through the millennia, that's been the norm. Individuals have viewed the world through the lens that there is a God, and that has helped them understand and see the world. But there must have been a point, I guess, when intellectuals decided that scientific knowledge conflicts with that that traditional belief, that traditional theistic belief. Yeah, that's a great way of framing the discussion, Peter. There's a historian of science in Britain named Steve Fuller, who's at Warwick. And he's argued that the idea of intelligent design has been the framework out of which science has been done since the period of the scientific revolution at least and that the the post Darwinian deviation from that, denying that there's actual design and only instead as the Darwinian biologists say the appearance or illusion of design, you may remember from Richard Dawkins's famous book the blind watchmaker, page one he says biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. And of course, for Dawkins and his followers, and for Darwinians from the late 19th century forward, the appearance of design is an illusion. And it was thought to be an illusion because Darwin had formulated an undirected, or had identified an undirected, unguided process, which he called natural selection that could mimic the powers of a designing intelligence, or so he argued, without itself being designed or guided in any way. And that's kind of where we've engaged the argument. Is that appearance of design that nearly all biologists recognize merely an appearance, or is it the product of an actual guiding intelligence? And that's why we call our theory intelligent design. We're not challenging the idea that there has been change over time, one of the other meanings of evolution we're not challenging even the idea of universal common descent though some of us myself included are quite sceptical of that, the main thing we're challenging with the theory of intelligent design is that is that the appearance of design is essentially an illusion because an unguided undirected mechanism has the capability of generating that appearance without itself being guided or directed in any way and that's, to us the key issue. Is the design real or merely apparent? You may remember that Francis Crick also once said that biologists must constantly keep in mind, that what they see was not designed, but instead evolved. So there's this, the recurrence of that strong intuition among people who have studied biological systems. And I would say, going back all the way to Aristotle, you know, this has been, the Western tradition in biology has been suffused with this recognition. That organisms look designed, they look like they're designed for purpose, they exhibit purpose of behaviour. And now in the age following Watson and Crick, following the molecular biological revolution of the late 50s and 1960s and 70s, we have extraordinarily strong appearances of design. We've got digital code. We have a replication system. We have a translation system as part of this whole information processing system. Scientists can't help but use teleological wording to describe what's going on. We see the purpose of nature, of all of the biological systems and subsystems. And so what we've argued is that, at least at the point of the origin of life, there is no unguided, undirected, or there is no theory that invokes, that has identified an unguided, undirected mechanism that can explain away that appearance of design. Many people don't realize that Darwin did not attempt to explain the origin of the first life. He presupposed the existence of one or a few very simple forms. And so he started it effectively with assuming a simple cell and then said, well, what would have come from that? We now know, however, that the simple cell was not simple at all and displays this many very striking appearances of design that have not been explained by undirected chemical evolutionary processes. Dawkins himself has said that the machine code of the genes is strikingly computer-like. And so you have this striking appearance of design at the very foundation of life that has not in any way been explained by undirected processes. Well, I want to pick up on a number of that, the new discoveries, how things have changed, the complexity. But I can go back, you're challenging, I guess, hundreds of years of new thinking that the complexity of the universe simply points to luck and chance. And I guess there's a statistical side of that, whether that's even possible. We look around and we see things just working perfectly. And I wonder whether it's even possible for a chance element to make all those things come together and make the world as it is. Well, in my book, Signature in the Cell, which was the first of the three books that I've written on these big topics, I look at the argument for the chance origin of life and even more fundamentally, the chance origin of, say, DNA and the protein products that the DNA codes for. And one of the first things to take note of in addressing the chance hypothesis is that no serious origin of life researcher, no origin of life biochemist or biologist today reposes much hope in the chance hypothesis, it's it's really been set aside and the reason for that, I explained the reason for that in in signature in the cell and then do some calculations to kind of back up the thinking that most origin of life biologists have adopted and that is that the cell is simply far too complicated to have arisen by chance. And you can, and the large biomacromolecules, DNA and proteins, are molecules that depend on a property known as sequence specificity, or sometimes called specified complexity. That is to say, they contain informational instructions in essentially a digital or typographic form. So you have in the DNA you have the four character chemical subunits that biologists actually represent with the letters A, T, G, and C. And if you want to build a protein, you have to arrange the A's, C's, G's, and T's or the evolutionary process or somehow the A's, C's, G's, and T's must have been sequenced in the proper way so that when that genetic message is sent to the ribosome, which is the the translation apparatus in the cell, then what comes out of that is a properly sequenced protein molecules. Proteins also are made of subunits called amino acids. There are 20 or so, maybe as many as 22 now, protein-forming amino acids. And to get the protein chain that is built from the DNA instructions to fold into a proper functional conformation or three-dimensional shape, those amino acids have to be arranged in very specific ways. If they're not arranged properly, the long peptide chain, as it's called, will not fold into a stable protein. And so in both cases, you have this property of sequence specificity that the function of the whole, the whole gene in the case of DNA or the whole protein in the case of the the amino acids, the function of the whole depends upon the precise sequencing of the constituent parts. And that's the difficulty, getting those things to line up properly. Turns out there's all kinds of difficulties in trying to form those subunits, those chemical parts, out of any kind of prebiotic chemical environment that we've been able to think of. But the most fundamental problem is the sequencing. And so you can actually run, because there's, if you think of the protein chain, you have 1 in 20 roughly chances of getting the right amino acid at each site. Sometimes it's more or less because in some cases you can have any one of, there is some variability allowed at each site, but you can run numbers on all this and get very precise numbers on the probability of generating even a single functional protein in the known history of the universe. And it turns out that what are called the combinatorials or the probabilities associated with combinatorials, the probabilities are so small that they are small even in relation to the total number of possible events that might have occurred from the Big Bang till now. In other words, here's an example I often use to use to illustrate, if you have a thief trying to crack a bike lock. If the thief has enough time, even though the combination is hidden among all the possibilities, and then the probability of getting the combination in one trial is very small, if the thief has enough time and can try and try and try again, he may crack it by sheer chance. But if the lock is, we have a standard four-dial bike lock, but if the thief encounters a 10-dial bike lock, and I've had one rendered by my graphic designer to get the point across, then in a human lifetime, there's not enough opportunities to sample that number of possible combinations. If you've got 10 dials, you've got 10 to the 10 possibilities, or 10, that's 10 billion. And if the thief spins the dial once every 10 seconds for 100 years and does nothing else in his entire life, he'll only sample 3% of those total combinations, which means it's much more likely that the thief will fail than it is that he will succeed by chance alone. And that's the kind of, that's the, so the point is that there are, there are degrees of complexity or improbability that dwarf what we call probabilistic resources, the opportunities. And that's the situation we have when we're talking about the origin of the first biomacromolecules by reference to chance alone. Only it's not just that you would with those events, you know, all the events that have occurred from the beginning of the universe until now could only sample about one, I think I've calculated about one ten trillion trillionth of the total possibilities that correspond to a modest length protein. So it's like the bike thief trying to sample that 10-dial lock, only much, much worse. You know, it turns out that 14 billion years isn't enough time to have a reasonable chance to find informational biomolecules by chance alone. I mean, is the whole scientific argument that removes God, is it just an attempt by science to play God, because whenever we are told that scientific principles break down and no longer exist at the very beginning, for instance, and it doesn't make sense, but we're told that that's just how it happened and you have to accept that. And it seems to be people jumping over themselves with a desperation to try and remove the idea that there is an intelligent designer. Well, I tend to think that the questions of motivation in these debates are kind of a wash. I think as theists, we have to, I'm a theist, okay, I believe in God. In my first two books, I argued for designing intelligence of some kind as being, of some unspecified kind as being the best explanation for the information, for example, in the cell or the information needed to build fundamentally new body plans in the history of life on earth. So, but in my last book, I extend that argument, I bring in evidence from cosmology and physics and suggest that the best explanation for that, the ensemble of evidence that we have about biological and physical and cosmological origins is actually a designing intelligence that has attributes that, for example, Jews and Christians have always described to God, transcendence, as well as intelligence. For example, no being within the cosmos, no space alien, and some scientists have proposed even Crick, Francis Crick in 1981 in a little book called Life Itself floated the idea that yes we do see evidence of design in life. The origin of life is a very hard problem, we can't see how it could possibly have happened on Earth so maybe there was an intelligent life form from space who seeded life here. He was subsequently ridiculed a bit and said, I think he was embarrassed that he'd floated this and said he would not, he foreswore any further speculation on the origin of life problem. It was too difficult, he said. But in any case, back to your question, I think the whole question is. Oh, I was finishing a thought, and that is that the evidence of design that we have from the very beginning of the universe and what's called the fine-tuning of the laws and constants of physics and the initial conditions of the universe, the basic parameters of physics, which were said at the beginning, are exquisitely finely tuned against all odds. And no space alien, no intelligence within the cosmos could be responsible for the evidence of design that we have from the very beginning of the universe because any alleged space alien would itself have had to evolve by some sort of naturalistic processes further down the timeline, once you have stable galaxies and planets and that sort of thing and so no being within the cosmos could be responsible for the conditions that made its future evolution possible nor could a space alien to be responsible for the origin of the universe itself. So when you bring in the cosmological and the physical evidence, I think the only type of designing intelligence that can explain the whole range of evidence we have is one that is transcendent, that is beyond the cosmos, but also active in the creation, because we see evidence of information arising later, and information, as I've mentioned, is a mind product based on our uniform and repeated experience.  But as to the motivation issue, I kind of think it's a wash. I think theists have to acknowledge that all people, including those of us who are theists, have a motivation, maybe a hope that there is a purposeful intelligence behind the cosmos. I think there's a kind of growing angst in young people. Harvard study recently showing that over 50% of young people have doubts about there being any purpose to their existence. And this is contributing to the mental health crisis. And so I think all of us would like, to be possible, for there to be life after death, for there to be an enduring purpose to our lives that does not extinguish when we die or when eventually there's a heat death of the universe. I think theism, belief in God, gives people a sense of purpose in relation, the possibility of a relationship to our creator. That's a positive thing. I think there's also a common human motivation to not want to be accountable to that creator and to have moral, complete moral freedom to decide what we want to do at any given time. And so oftentimes theists or God-believers, religious people will say, well, you just like these materialistic theories of origins because you don't want to be accountable to a higher power. That might be true, But it's equally true that the atheist will often say, well, but you guys just need a cosmic crutch. You need comfort from the idea of a divine being, a loving creator, father, whatever, you know, the divine father figure. And Freud famously critiqued or criticized religious belief in those terms. So I think that those two kind of motivation, arguments about motivation are something of a wash and that what I've tried to do in Return of the God Hypothesis is set all of that aside, look at the evidence that we have, and then evaluate it using some standard methods of scientific reasoning and standard methods of evaluating hypotheses, such as a Bayesian analysis, for example, that come out of logic and philosophy. And set the motivation questions aside. And my conclusion is that the evidence for an intelligent designer of some unspecified kind is extremely strong from biology, and that when you bring in the cosmological and physical evidence, the evidence of fine-tuning and the evidence we have that the material cosmos itself had a beginning, I think materialism fails as an explanation, and you need to invoke an intelligence that is both transcendent and active in the creation to explain the whole range of evidence. Well, let me pick you up on that change, because initially there is a change from someone who believes the evolutionary model, big bang, there is no external force. That step from there to there is an external force, there is intelligent design feeding into the universe we have. And then it's another step to take that to there is an intelligent designer, now there is a personal God. And that step certainly, I assume, is frowned upon in the scientific community. Tell us about you making that step, because it would have been much safer to stay, I guess, in the ID side and not to make the step into who that individual is. Tell us about kind of what prompted you to actually make the step into answering that who question.  