Join Bob and Fred as they take you on an enlightening journey through the cosmos, examining shocking planetary and genetic revelations that challenge mainstream science. From Mercury’s mysterious surface activities to the astonishing genetic diversity that contradicts Darwin’s tree of life, this episode is packed with revelations that underscore a young Earth narrative. With expert insights and engaging dialogue, the show highlights the ongoing debate between traditional evolutionary theory and creationist perspectives, offering listeners a fresh take on science’s biggest surprises.
Greetings to the brightest audience in the country and welcome to Bobineer Live. Today we’re getting into Real Science Radio’s list of shocked evolutionists. Shocked evolutionists. So why would evolutionists be shocked? Well, when you deny Genesis chapter one, you end up making a lot of very big scientific mistakes. And that’s just to be expected. If you think that the universe is billions and billions of years old and the stars and the planets are millions to billions of years old and the moons, you’re going to make a lot of mistakes that will end up shocking you. For example, with the first missions to put a spacecraft on Mars… One of the things that they worried about was that there would be so much dust on the moon, right? Dust accumulates slowly over time. They were worried that it’s been so undisturbed for so long that there’d be so much dust on the moon and that when you first landed, the spacecraft would sink into the dust. So they put these giant, big padded feet on the bottoms of the spacecraft when they first landed on the moon. However, because the earth is young and the moon and the stars and the sun are young, as the Bible teaches, there was no huge problem with feet and feet of dust. There was maybe an inch or two, which you might expect after about 6,000 years or so. But the point is, these secular scientists were shocked when the Christians who believed in a young Earth and a young universe were not shocked. We knew exactly what we would find, and of course, we did. And so, with that said, we’re going to get into RSR’s list of shocked evolutionists.
SPEAKER 03 :
Greetings to the brightest audience in the country.
SPEAKER 1 :
Welcome to Real Science Radio. I’m Bob Enyart.
SPEAKER 02 :
And I’m Fred Williams, creation speaker and software engineer.
SPEAKER 03 :
And this is our first installment of a brand new list show, Fred. Our list of shocked evolutionists.
SPEAKER 02 :
It’s going to be an electrifying show.
SPEAKER 03 :
It really will be because, you know, almost like a candid camera for biologists and astrophysicists, Real Science Radio has been noticing PhDs in all kinds of fields. Evolutionists, whether chemical, stellar, or biological scientists. who look at the latest research, and then they’re shocked.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, they’re quoted as being shocked. They’re horrified, surprised, jaw-droppingly shocked. I like that one because somebody once posted in my forum on my website that creationists are jaw-droppingly stupid because he said that there’s a universal truth that there are no absolutes. That’s what we’re jaw-droppingly stupid about. Is that hysterical? Yeah.
SPEAKER 03 :
Doesn’t he realize he’s contradicting himself within one sentence?
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah.
SPEAKER 03 :
I don’t know how they do that.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, it’s amazing.
SPEAKER 03 :
But they are good at it.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yep.
SPEAKER 03 :
So Fred, baffled. They’re banging their heads against the wall even. Yeah, that’s a quote. Yep. None of this is because they’ve discovered something new. When you discover something new, do you bang your head against a wall?
SPEAKER 02 :
No. No. You know, I might be amazed. You think about what creationists, how we react. We’re thrilled. Oh, yeah. We’re amazed. We brag. Yeah. We’re touting the latest discoveries. Or we’re delighted. Like Richard Dawkins said that, you know, with the Cambrian explosion, that creationists would be delighted. Yeah. Of course we are.
SPEAKER 03 :
And he recently debated the chief rabbi over in England. Yeah. And he said in there, oh, with the ENCODE project and all this function in 80% of the human genome, these creationists are really making a big deal out of this. Good point, Fred. I’ve never thought about that. We are, time and again, we’re ecstatic with each new discovery. And the evolutionists are always freaked out. So it’s not that they’ve just discovered something new. That’s no big deal. That’s, well, it’s cool. Yeah. But they express all this dismay when they discover amazing things that contradict their most fundamental evolutionary expectations.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah. In other cases, they’re embarrassed. Now, would we say that we’re embarrassed that we discovered dinosaur fossils with DNA? No. No protein, soft tissue. That doesn’t embarrass us. We’re not embarrassed at all. We’re delighted. How about carbon-14 and diamonds?
SPEAKER 03 :
We love it because it only lasts thousands of years. And they say the diamond is a billion years old. So it’s not surprise at a new discovery. That reaction would not make the cut. It wouldn’t make it onto Real Science Radio’s list of shocked evolutionists. This list is for bona fide exclamations of amazement that their evolutionary predictions could be so totally wrong.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, that it goes against their paradigm. Yeah.
SPEAKER 03 :
Darwin is banging their heads against the wall. I’d love to start with that one because that cracks me up.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, that’s a good one. This research team at the University of Michigan, they performed these experiments on 60 species of freshwater green algae. And, well, they failed to support Darwin’s theory. They said it was completely unexpected. And they sat there banging their heads against the wall. And they said, Darwin’s hypothesis has been with us for so long. How can it not be right? Right.
SPEAKER 03 :
Fred, this comes from the National Science Foundation. I mean, this is the pinnacle of Darwinist propaganda. And so they’re saying about these headbangers, life science reports, researchers were more than shaken. They were shaken. We should add that too.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah. I didn’t even circle that one.