Right. Well, I've been thinking about this question for 35, 36, I don't know, since the mid-80s when I was a very young scientist. And it was at the conference that inspired it, because at the conference, there were people already thinking about the God question, especially the cosmologists. At that conference, Alan Sandage announced his conversion from scientific agnosticism he was a scientific materialist to theism and indeed I think he became Christian, and he talked about how the evidence for the singularity at the beginning of the universe, the evidence that the material cosmos itself had a beginning was one of the things that moved him off of that materialistic perspective, that it was clear to him that as he described it, that the evidence we had for a beginning was evidence for what he called a super, with a space in between, natural events, nothing within the cosmos could explain the origin of the cosmos itself, if matter, space, time and energy have a beginning and as best we can tell they do and there are multiple lines of evidence and theoretical considerations that lead to that conclusion and I developed that in return of the god hypothesis, it is the evidence from observational astronomy and also developments in theoretical physics converge on that conclusion. And if that's the case, if matter and energy themselves have a beginning, and indeed if space and time themselves have a beginning, then we can't invoke any materialistic explanation to explain that. Because before there was matter, before the beginning of matter, there was no matter to do the causing. And that's the problem. There must be something. For there to be a causal explanation for the universe, it requires a transcendent something. And when you also consider that we have evidence for design from the very beginning in the fine-tuning of the initial physical parameters of the universe, the initial conditions of the universe, the initial establishment and fine-tuning of the physical laws, then you have evidence for that transcendent something being a transcendent intelligent something. And if something is intelligent, capable of making choices between one outcome or another, that's really what we mean by personhood. I mean, this is very close to a, the idea of a personal gun, now that entity may not want to have anything to do with us, but we're talking about a conscious agent when we talk about evidence for intelligent design, and then we have further evidence I think in biology with the presence of the information and information processing system inside cells. And so when you bring all that together, I think you can start to address the who question. So after I wrote Signature in the Cell and Darwin's Doubt, a lot of my readers were asking, OK, that's great. We have evidence of a designing intelligence, but who would that intelligence have been? Is it a space alien, something imminent within the cosmos, like Crick and others have proposed? Or is it a transcendent intelligence? And what can science tell us about that question? So I thought it's a natural question that flows from my first two books. I would stipulate that the theory of intelligent design, formally as a theory, is a theory of design detection. And it allows us to detect the action of an agent as opposed to undirected material processes. We have this example that we often use. If you look at the faces on the mountains at Mount Rushmore, you right away know that a designing intelligence of some kind was responsible for sculpting those faces. And those faces exhibit two properties which, when found together, invariably and reliably indicate a designing intelligence. And we've described those properties as high probability and what's called a specification, a pattern match. And we have evidence of small probability specifications in life. If something is an informational sequence, it's another way of revealing design, so that we can get into all of that. The point is, we've got evidence of design in life, but, the cosmology and fine-tuning allow us to adjudicate between two different design hypotheses, the imminent intelligence and the transcendent one. And I thought, well, let's take this on. It's a natural, it goes beyond the theory of intelligent design, formally speaking, and it addresses one of the possible implications of the evidence of design that we have in biology, that maybe we're looking at a theistic designer, not a space alien.  I just want to pick one or two things from different books. Signature in the Cells, you have it there behind you. And when you simply begin to look at the complexity of cells. You realize that they are like little mini cities, that actually everything, so much happens within. And I guess we are learning more and more about everything in life. And you talk to doctors and they tell you that they are learning more and more about how the body functions. And there's a lot of the unknown. But when you look at that just complexity of, we call it the simple cell, which isn't really very simple, that new research and that new understanding, surely that should move people to a position that, this is impossible, that this level of complexity simply just happens. So tell us about that, just the cell, which is not simple.  Yeah, that's the sort of ground zero for me in my research and interest in the question was this origin of life problem. That's what I did my PhD on. And I think it's really interesting. We could have debates about the adequacy of Darwinian evolutionary theory. I'm sceptical about what's called macroevolutionary theory. But set that all aside. Darwin presupposed one or a few simple forms. And in the immediate wake of the Darwinian Revolution, people like Huxley and Heckel started to develop theories of the origin of those first simple cells. And they regarded the cell in the late 19th century as a very simple, as Huxley put it, a simple homogenous globule or homogeneous globule of undifferentiated protoplasm. And they viewed the essence of the cell as a simple chemical, it's coming from a simple chemical substance they called protoplasm. And so it kind of, and they viewed it as a kind of jello or goo, which could be produced by a few simple chemical reactions. That viewpoint started to fall by the wayside very, very quickly. By the 1890s, early part of the 20th century, we were learning a lot more about the complexity of metabolism. When you get to the molecular biological revolution in the late 1950s and 1960s, nobody any longer thinks the cell is simple because the most important biomacromolecules are large information-bearing molecules that are part of a larger information processing system. And so this is where I think, and in confronting that. And so any origin of life theory has to explain where that came from. My supervisor used to say that the nature of life and the origin of life topics are connected. We need to know what life is in order to formulate a plausible theory of how it came to be. And now that we know that life is much more complex and that we have an integrated informational complexity that characterizes life, those 19th century theories and the first origin of life theories associated with figures like Alexander Oparin, for example, from the 1920s and 30s. These are not adequate to explain what we see. But what's happened, and this is what I documented in Signature in the Cell, is that none of the subsequent chemical evolutionary theories, whether they're based on chance or based on self-organizational laws or somehow based on somehow combining the two, none of those theories have proven adequate either. This problem of sequence specificity or functional information has defied explanation by reference to theories that start from lower level chemistry. It's proven very, very difficult, implausible in the extreme. Here's the problem. Getting from the chemistry to the code is the problem. And undirected chemical processes do not, when observed, move in a life-friendly, information-generative direction. And this has been the problem. So the impasse in origin of life research, which really began in the late 70s, was documented by this book I mentioned, the mystery of life's origin and books, another book, for example, by Robert Shapiro called, Origins, A Sceptic's Guide. That impasse from the 1980s has continued right to the present. Dawkins was interviewed in a film in 2009 by Ben Stein, the American economist and comic. And very quickly, Stein got Dawkins to acknowledge that nobody knows how we got from from the prebiotic chemistry to the first cell. Well, that's kind of a news headline. We get the impression from textbooks that the evolutionary biologists have this all sewed up. They don't by any means. This is a longstanding conundrum. And it is the integrated complexity and informational properties of the cell that have, I think, most fundamentally defied explanation by these chemical evolutionary theories. And I think that's very significant when you think of the whole kind of evolutionary story. Darwin thought that if you could start with something simple then the mutation selection, oh, he didn't have mutations, but the mutation, sorry, the natural selection variation mechanism, could generate all the complexity of life. You'd go from simple to complex very gradually. Well, if the simplest thing is immensely complex and manifest a kind of complexity that defies any undirected process that we can think of, well, then you don't have a seamless evolutionary story from goo to you. Because I guess when you're Darwin's doubt, the next book you wrote, I guess when Charles Darwin wrote Origin of the Species, he assumed it was settled. But science is never settled. There are always developments. And yet it seems, oh, that's sacrosanct, and that cannot be touched and must be accepted. Yeah, and what I did in the second book was show or argue that the information problem is not something that only resides at the lowest level in the biological hierarchy, at the point of the origin of the first cell, but it also emerges later when we have major innovations in the history of life as documented by the fossil record, events such as the Cambrian explosion or the origin of the mammalian radiation or the angiosperm revolution. There are many events in the history of life where you get this sudden or abrupt appearance in the fossil record of completely new form and structure. And we now know in our information age, as it's come to biology, that if you want to build a new cell, you've got to have new proteins. So you have to to have information to build the first cell. But the same thing turns out to be true at the higher level. If you want to build a completely new body plan, you need new organs and tissues. You need to arrange those organs and tissues in very specific ways. And you need new proteins to service the new cell types that make the organs and tissues possible. So anytime we see the abrupt appearance of new biological form, that implies the origin of a vast amount of new biological information.  And so in Darwin's doubt, I simply asked, well, is there, can the standard mutation natural selection mechanism explain the origin of the kind of information that arises and the amount of information arises? And I argue there that no, it doesn't. That we have, there are many, many kinds of biological phenomena that Darwin's mechanism explains beautifully, the small scale variation adaptation, that sort of thing. So 2016, a major conference at the Royal Society in London. First talk there was by the evolutionary biologist Gerd Müller. The conference was convened by a group of evolutionary biologists who think we need a new theory of evolution. Whereas Darwinism does a nice job of explaining small-scale variation, it does a poor job or a completely inadequate job of explaining large-scale morphological innovation, large-scale changes in form. And Mueller, in his first talk at this 2016 event, outlined what he called the explanatory deficits of Neo-Darwinism, and he made that point very clearly. And so it's, I think it's a new day in evolutionary biology, the word of this is not percolating so well perhaps but that was part of the reasons I wrote Darwin's doubt is that within the biological peer-reviewed biological literature it's well known that the problem of the origin of large-scale form, the origin of new body plans is not well explained by the mutation selection mechanism. At this 16 conference, the conveners included many scientists who were trying to come up with new mechanisms that might explain the problem of morphological innovation. Afterwards, one of the conveners said the conference was characterized by a lack of momentousness. Effectively, the evolutionary biologists proposing new theories of evolution and new evolutionary mechanisms had done a good job characterizing the problems, but had not really come up with anything that solves the fundamental problems that we encounter in biology when we see these large jumps in form and structure arising. And in Darwin's Doubt, I didn't just critique standard neo-Darwinian theories of evolution, but many of these newer theories as well, showing that invariably the problem of the origin of biological information and the form that arises from it is the key unsolved problem in contemporary evolutionary theory.  Mueller and Newman wrote a book with MIT Press called On the Origins of Organismal Form, which was a kind of play on the origin of species. Darwinism does a nice job of explaining speciation, small-scale changes within the limits of the pre-existing genomic endowments of an organism, but it doesn't do a good job of explaining new form that requires new genetic information. And these authors, Newman and Mueller, listed in a table of unsolved problems in evolutionary theory, the problem of the origin of biological form. That's what we thought Darwin explained back in 1859, and instead we realized that the mechanisms that he first envisioned have much more limited creative power and much more limited explanatory scope. So that's what my second book was about, and also I think it's still, this is still very much right at the cutting edge of the discussion in evolutionary biology. We can explain the small scale stuff, but not the big scale stuff. Let's just finish off with actually disseminating the information, because all of this is about taking issues which are complex and actually making it understandable to the wider public. And I guess part of that is, I mean, obviously being on the most popular podcast in the world, Joe Rogan, I was like, oh, there's Steve Meyer and Joe Rogan. And taking that information and that turbocharges that. So maybe just to finish off on the ability to disseminate this, because I think in the US, the ID movement is more understood, where I think maybe in Europe, it's certainly it's more misunderstood and not as accepted where there is an acceptance in the States. But tell us about that and how being on something like podcasts like that turbocharge the message. Yeah, well, I can tell you, you know, now that I'm getting introduced at conferences and things after The Joe Rogan Experience, it's as if I never did anything else in my life. No, that's the only thing people care to mention. I mean, he's got a monster reach. He's extremely, his questions on the interview were very probative. Of course, slightly to moderately sceptical, maybe more, but I thought they were fair. I thought it was a great discussion and it was a lot of fun. And, you know, we've had not only, I think he gets something like 11 million downloads on average for his podcast. We couldn't even believe these numbers when we were told them. But there have been over 25 million derivative videos that social media influencers and podcasters have made about the Rogan interview, analysing different sections of our conversation. So, yeah, that was a huge boost to the dissemination of our message. But one thing I realized in our conversation that there's a simple way to understand the information argument. And that's one of our tools in getting some of these ideas out is distilling some of these things that we've been talking about at a fairly deep level to a more understandable level. So let me just run that argument, that argument sketch or the distillation of the argument by your audience. And then they would talk about some of the things we're doing to get the word out. Our local hero in the Seattle area here is Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft. And he has said, like Dawkins, that the digital code in the DNA, that the DNA is like a software program, but much more complex than any we've ever created. Dawkins, as I mentioned before, says it's like a machine code. It contains machine code. Well, if you think about that, those are very suggestive quotations because what we know from our uniform and repeated experience, which is the basis of all scientific reasoning, is that information always arises from an intelligence source. If you have a section of software, there was a programmer involved. If you have a hieroglyphic inscription, there was an ancient scribe involved. If you have a paragraph in a book, there was a writer involved. As we're effectively broadcasting, we're transmitting information, that information ultimately issues from our mind. So whenever we look at information, an informational text or sequence, and we trace it back to its ultimate source, we always come to a mind rather than a material process. All attempts to explain the origin of life based on undirected material processes have failed because they couldn't explain the information present in DNA, RNA proteins. So the presence of that information at the foundation of life, based on our uniform and repeated experience about what it takes to generate information is therefore best explained by the activity of a designing intelligence. It takes a programmer to make a program, to make a software program. And what we have in life is, from many different standpoints, identical to computer code. It is a section of functional digital information. So that's a kind of more user-friendly sketch of the argument but the point is some of these some of these key ideas that are that make intelligent design so, I think so persuasive at a high scientific level if you actually look at the evidence, can be also explained fairly simply and so we're generating a lot of not just Joe Rogan podcast interviews but coming on many many podcasts and that sort of thing but also we're generating a lot of YouTube video short documentaries that get some of these ideas across and for your viewers, one that I might recommend which is on of any it was out on the internet it's called science uprising and it's a series of 10 short documentary videos, another one that we've done called the information enigma which I think would would help people get into these ideas fairly quickly, the information enigmas I think it's a 20 minute short documentary it's up online and we've had hundreds of thousands of views so we're doing a lot to sort of translate the most rigorous science into accessible ideas and disseminate that in user-friendly ways. The best website for finding a lot of this compiled is actually the website for my most recent book, Return of the God Hypothesis. So the website there is returntothegodhypothesis.com. Okay, well, we will have the link for that in the description.  Dr. Stephen Meyer, I really appreciate you coming along. Thank you so much for coming and sharing your experience and understandings of writing and making that understandable, I think, to the viewers, many of them who may not have come across this before.  So thank you for your time today. I really appreciate you having me on, Peter.

Dr Rob discusses a fundamental aspect of neo-Darwinism (Fisher's Theorem of Natural Selection) and how it fails mathematically. First postulated in 1930, Fisher's idea was promoted as something as firm and settled as the 2nd Law. Problem is, he made several incorrect assumptions that invalidate the whole thing. When you add realistic mutations to the scenario (e.g., Basener and Sanford's 'Fisher's Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations'), you see that the net trajectory of evolution is downward. Why did it take 90 years to figure this out? Links: Basener and Sanford 2017 The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations Basener et al. 2021 Dynamical Systems and Fitness Maximization in Evolutionary Biology Keightley and Lynch 2003 Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness Price 1972 Fisher's 'fundamental theorem' made clear Fisher 1930 The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (Wikipedia page) Carter 2020 A successful decade for Mendel's Accountant

Dr Rob discusses a fundamental aspect of neo-Darwinism (Fisher's Theorem of Natural Selection) and how it fails mathematically. First postulated in 1930, Fisher's idea was promoted as something as firm and settled as the 2nd Law. Problem is, he made several incorrect assumptions that invalidate the whole thing. When you add realistic mutations to the scenario (e.g., Basener and Sanford's 'Fisher's Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations'), you see that the net trajectory of evolution is downward. Why did it take 90 years to figure this out? Links: Basener and Sanford 2017 The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations Basener et al. 2021 Dynamical Systems and Fitness Maximization in Evolutionary Biology Keightley and Lynch 2003 Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness Price 1972 Fisher's 'fundamental theorem' made clear Fisher 1930 The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (Wikipedia page) Carter 2020 A successful decade for Mendel's Accountant

This year's Conference On Engineering in Living Systems (CELS) happens this month and explores design principles at work in living things. To whet your appetite for the topic, we pulled this ID the Future from the archive. Host Jonathan Witt gives us a behind-the-scenes interview with Dustin Van Hofwegen, a biology professor at Azusa Pacific University in California. The occasion was a previous Conference on Engineering in Living Systems. The two discuss the private event, which brought together biologists and engineers to study how engineering principles and a design perspective can and are being applied to biology — to plants and animals but also to Van Hofwegen's area of focus, the realm of microbial biology. The two quickly move into a conversation about Van Hofwegen's article in the Journal of Bacteriology, co-authored with Carolyn Hovde and Scott Minnich, based on research they did at the University of Idaho. As Van Hofwegen explains, the research focused on one of the most ballyhooed evolutionary changes to come out of Richard Lenski's long-term evolution experiment, a decades-long study of many thousands of generations of E. coli bacteria. Perhaps the biggest evolutionary development in the course of the experiment involved some bacteria beginning to feed in citric acid. Interesting, to be sure, but as Van Hofwegen explains, E. coli already has this capacity; it's just a matter of switching it on. Van Hofwegen, Hovde, and Minnich demonstrated this through do-or-die experiments with E. coli, which led to the bacteria developing the capacity not in years or decades, as in the Lenski experiment, but in fourteen days, in as little as 100 generations. Van Hofwegen unpacks why this is an embarrassing result for Neo-Darwinism. The pair conclude with discussion of another study on antibiotic resistance with a similar result, that the resistance observed came not by evolving anything new but by tweaking something already present. Source

Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design, How Mutations Fail To Invent and The  Remarkable Coincidences in Photosynthesis. ACU Sunday Series.  Stephen Meyer Investigates Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design (Lecture 1) Michael Behe Exposes How Mutations Fail To Invent Michael Denton Remarkable Coincidences in Photosynthesis   Stephen Meyer Investigates Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design (Lecture 1) https://youtu.be/C5Z6h_RVhIw Discovery Science Visit https://www.discoveryu.org/courses/meyer for the full course. For the first time, you can have living room access to over seven hours of teaching by intelligent design pioneer Stephen Meyer in a brand-new online course. A favorite of students young and old(er), Meyer will delight both as he explores the scientific evidence for intelligent design (ID) found in physics, cosmology, biology and the chemical origin of life. Join Stephen as he investigates the scientific evidence for intelligent design in the origin of life, the development of biological complexity, and physics and cosmology. In 42 short video lectures, Meyer explores the scientific basis for the theory of intelligent design—the idea that key features of life and the universe are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an unguided process. In this course, Meyer will guide you through the major concepts and information presented in his path breaking books Signature in the Cell and Darwin's Doubt, as well as previewing some of the material about physics and cosmology in his book The Return of the God Hypothesis. Each video lecture is accompanied by a short quiz, and a special digital certificate of completion is offered for those who finish the course. For more about the course visit https://www.discoveryu.org/courses/meyer. Check out these videos as well: Information Enigma: Where does information come from? https://youtu.be/aA-FcnLsF1g Michael Behe Investigates Evolution & Intelligent Design (Lecture 1) https://youtu.be/XCTTy0ylf7A Stephen Meyer Shatters The Myth Of The Multiverse (Science Uprising EP4) https://youtu.be/WR51OrawqIg ============================ The Discovery Science News Channel is the official Youtube channel of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture. The CSC is the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling evidence of intelligent design. The CSC supports research, sponsors educational programs, defends free speech, and produce articles, books, and multimedia content. For more information visit https://www.discovery.org/id/ http://www.evolutionnews.org/ http://www.intelligentdesign.org/ Follow us on Facebook and Twitter: Twitter: @discoverycsc Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/discoverycsc/ Visit other Youtube channels connected to the Center for Science & Culture Discovery Institute: https://www.youtube.com/user/Discover... Dr. Stephen C. Meyer: https://www.youtube.com/user/DrStephe... The Magician's Twin - CS Lewis & Evolution: https://www.youtube.com/user/cslewisweb Darwin's Heretic - Alfred Russel Wallce: https://www.youtube.com/user/AlfredRW...   Course Overview Join philosopher of science Stephen Meyer as he investigates the scientific evidence for intelligent design in the origin of life, the development of biological complexity, and physics and cosmology. In 42 short video lectures, Meyer explores the scientific basis for the theory of intelligent design—the idea that key features of life and the universe are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an unguided process. In this course, Meyer will guide you through the major concepts and information presented in his pathbreaking books Signature in the Cell and Darwin's Doubt, as well as previewing some of the material about physics and cosmology in his book The Return of the God Hypothesis. Each video lecture is accompanied by a short quiz, and a special digital certificate of completion is offered for those who finish the course. About the Professor Stephen C. Meyer received his PhD from the University of Cambridge in the history and philosophy of science. A former geophysicist with ARCO and professor of philosophy at Whitworth University, he currently directs the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle. He is author of the New York Times-bestseller Darwin's Doubt (2013) as well as Signature in the Cell (2009) and The Return of the God Hypothesis (forthcoming in 2021). Recommended Texts and Resources You are encouraged to dig deeper into the topics explored in this course by consulting the following books and resources: Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (book) Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design (book) Debating Darwin's Doubt (book) Signature of Controversy: Responses to Critics of Signature in the Cell (book) Explore Evolution: The Arguments for and against Neo-Darwinism (book) The Return of the God Hypothesis (book) DarwinsDoubt.com (website) The Information Enigma (video) The Intelligent Design Collection—Darwin's Dilemma, The Privileged Planet, Unlocking the Mystery of Life (videos) Course Outline Unit 1: Evidence of Intelligent Design in the Origin of Life Introduction to Course. What is intelligent design, and why is it controversial? In this first lecture, Meyer introduces the topic of intelligent design. Darwin's Challenge to Intelligent Design. What does evolution mean? Meyer explains adaptation and explains how Darwin's theory challenges the idea of intelligent design. Theories of the Origin of Life in the Nineteenth Century. Darwin conceived of the origin of life happening possibly in a “warm little pond.” Meyer explains the state of origin of life research at Darwin's time and later. Oparin's Theory of the Origin of Life. Meyer delves into Alexsandr Oparin's theory on the origin of life, put forward in 1936. Learn about evolutionary abiogenesis and the experiment that sought to prove it. The Amazing Complexity of Proteins. What do proteins look like? How has science progressed in its understanding of these basic building blocks of life? Meyer traces the work of protein scientists in the 1930s up through the 50s. What is the importance of a protein's shape? And how is this shape determined? The Role of DNA. How did our understanding of the cell change in the 1950s and 60s? Meyer discusses the discovery of the stable double helix structure of DNA and the key scientists involved. The DNA Enigma. Meyer examines Francis Crick's sequence hypothesis and then goes on to delve into the question of code and biological information, explaining what he calls “the DNA enigma.” What Kind of Information Does DNA Contain? Meyer explores types of information, explains mathematical Shannon information, and discusses what kind of information Francis Crick, Richard Dawkins, and Bill Gates see in life's code. Explanations for the Origin of Life: Chance. Could the information in the cell come about by chance? Today, learn the history of origin of life research from the 1950s to the present. What is prebiotic soup, anyway? Explanations for the Origin of Life: Self-Organization. Can self-organization explain the origin of biological information? In this lesson, learn about Dean Kenyon and his idea of ‘biochemical predestination' of amino acids. How does DNA fit into this whole picture? 2 Explanations for the Origin of Life: Pre-Biotic Natural Selection. What is prebiotic natural selection? Listen in as Dr. Meyer examines Oparin's hypothesis and modern attempts to reconcile evolution with the origin of life. Introduction to Intelligent Design. Meyer recounts his introduction to the design hypothesis and his quest to shape it into a rigorous scientific argument as he explores historical science methods. Objections to Intelligent Design: Is Intelligent Design Science? Meyer responds to a key philosophical objection to intelligent design. Objections to Intelligent Design: Argument from Ignorance? Some critics claim design proponents make an argument from ignorance. Is this true? Meyer discusses the intelligent designer of the gaps objection and illustrates why it is not applicable. Objections to Intelligent Design: RNA World, pt 1. Is it possible to avoid the cell's chicken and egg problem? Listen in as Meyer discusses the RNA world scenario. Can genetic information and biochemically relevant functions be present without either DNA or protein? Objections to Intelligent Design: RNA World, pt. 2. Can the RNA world scenario overcome the information problem? Listen in as Dr. Meyer analyzes this popular proposal. Objections to Intelligent Design: RNA World, pt. 3. Have scientific developments “overtaken Meyer's book” as Stephen Fletcher claims? Listen in as Meyer examines Fletcher's supposed evidence. Objections to Intelligent Design: Junk DNA. Critics claim that junk DNA disproves intelligent design. Meyer takes on this objection. Unit 2: Evidence of Intelligent Design in the Development of Life Another Information Problem in the History of Life. Is the origin of life the main problem with the materialistic evolutionary account of origins? Meyer delves into the modern evolutionary synthesis. Is information a problem here too? The Cambrian Explosion. What does the fossil record reveal about life's history? Meyer discusses how Darwin found the Cambrian explosion particularly striking and puzzling. The Mystery of the Missing Fossils: The Burgess Shale. Darwin tried to propose an explanation for the mystery of the missing fossils. But have later discoveries confirmed his predictions? Meyer introduces a 1909 discovery – the Burgess Shale. The Mystery of the Missing Fossils: The Chenjiang Fauna. Meyer details a fossil find with great diversity: the Cambrian era Chenjiang fauna. 3 What Does It Take to Build an Animal? Meyer discusses the process of how to get a Cambrian animal. Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Mechanism: Combinatorial Searches, pt. 1. What does combinatorial search mean? And how would the neo-Darwinian mechanism produce the new genetic information needed to build new animals? Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Mechanism: Combinatorial Searches, pt. 2. How hard is it to get a new protein? Meyer does the math, further examining the efficacy of the neo-Darwinian synthesis. Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Mechanism: Developmental Mutations and Gene Regulatory Networks. It's a catch-22: random mutation and organism development. Meyer gets beyond the numbers and uncovers the challenges posed for NeoDarwinism by developmental mutations and developmental gene regulatory networks. Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Mechanism: Information beyond DNA. Do protein folds and developmental gene regulatory networks pose the biggest problems to Neo-Darwinism? Meyer discusses a third devastating challenge to evolution. He also discusses new evolutionary theories proposed to overcome it. The Positive Case for Intelligent Design, pt. 1. Can one make a positive case for intelligent design using accepted methods of reasoning? Meyer examines inductive, deductive and abductive reasoning, and lays out what intelligent design proponents need to demonstrate to make a strong case for design. The Positive Case for Intelligent Design, pt. 2. Meyer applies historical scientific methods to evaluate potential causes of the Cambrian explosion. The Positive Case for Intelligent Design, pt. 3. Meyer discusses genetic algorithm computer programs, the reason why the random mutation/natural selection mechanism is doomed, and why intelligence uniquely can account for functional information. Responding to Critics: Charles Marshall. Paleontologist Charles Marshall challenged Meyer's arguments in Darwin's Doubt, and here Meyer responds. Response to Critics: Dennis Venema and Deborah Haarsma. Meyer evaluates an objection to his book from theistic evolutionists Dennis Venema and Deborah Haarsma. Can evolution's mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations account for new protein folds? And what does the evolution of nylonase demonstrate? Responding to Critics: Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins. Meyer responds to atheists Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins. 4 Who Is the Designer? Who is the designing intelligence? Was it an alien? Or a transcendent being? Meyer addresses this question, distinguishing between evidence from biology that merely points to mind, and separate evidence that may shed light on the identity of the designer. Unit 3: Evidence of Intelligent Design in Physics and Cosmology One Man's Journey. Meyer recounts the story of an astronomer's journey from atheism to intelligent design. What do the stars reveal? What Is Fine-Tuning? Meyer discusses the laws and constants of physics, highlighting striking examples of fine-tuning. How Do We Recognize Design? Meyer discusses William Dembski's theory of design inferences, and applies that to fine-tuning. Weak Anthropic Principle and Natural Law. Meyer gives an overview of the weak anthropic principle and natural law as explanations for fine-tuning. The Multiverse, pt. 1. Meyer describes a popular explanation for fine-tuning and the two cosmological models physicists employ. The Multiverse, pt. 2. Meyer analyzes the multiverse theory. How does it stack up against intelligent design? The Multiverse, pt. 3. Meyer delves deeper into universe generating mechanisms and what they require. Who Is the Designer? In this final video lecture, Stephen Meyer shares his thoughts on this important question.     Michael Behe Exposes How Mutations Fail To Invent (Science Uprising EP6) https://youtu.be/_ivgQFIST1g Discovery Science Are chance mutations really “the key to our evolution” like they claim in the X-Men films? Or are there strict limits to what mutations can accomplish, limits that point to the need for an overarching designer and the failure of Darwinian evolution to create fundamentally new things? Be sure to visit https://scienceuprising.com/ to find more videos and explore related articles and books. In this episode of Science Uprising, we'll take a look at the real evidence for the supposed powerhouse of evolution. The featured expert is biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University, author of the books Darwin's Black Box, The Edge of Evolution, and Darwin Devolves. Well-known scientists have been preaching a materialistic worldview rather than presenting the public with all the evidence. We are here to change that. The objective scientific evidence does not prove our universe is blind and purposeless. It does not show we are simply meat machines. It does not prove that evolutionary mechanisms can completely account for the diversity of life on earth. This is what THEY want you to think. Think for yourself and make an informed decision. Are you ready? The uprising has begun. In a lecture, Phillip Johnson cited physicist Richard Feynman on a scientist's obligation to be honest — not only with himself or in other scientific contexts but, not one bit less, when speaking to the lay public. “You should not fool the laymen when you're talking as a scientist.” That such a thing would need to be said is itself revealing. What's more, Feynman insisted, you should “bend over backwards to show how you may be wrong.” The comments are taken from a Commencement address by Feynman in 1974 at Caltech. Johnson, a founding father of modern intelligent design, was so moved by this that he said “I wish it could be set to music.” As far as I know it hasn't been set to music. But the idea is a major theme in the new Science Uprising series. Scientists fool themselves and they fool non-scientists, not about dry technical details with no special significance, but about matters that bear on huge, life-altering world picture issues. One example is the role of mutations in evolution. That is the topic of Episode 6 of Science Uprising, “Mutations: Failure to Invent.” It's out now; see it here: The Alternative Perspective The idea that random genetic mutations lead to wondrous, creative innovations is so influential that it forms the premise of a movie franchise, X-Men, that has grossed $6 billion worldwide over the past couple of decades. That's a lot of “fooling the laymen”! The alternative perspective would be open to the possibility of creative evolution requiring intelligence guidance. The producers of the X-Men movies aren't scientists. However, the science media have done their best to mislead about the work of real scientists, including National Academy of Sciences member Richard Lenski. We're all victims of that hype, including Hollywood moviemakers. Dismantling the hype about Lenski occupies biochemist Michael Behe for a significant part of his recent book, Darwin Devolves. Super-Challenges Not Super-Powers As Professor Behe explains in Science Uprising, the Long-Term Evolution Experiment conducted by Lenski has demonstrated not the creative power of unguided evolution but the occasional benefits of devolution, of breaking or disabling genes. That's the opposite lesson from the one drawn by media such as the New York Times in reporting on Lenski's efforts. “Think about it,” says the masked narrator of Science Uprising, against the backdrop of poignant images of people suffering from genetic illnesses, “significant mutations don't create superpowers. They create super-challenges. Sometimes those mutations are even life-threatening.” Check out some of our other videos: Information Enigma: Where does information come from? Information drives the development of life. But what is the source of that information? https://youtu.be/aA-FcnLsF1g Science Uprising Episode 1 - Reality: Real vs. Material Has science proven we are all just matter? Or does reality extend beyond what we can see and touch? https://youtu.be/Fv3c7DWuqpM Bijan Nemati: Rare Earth https://youtu.be/vn3YpOWCrc4 Check out other videos from this playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list... Subscribe to our channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/Discover...     Michael Denton Remarkable Coincidences in Photosynthesis -- ID The Future Podcast https://youtu.be/12i2RKct5RM Discovery Science On this episode of ID the Future, we listen in on a few minutes from a lecture given by CSC Senior Fellow Michael Denton. We've all heard of the importance of photosynthesis as an oxygen creating process. In this segment, Denton explains the “remarkable set of coincidences” which makes the creation of oxygen through photosynthesis possible. From the specific energy of visible light to the unique properties of water, this degree of improbability screams DESIGN. For more and to download this episode go to: https://www.discovery.org/multimedia/... For more on how the cosmos is designed for life, watch Discovery Institute's documentary Priviledged Species, featuring Michael Denton, at http://privilegedspecies.com/. The ID The Future (IDTF) podcast carries on Discovery Institute's mission of exploring the issues central to evolution and intelligent design. IDTF is a short podcast providing you with the most current news and views on evolution and ID. IDTF delivers brief interviews with key scientists and scholars developing the theory of ID, as well as insightful commentary from Discovery Institute senior fellows and staff on the scientific, educational and legal aspects of the debate. You've heard the hype, now learn the truth. Subscribe to the podcast Intelligent Design: The Future. Exploring issues central to the case for intelligent design from the Big Bang to the bacterial flagellum and beyond. https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/i... ============================ The Discovery Science News Channel is the official Youtube channel of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture. The CSC is the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling evidence of intelligent design. The CSC supports research, sponsors educational programs, defends free speech, and produce articles, books, and multimedia content. For more information visit https://www.discovery.org/id/ http://www.evolutionnews.org/ http://www.intelligentdesign.org/ Follow us on Facebook and Twitter: Twitter: @discoverycsc Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/discoverycsc/ Visit other Youtube channels connected to the Center for Science & Culture Discovery Institute: https://www.youtube.com/user/Discover... Dr. Stephen C. Meyer: https://www.youtube.com/user/DrStephe... The Magician's Twin - CS Lewis & Evolution: https://www.youtube.com/user/cslewisweb Darwin's Heretic - Alfred Russel Wallce: https://www.youtube.com/user/AlfredRW...  

Evolutionists cite natural selection as the means by which organisms evolve from simple into more complex life forms.  There is no doubt that microevolution (adaptation of the "kinds") occurs.  However, natural selection's ability to accomplish macroevolution is being significantly challenged--by more and more evolutionists!

Today's ID the Future brings the first part of a friendly debate/discussion between Lehigh University biologist and intelligent design proponent Michael Behe and Catholic theologian Matthew Ramage. Led by Philosophy for the People podcast host Pat Flynn, Behe starts by noting that he is a lifelong Catholic who accepted from childhood that, as he was taught in school, if God wanted to work through the secondary causes of Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms to generate the diversity of life, who were we to tell him he shouldn't or couldn't do it that way? Behe says that his skepticism toward Neo-Darwinism arose many years later and stemmed purely from his scientific research. Ramage, who specializes in the work of Pope Benedict XVI, sees Read More › Source

John and Shane, standing in for Maria, examine the Biden's administration executive order that Medicaid patients can travel across state lines for abortion. They also explain how the killing of an Al Qaeda leader in Afghanistan reminds us of not just the danger of extremist Islam in other nations such as Nigeria but also the threat of secularist states toward religious freedom. Musing on two recent commentaries, they discuss the cracks in Neo-Darwinism and the Gnostic basis of the topic of cannibalism in popular media.

In episode 2, we learn more about how Neo-Darwinism must mutate to survive. Join Dr. Olen Brown as he discusses the flaws of evolution and how the scientific community openly ignores the evidence.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode learn more about how Neo-Darwinism must mutate to survive. Join Dr. Olen Brown as he discusses the flaws of evolution and how the scientific community openly ignores the evidence.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dr. Ray Bohlin provides an overview of the first section of a landmark book on theistic evolution, showing why evolution doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

On today's ID the Future, Human Nature author David Berlinski continues his conversation with host Wesley J. Smith. Here Berlinski reflects on the Jewish Holocaust, the destructive nihilism of the Nazis and the SS, and the shortcomings of Neo-Darwinism as an explanation for the diversity of life. Berlinski and Smith also discuss the increasingly widespread attacks on human exceptionalism, the growth of emotivism and why it's a problem, and the bizarre nature rights movement. This is the second and concluding part of a conversation borrowed, with permission, from Wesley J. Smith's Humanize podcast. Source

Dave Snowden is the founder and chief officer of Cognitive Edge. He is a pioneer in the field of complexity science and sensemaking, and is perhaps best known for developing the Cynefin framework as a sensemaking device for decision-makers. In this conversation, we talk about Neo-Darwinism, the trouble with specialisation, why democracy is failing, radical sacrifice, and much more. Dave blogs here: https://thecynefin.co/author/dave-snowden/ You can find more out about Cognitive Edge here: https://www.cognitive-edge.com/ We discussed: ‘A Leader's Framework for Decision Making' (with Mary E. Boone), Harvard Business Review, Nov 2007: https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making

Neo-Darwinism may seem logical, however, genetic evidence does not support it.  Many evolutionists are starting to question Darwinism and searching for alternatives.

On this episode of ID The Future from the vault, Discovery Institute senior fellows David Berlinski and Michael Denton, both long-time critics of neo-Darwinism, discuss their primary objections to neo-Darwinian theory. For Berlinski, a mathematician and author of The Deniable Darwin, the problem is quantitative and methodological. For Denton, a geneticist and author of the new Discovery Institute Press book Children of Light: The Astonishing Properties of Light that Make Us Possible, the problem is empirical. Don't miss this engaging discussion.  Please consider donating to support the IDTF Podcast. David Berlinski WRITER, THINKER, RACONTEUR, AND SENIOR FELLOW, DISCOVERY INSTITUTE David Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He is currently a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Dr. Berlinski has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics, as well as three novels. He has also taught philosophy, mathematics and English at such universities as Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Universite de Paris. In addition, he has held research fellowships at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques (IHES) in France.   David Berlinski & Michael Denton, Pt. 2: Darwinian Stalemate? On this episode of ID The Future, philosopher and author David Berlinski joins geneticist and researcher Michael Denton for continued discussion on the debate over Darwinian evolution. Why has the theory persisted? What weaknesses threaten its existence in the 21st century? As Berlinski puts it: “…applying Darwinian principles to problems of this level of complexity is like putting a Band-Aid on a wound caused by an atomic weapon. It's just not going to work.” Listen in as Berlinski and Denton explain why the Darwinian mechanism is being widely questioned as a viable theory of the origin and development of life. Please consider donating to support the IDTF Podcast: idthefuture.org/donate.   David Berlinski & Michael Denton, Pt. 3: Top-Down versus Bottom-Up Worldview On this episode of ID The Future from the vault, mathematician David Berlinski joins biochemist Michael Denton for continued discussion on the difficulties of Darwinian evolution to be a viable modern theory of the origin and development of life and the cosmos. On this episode, Berlinski explains why many conservative intellectuals have trouble doubting Darwin. Denton suggests that the mechanistic, Darwinian framework will eventually collapse, and reviews the essential differences in worldview between the Darwin supporter and the Darwin doubter. Tune in to the final episode of this stimulating exchange!   TOPICS Intelligent Design Evolution Darwinism Materialism origin of life Charles Darwin Neo-Darwinism abiogenesis Atheism Natural Selection irreducible complexity theistic evolution DNA Darwin science education biology Theism Richard Dawkins fine-tuning genetics Biological Information common descent Scientism Cambrian Explosion Darwinian Evolution Big Bang Featured Academic Freedom William Dembski Kitzmiller v. Dover Junk DNA C.S. Lewis Darwin Devolves teleology Proteins Teach the Controversy scientific racism fine tuning Alfred Russell Wallace Darwin's Doubt Francis Collins information Eric Metaxas multiverse Ethics Jerry Coyne specified complexity evolutionary theory Eugenics Science and Human Origins Aristotle Stephen C. Meyer devolution human exceptionalism entropy Biologic Institute God Phillip Johnson Naturalism engineering Signature in the Cell macroevolution The Edge of Evolution Design Bioethics Molecular Machines artificial intelligence (AI) agnosticism Science and faith history of intelligent design Microevolution Philosophy philosophy of science Science Inference to the Best Explanation Icons of Evolution Thomas Aquinas Richard Sternberg Christianity history of science methodological naturalism purpose Brian Miller design inference Stephen Hawking adaptation cosmology Isaac Newton scientific revolution scientific Materialism information theory Richard Lenski scientific suppression chemical evolution Fred Hoyle bacterial flagellum foresight

On this episode of ID The Future from the vault, Discovery Institute senior fellows David Berlinski and Michael Denton, both long-time critics of neo-Darwinism, discuss their primary objections to neo-Darwinian theory. For Berlinski, a mathematician and author of The Deniable Darwin, the problem is quantitative and methodological. For Denton, a geneticist and author of the new Discovery Institute Press book Children of Light: The Astonishing Properties of Light that Make Us Possible, the problem is empirical. Don't miss this engaging discussion.  Please consider donating to support the IDTF Podcast. David Berlinski WRITER, THINKER, RACONTEUR, AND SENIOR FELLOW, DISCOVERY INSTITUTE David Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He is currently a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Dr. Berlinski has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics, as well as three novels. He has also taught philosophy, mathematics and English at such universities as Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Universite de Paris. In addition, he has held research fellowships at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques (IHES) in France.   David Berlinski & Michael Denton, Pt. 2: Darwinian Stalemate? On this episode of ID The Future, philosopher and author David Berlinski joins geneticist and researcher Michael Denton for continued discussion on the debate over Darwinian evolution. Why has the theory persisted? What weaknesses threaten its existence in the 21st century? As Berlinski puts it: “…applying Darwinian principles to problems of this level of complexity is like putting a Band-Aid on a wound caused by an atomic weapon. It's just not going to work.” Listen in as Berlinski and Denton explain why the Darwinian mechanism is being widely questioned as a viable theory of the origin and development of life. Please consider donating to support the IDTF Podcast: idthefuture.org/donate.   David Berlinski & Michael Denton, Pt. 3: Top-Down versus Bottom-Up Worldview On this episode of ID The Future from the vault, mathematician David Berlinski joins biochemist Michael Denton for continued discussion on the difficulties of Darwinian evolution to be a viable modern theory of the origin and development of life and the cosmos. On this episode, Berlinski explains why many conservative intellectuals have trouble doubting Darwin. Denton suggests that the mechanistic, Darwinian framework will eventually collapse, and reviews the essential differences in worldview between the Darwin supporter and the Darwin doubter. Tune in to the final episode of this stimulating exchange!   TOPICS Intelligent Design Evolution Darwinism Materialism origin of life Charles Darwin Neo-Darwinism abiogenesis Atheism Natural Selection irreducible complexity theistic evolution DNA Darwin science education biology Theism Richard Dawkins fine-tuning genetics Biological Information common descent Scientism Cambrian Explosion Darwinian Evolution Big Bang Featured Academic Freedom William Dembski Kitzmiller v. Dover Junk DNA C.S. Lewis Darwin Devolves teleology Proteins Teach the Controversy scientific racism fine tuning Alfred Russell Wallace Darwin's Doubt Francis Collins information Eric Metaxas multiverse Ethics Jerry Coyne specified complexity evolutionary theory Eugenics Science and Human Origins Aristotle Stephen C. Meyer devolution human exceptionalism entropy Biologic Institute God Phillip Johnson Naturalism engineering Signature in the Cell macroevolution The Edge of Evolution Design Bioethics Molecular Machines artificial intelligence (AI) agnosticism Science and faith history of intelligent design Microevolution Philosophy philosophy of science Science Inference to the Best Explanation Icons of Evolution Thomas Aquinas Richard Sternberg Christianity history of science methodological naturalism purpose Brian Miller design inference Stephen Hawking adaptation cosmology Isaac Newton scientific revolution scientific Materialism information theory Richard Lenski scientific suppression chemical evolution Fred Hoyle bacterial flagellum foresight

Dr Rob reveals several new studies that are challenging the fundamental assumptions that underlie the neo-Darwinian synthesis. Specifically. the 'central dogma of molecular biology' (the thought that information only flows from DNA to RNA to protein) and the Weismann barrier (the thought that only the DNA 'information' in sperm and egg cells is inherited) are both wrong. Recent revelations have shown us that sperm actively absorb and use body-cell-sourced RNA in the epididymis, and one polymerase uses RNA templates in a newly discovered DNA repair system. Neither of these are supposed to be true. Can a vague idea from the 19th century withstand the assault of 21st century knowledge? Hardly. The simplifying assumptions made by Darwin and his contemporaries no longer hold up. Notes and links: Main article: Carter R., The barrier has been breached! Making a fool out of Professor Wise-man, Creation.com, 7 September 2021. Wilhelm D, Palmer S, Koopman P, Sex determination and gonadal development in mammals, Physiol. Rev. 87(1):1–28, 2007; doi: 10.1152/physrev.00009.2006. Crow JF, Age and sex differences on human mutation rates: an old problem with new complexities, J. Radiat. Res. 47(Suppl.):B75–B82, 2006; doi: 10.1269/jrr.47.b75. James ER, et al., The role of the epididymis and the contribution of epididymosomes to mammalian reproduction, Int. J. Mol. Sci. 21:5377, 2020; doi: 10.3390/ijms21155377. Chandramouly G, et al., Polθ reverse transcribes RNA and promotes RNA-templated DNA repair. Science Advances 7(24):eabf1771; doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abf1771. See also the press release from Thomas Jefferson University “New discovery shows human cells can write RNA sequences into DNA”, Phys.org, 11 June 2021. King TE, et al., Africans in Yorkshire? The deepest-rooting clade of the Y phylogeny within an English genealogy, Eur J. Hum. Genet. 15:288–293, 2007; doi: 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201771. Filming locations: Kennesaw National Battlefield Park and Kennesaw Memorial Park.

Dr Rob reveals several new studies that are challenging the fundamental assumptions that underlie the neo-Darwinian synthesis. Specifically. the 'central dogma of molecular biology' (the thought that information only flows from DNA to RNA to protein) and the Weismann barrier (the thought that only the DNA 'information' in sperm and egg cells is inherited) are both wrong. Recent revelations have shown us that sperm actively absorb and use body-cell-sourced RNA in the epididymis, and one polymerase uses RNA templates in a newly discovered DNA repair system. Neither of these are supposed to be true. Can a vague idea from the 19th century withstand the assault of 21st century knowledge? Hardly. The simplifying assumptions made by Darwin and his contemporaries no longer hold up. Notes and links: Main article: Carter R., The barrier has been breached! Making a fool out of Professor Wise-man, Creation.com, 7 September 2021. Wilhelm D, Palmer S, Koopman P, Sex determination and gonadal development in mammals, Physiol. Rev. 87(1):1–28, 2007; doi: 10.1152/physrev.00009.2006. Crow JF, Age and sex differences on human mutation rates: an old problem with new complexities, J. Radiat. Res. 47(Suppl.):B75–B82, 2006; doi: 10.1269/jrr.47.b75. James ER, et al., The role of the epididymis and the contribution of epididymosomes to mammalian reproduction, Int. J. Mol. Sci. 21:5377, 2020; doi: 10.3390/ijms21155377. Chandramouly G, et al., Polθ reverse transcribes RNA and promotes RNA-templated DNA repair. Science Advances 7(24):eabf1771; doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abf1771. See also the press release from Thomas Jefferson University “New discovery shows human cells can write RNA sequences into DNA”, Phys.org, 11 June 2021. King TE, et al., Africans in Yorkshire? The deepest-rooting clade of the Y phylogeny within an English genealogy, Eur J. Hum. Genet. 15:288–293, 2007; doi: 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201771. Filming locations: Kennesaw National Battlefield Park and Kennesaw Memorial Park.

In this episode, we discuss how the work of Michael Levine intersects with the work of Raymond and Denise Noble's as well as Donald Campbell's. Levine recently did a TED talk on how the bioelectrical system between the cells is itself an evolutionary error correction process that determines the phenotype. This is a strong example of both Campbell's 'hierarchy of evolution' and the Noble's "purposiveness" in evolution where one level of the evolutionary hierarchy can cause levels below to teleologically evolve towards a purpose. The Noble's claim this refutes the classical formulation of Neo-Darwinism which they say is gene-centric. This also means we possible breakthroughs in anti-aging and medical treatments that don't require gene therapy or CRISPR. Levine's TED talk Was the Watchmaker Blind? Or Was She One-Eyed? An Introduction to Campbell's Evolutionary Epistemology --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/four-strands/support

From the BEL archieves, * Real Science Radio has a Far Ranging Conversation with Krauss: Co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams present Bob's interview of theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical), atheist Lawrence Krauss. Fred says, "It's David vs. Goliath, but without the slingshot." As the discussion ranges from astronomy and anatomy to cosmology and physics, most folks would presume that Dr. Krauss would take apart Enyart's arguments, especially when the Bible believer got the wrong value for the electron-to-proton mass ratio. But the conversation reveals fascinating dynamics from the creation/evolution debate. (The planned 25-minute interview ran 40 minutes, so there's also a Krauss Part II and once in each half we say, "Stop the tape, stop the tape," to comment.) * "All Evidence Overwhelmingly Supports the Big Bang": Contradicting Dr. Krauss'

From the BEL archieves, * Real Science Radio has a Far Ranging Conversation with Krauss: Co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams present Bob's interview of theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical), atheist Lawrence Krauss. Fred says, "It's David vs. Goliath, but without the slingshot." As the discussion ranges from astronomy and anatomy to cosmology and physics, most folks would presume that Dr. Krauss would take apart Enyart's arguments, especially when the Bible believer got the wrong value for the electron-to-proton mass ratio. But the conversation reveals fascinating dynamics from the creation/evolution debate. (The planned 25-minute interview ran 40 minutes, so there's also a Krauss Part II and once in each half we say, "Stop the tape, stop the tape," to comment.) * "All Evidence Overwhelmingly Supports the Big Bang": Contradicting Dr. Krauss'

43:20 no Rev Walt Marcum full info@hpumc.org (Highland Park United Methodist Church)

In this course, recorded in 1998, Dr. Hewlett argues that there is a need for the consideration of purpose and intelligence in Biology. Through a brief history of the sciences, a summary of the basic concepts of Biology, and a concentration on Genetics and the Human Genome Project, he illustrates for the student the wonderful advances of modern science. But while doing so, he emphasizes that however advanced it becomes, Biology will never be able to answer all questions about life and should always be subjected to an overarching philosophy.

31:20 no Rev Walt Marcum full info@hpumc.org (Highland Park United Methodist Church)Highland

Imaginative, powerful, and stylistically brilliant work not only brought the insights of Neo-Darwinism to a wide audience, but galvanized the biology community, generating much debate and stimulating whole new areas of research. Forty years later, its insights remain as relevant today as on the day it was published. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs. Listen to the "Master of Life Awareness" Podcast here: https://podlink.to/sfwalker "#TheSelfishGene" by #RichardDawkins - #BookReviewBook of the Week - BOTW - Season 2 Book 3 Buy the book on Amazon https://amzn.to/2FNfXWN GET IT. READ :) FIND OUT which HUMAN NEED is driving all of your behavior http://6-human-needs.sfwalker.com/ Human Needs Psychology + Emotional Intelligence + Universal Laws of Nature = MASTER OF LIFE AWARENESS https://www.sfwalker.com/master-life-awareness --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/sfwalker/message

ซีรี่ย์ ตอบโต้ลัทธิปฎิเสธพระเจ้า 1. ทฤษฎีวิวัฒนาการ ไม่ใช่วิทยาศาสตร์ 2. ตอบโต้ : ทฤษฎีลามาร์ค(Lamarck Theory) 3. ตอบโต้ : การเลือกสรรทางธรรมชาติ(Natural selection) 4. นีโอ ดาร์วิน(Neo-Darwinism) และ การผ่าเหล่า(Mutation) 5. Microevolution และ Macroevolution อ.อามีน ลอนา (นักวิชาการอิสลามของสำนักพิมพ์อัซซาบิกูน)

Classic Darwinism places organisms at the center of evolutionary theory, positing that natural selection is the sole mechanism by which evolution occurs. In the 1970s, the ideas within Richard Dawkins' book, The Selfish Gene, initiated the first shift away from this by arguing that the true unit of natural selection is not the organism itself but the genes within the organism. Today, the way we understand evolution continues to change to include many more mechanisms of it. Nathalie Gontier, Director of the Applied Evolutionary Epistemology Lab and faculty member in the Center for Philosophy of Science at the University of Lisbon, Portugal, joins the podcast today to discuss the nature of her work, which revolves around an investigation of evolutionary theory and an examination of different mechanisms and processes of evolution that extend Neo-Darwinism. She expounds on a number of topics, including an increasingly recognized mechanism called reticulate evolution, which is an evolution as it occurs by symbiogenesis and describes evolution as a network rather than a tree of bifurcating branches.  She also discusses what might lead to speciation, how epigenetic inheritance occurs, epistemological pluralism as it relates to evolutionary theory, multi-level selection, and how evolution is a process acting on everything—not just organisms or genes, but writing, cultural artifacts, ideas, and technology.   Tune in for a fascinating conversation that might change the way you think about life itself.  Learn more about her work by visiting https://ciencias.ulisboa.pt/en/noticia/07-02-2013/appeel-applied-evolutionary-epistemology-lab.

Imagine you're a college student, and your professor claims that science has disproved the idea of God, of the soul, of ultimate meaning, and of truth. What do you say to that professor? The best answer is that his claim itself is not scientific. It's a claim of a worldview called materialism, which says that everything that exists is the product of matter, energy, and purposeless processes. New atheist authors like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have spent years hawking materialism as science, and they've deceived a lot of people. In response, a group of scientists, philosophers, and theologians have named the worldview mistake for what it is, and are now offering an exciting alternative: that the world is instead filled with meaning, mind, and design, and countless other things that cannot be reduced to raw physical materials. The Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture has distilled the best arguments against materialism and for the God behind creation into a series of punchy, information-packed videos. They're short—just a few minutes each—and were made to grab students' attention, challenging them with thoughts materialists don't want them thinking. “Science Uprising” uses a fun, Internet “hacktivist” vibe complete with Guy Fawkes mask to show how deeply-entrenched materialism is, and how challenging this dogma could get you into academic trouble. But as the experts interviewed in each episode agree, we must challenge materialism, because it runs contrary to everything we know about ourselves and the world in which we live. The first episode confronts the claim famously made by Carl Sagan—that “the cosmos is all that is, ever was, or ever will be.” We see clips of new atheists denying the existence of meaning and purpose and claiming that humanity is nothing but atoms. In response, experts in intelligent design like Jay Richards and Michael Egnor point to all the things we know are real that aren't made of matter—things like joy, sorrow, right, wrong, truth, beauty, justice, and even our own sense of self. What's more, science itself isn't made of matter. As Oxford Mathematician John Lennox explained at our recent Wilberforce Weekend, the claim that 'whatever science can't study isn't real' is self-refuting. Science, after all, can't study itself. It's based on a set of non-material assumptions—like the reality of the material world, the accuracy of our five senses, the existence of math and logic, and the predictability of the laws of nature. None of these are made of matter; yet without them, science is impossible. Episode two tackles the materialist claim that we're nothing but machines made out of meat. Over and over, new atheists have told us that human consciousness is an illusion created by chemical reactions in our brains. But there are powerful arguments that we are more than our gray matter. My favorite is that if our thoughts are nothing but hydrogen and sodium reacting, then there's no reason to trust the thoughts of materialists in the first place! “Science Uprising” also catches up with Stephen Meyer, who covers the problem DNA poses to materialism—specifically to Neo-Darwinism. All life is based on information, and information not only transcends matter, it always comes from a mind. Episode four covers the improbable fine-tuning of the universe and solar system. While atheists like Lawrence Krauss and Bill Nye claim we're just “a speck orbiting another speck in the middle of specklessness,” a world-renowned physicist and engineer at NASA begs to differ, citing the near-miraculous coincidences that produced a world as hospitable for life as ours is—a world which—as one of them notes, looks as if it expected us. This series is a must watch for students, especially, but really for anyone ready to unmask the worldview currently masquerading as “settled” science. Come to BreakPoint.org for a link to watch “Science Uprising.” You can forward these free videos to friends, family, pastors, and even materialist professors.

In this episode we debunk the most critical clsims of Evolution and take it from its origin to what scientists admit in their own journals. A science that rests on facts that have a speculated conclusion is considered repuative. Though a ack of evidence to prove a fact calissifies it as faith in a hope with no support. We set the record straight.

In this episode we debunk the most critical clsims of Evolution and take it from its origin to what scientists admit in their own journals. A science that rests on facts that have a speculated conclusion is considered repuative. Though a ack of evidence to prove a fact calissifies it as faith in a hope with no support. We set the record straight.

Paranormal Contractors - They Take Ghost and Demon Problems Seriously! 1-866-724-0800 paranormalcontractors@gmail.com Crime & Trauma Scene Cleaners is committed to helping people when tragedy strikes. Our objective is to restore safety to an environment in the most professional and discrete manner possible. Life Change and Formula 13 Teas.  All Organic, No Caffeine, Non GMO!  More Energy!  Order now, use the code 'unlimited' and your first purchase ships for free. Ancient Life Oil Organic, Non GMO CBD Oil.  Big Relief in a Little Bottle! The Ferrari of CBD products. Richard speaks with one of the world's leading crop circle photographers and researchers who discusses the powerful frequencies inside these mysterious and complex formations found in farmers' fields.   Richard speaks with a college professor and author who takes on Darwin's theory of evolution. He reveals how some scientists are gathering the courage to question its scientific merit.    Guest:  Jeffrey K. Lyons, Ph.D. is a graduate of University of Hawai'i at Manoa and Regent University, where he earned a Ph.D. in communication. He has taught at Hawaii Pacific University, Argosy University, Honolulu and Honolulu Community College. He has published articles in the Global Media Journal, Journal of Radio & Audio Media and the Hawaiian Journal of History.  He is the author of Evolution Myths: A Critical View of Neo-Darwinism.

Paleontologist Gunter Bechly discloses his findings regarding human origins, giving convincing scientific reasons to remain skeptical of Neo-Darwinism in favor of Intelligent Design.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Franklin M. Harold, noted author of The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order of Life, discusses his research in complex biochemistry and thoughts on the origin of life. Harold's long career has impacted many areas of science. Harold received his PhD in Comparative Biochemistry from U.C. Berkeley in 1955, and has spent a lifetime as a physiologist, specializing as a cell physiologist. It is the machinery of life, not its molecular constituents, that continues to fascinate him. As a young man, Harold was heavily influenced by the work of esteemed microbiologist, Roger Stanier, by whom he was taught that bacteria are not only the smallest creatures but also the simplest, and to truly understand life, one should study bacteria, not lab rats. Harold talks about his long career in science and biology, starting with a passion for chemistry, which he developed at the age of fifteen. Over the years, he became more interested in cellular and evolutionary biology, and embarked on a prolific career in the scientific community. Harold discusses the tenets of Neo-Darwinism, and its need for tweaking, updating. He states that the early study was primarily focused on mutations in genes, but according to Harold, that doesn't tell the full story. He expounds on the properties of eukaryotic cells and their origin. Eukaryotic cells contain a nucleus and organelles, and they are encompassed by a plasma membrane. Some of the many organisms that possess eukaryotic cells are as follows: protozoa, fungi, plants, and animals. The biochemistry expert states that organisms throw off new species because their environment changes. He states that in order to see the evolution of organisms we would have to change their environment in a novel way, and give it time, lots of time. Harold remarks that the major changes that resulted in new animal species have to do with the genes that affect the web of regulation, the regulatory elements that control how much, and to what extent, a particular gene is expressed. Harold goes on to say that he believes in the theory that life must have begun with very simple chemical systems, not necessarily involving a gene, but a system sufficiently complex and interactive to be able to reproduce itself. And while he states there is zero evidence for it, nor good models, it is however a speculation that Harold finds particularly interesting. Harold served on the research staff of the National Jewish Hospital and Research Center in Denver, and was a longtime member of the faculty at the University of Colorado School of Medicine. Harold retired from Colorado State University in 2000 as Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

Neo-Darwinism is dead. But is intelligent design the answer? While most proponents of ID are neutral as to the source of the intelligence behind biological design, the vast majority seem to hold a traditional view of God as the creator of biological information. A few others, like Perry Marshall, locate the intelligence of design in the cells themselves. But are there other possibilities? Today on the Truth Perspective we wade into the debate and propose a third option that incorporates the...

Neo-Darwinism is dead. But is intelligent design the answer? While most proponents of ID are neutral as to the source of the intelligence behind biological design, the vast majority seem to hold a traditional view of God as the creator of biological information. A few others, like Perry Marshall, locate the intelligence of design in the cells themselves. But are there other possibilities? Today on the Truth Perspective we wade into the debate and propose a third option that incorporates the...

Neo-Darwinism is dead. But is intelligent design the answer? While most proponents of ID are neutral as to the source of the intelligence behind biological design, the vast majority seem to hold a traditional view of God as the creator of biological information. A few others, like Perry Marshall, locate the intelligence of design in the cells themselves. But are there other possibilities? Today on the Truth Perspective we wade into the debate and propose a third option that incorporates the...

Among the things we like to do here, is speak to people who look at phenomena from slightly different lenses. Today, that phenomenon is evolution and my guest is Perry Marshall. Perry is an entrepreneur, an engineer, an expert on online market, and someone who has very thoroughly looked at the science of evolution. He has written a book entitled Evolution 2.0 - Breaking the Deadlock Between Darwin and Design. Evolution 2.0 aims to look at evolution in a way that is different to what advocates of Intelligent Design and Neo-Darwinism believe. Perry's insights are fascinating and thought provoking. Regardless of whether you are and Atheist-Agnostic like me, a hardcore Atheist, religious, or simply spiritual, I think you will find the discussion extremely interesting. Perry and I cover: His background and how he got into studying evolution in the first place (Perry is the son of a pastor and grew up as a devout Christian); How he got himself "unstuck" in his research (and the links between evolution and internet algorithms); Randomness and gene adaptation; Intelligent design versus neo-Darwinism; Symbiotic life; Bacteria; CRISPR and gene editing; Loads more! Show notes: Perry's site Cosmic Fingerprints; Evolution 2.0; www.PerryMarshall.com; The microbiome; Ted Talk - "How Bacteria Talk"; CRISPR; Barbara McClintock's "Jumping Gene"; Radiolab "From Tree to Shining Tree"  _______ Like what you heard? Subscribe and/or leave a rating and review on: iTunes: http://apple.co/1PjLmKh Stitcher: http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/all-things-risk/the-all-things-risk-podcast www.allthingsrisk.co.uk Find the latest episode here!    

A meeting of top biologists from around the world at the Royal Society last November was convened to study new trends in evolutionary theory. It has led to speculation that the Neo-Darwinian paradigm is in crisis and is becoming widely rejected in the scientific community. Intelligent design theorist Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute and Perry Marshall, author of 'Evolution 2.0'. were both present for the conference. They explain what happened, why it matters and their differing views on what it may mean for the future of evolutionary theory and Intelligent Design. For Unbelievable? the Conference 2017: http://www.premier.org.uk/whychrist  For Perry Marshall's blog on the Royal Society conference: https://www.premierchristianity.com/Blog/Landmark-conference-puts-Neo-Darwinism-and-its-atheist-evangelists-on-thin-ice  For a transcription of today's show: http://cosmicfingerprints.com/stephen-meyer-debate  For the Discovery Institute's report on the Royal Society conference: http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/david-klinghoffer/scientists-confirm-darwinism-broken  For more faith debates visit http://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable Join the conversation: Facebook and Twitter Get the MP3 Podcast of Unbelievable? Via RSS or Via Itunes

John and Myself(Chris) have another stellar call with Jay Dyer, http://jaysanalysis.com, Scientism, Moon Laser, Darwinism, Consensus Reality, Appeals to Authority, The Mystical Council of Science, The Atomic Bomb Hoax,The Organization Man,David Lynch,Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts,Half of All Scientific Studies are False,(http://www.madinamerica.com/2015/05/lancet-editor-proclaims-half-of-all-scientific-studies-are-false/),Brave New World, metaphysics, Huxley, The Organization Man, scientism, suppressed technology, David Lynch, dreamstates, occult Psy Ops, the divine council of sciencegods, false flag shootings, Neo-Darwinism, historical scams, ancient myths and warfare, Hollywood, AIDS, Piltdown Man and Teilhard, controlled science and â??peer review consensus,â?? Idiocracy, logical fallacies, female psychology and sexual attraction, narcissism, the dark triad, feminism and pick-up artists, Silence of the Lambs, gas lighting, female cunning, Scarface, establishment trust, worldviews and paradigms, debate and rhetoric, Her and virtual babes, Welcome to Me, lotto scams, casinos and technological tracking, cult of personality, Farmville and Candy Crush nonsense, meta synthetic surveillance, state funded talismans.Welcome to Me,Powdered Wig Power, The CONstitution,Narcissistic Abuse, Narcissistic Culture.

A new MP3 sermon from Still Waters Revival Books is now available on SermonAudio with the following details: Title: Terrorism,The Criminal Mind, Neo-Darwinism, Environmentalism, Marxism, Stalin, Hitler, God's Law, etc. (Creation/Evolution?) 1/5 Subtitle: Christian Worldview Speaker: Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith Broadcaster: Still Waters Revival Books Event: Teaching Date: 9/4/2007 Bible: Matthew 15:15-20; Proverbs 4:23 Length: 82 min.