SPEAKER 03 :
Just imagine when we see that Mercury’s magnetic field is decreasing at a wildly rapid rate. Are we shaken? We’re ecstatic. Yeah. Time and again, we’re so happy. Well, they’re banging their heads against the wall more than shaking in excitement. Yeah, right. Yeah. That their experiments fail to support Darwin’s theory. Fred, there’s a brand new group. called The Third Way, that when we do our list of scholars doubting Darwin, we’ve just added that. So the next time we do that list, these are prestigious scientists from the world’s leading institutions, and they’re saying, you know what? We’re not creationists, but there’s no way neo-Darwinism is true. Natural selection cannot explain Darwinism. the diversity of life in the world. These guys are not going that far, but they’re banging their heads against the wall because, hey, survival of the fittest, if you’ve got the fittest, it should survive. They’ve got 60 species of algae and they’re saying, look, we cannot make Darwin’s theory work. We just can’t even make it work. Reminds me of the peacocks. Remember in Japan, they cut off all the plumage. They made it, the males, they made it just fine. Thank you. And they’re like, boy, Darwin said they wouldn’t mate.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, because that’s their mating signal and all that.
SPEAKER 03 :
And remember we talked about the heavy metal in outer space. It’s all missing. Heavy metal. And then who’s the soft tissue dinosaur scientist from North Carolina State who has done all the discoveries? Mary Schweitzer. Mary Schweitzer. Remember we called her the Iron Maiden? Yeah. Because she thought iron did it. So we got heavy metal, Iron Maiden, and now these headbangers. Fred, I think it turns out that rock and roll must be of the devil after all. This is just. Oh, man. Sorry. Yeah. But it’s all so funny.
SPEAKER 02 :
It is. It’s great. Now, this next one is one of our favorites. It’s this whole business with sequencing the chimp Y chromosome. Oh, yeah. So, you know, we’re supposed to be so similar to chimps. Oh, 99% similar.
SPEAKER 1 :
99, 97.99.
SPEAKER 02 :
98.5. Yeah, it’s always somewhere way up there.
SPEAKER 1 :
98.96.
SPEAKER 02 :
The Smithsonian in Washington, D.C. two years ago still had that in their museum about how 98% similar. Yeah. Well, they did the sequencing of the Y chromosome, and they discovered that it was different than they expected. But they added an extra word. It’s a real scientific word. The scientific word, horrendously different. Horrendously different. Horrendous. I looked in the science dictionary. I don’t find that word unless it’s maybe it’ll be in the evolution section.
SPEAKER 03 :
And so this comes from the journal Nature, which is the world’s leading journal. And they’re quoting Dr. David Page. He is a molecular biologist from Cambridge, Massachusetts. And so, yeah, he says that the chimp Y chromosome and the human Y chromosome, they’re horrendously different. And so, you know, why not just say, well, Mercury and Saturn are different?
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah.
SPEAKER 03 :
Why say they’re horrendously different?
SPEAKER 02 :
They’re not horrendously different. Now, from my worldview, my point of view, I might say they’re laughably different.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, right.
SPEAKER 02 :
Maybe.
SPEAKER 03 :
Because the evolutionists say they’re 99% the same.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah.
SPEAKER 03 :
And so it turns out that they’re so wildly different that you can’t even align them. Huge portions of them are simply unalignable. Yeah.
SPEAKER 1 :
30%.
SPEAKER 02 :
That’s a huge chunk.
SPEAKER 03 :
Is unalignable.
SPEAKER 02 :
It’s at least 30%.
SPEAKER 03 :
In both directions. Yep. And it turns out that a huge chunk of the gorilla genome is closer to us. That’s right. Than the chimp’s Y chromosome. And that’s supposed to be a more distant cousin.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, what I remember, too, about this is the Y chromosome, it’s really hard to change it. It’s hard to mutate that guy. He’s very robust. In such a short time. Yeah, you would think that would be one. It would be real similar to chimps if it’s so hard to change. Right, right. Okay, so now could we go to…
SPEAKER 03 :
The jaw dropping. The jaw dropping.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah. Because we had the headbangers and we had the horrendous. And now it’s National Geographic and we’re out in space. NASA’s messenger team, their messenger spacecraft going out and looking at Mercury and its magnetic field that’s dropping so rapidly. But they were jaw dropping shocked when they looked at Mercury carefully. And they found that the surface features of Mercury are actively forming.
SPEAKER 02 :
Actively, yeah. He said it’s something that nobody predicted this. Well, yeah. You know, at least from your worldview of evolution. Right. Because what?
SPEAKER 03 :
They think it’s how old, Mercury? Four billion years old. Yeah. You know? So you got this little rock. And it’s 4 billion years old. And it’s still… It’s this inert rock. It should be dead. Yeah. And here it is. These are transient features like of the moon and like of Saturn’s rings and like throughout the solar system. And they say, well, isn’t that amazing? They’re 4 billion years old, and yet we’re seeing this very rare occurrence right now. Just like with Earth’s magnetic field decaying 10% in the last 150 years. They say, isn’t it amazing? We’re seeing it right now.
SPEAKER 02 :
Right now. And yet we’re this old, so old.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, right. Just like with Mercury, it’s decayed even more rapidly. Isn’t it amazing? We’re seeing it right now. So all this is evidence that the solar system is young, only thousands of years old. And that’s why these activities, we’re seeing them because it’s not surprising because obviously they happen. Yeah.
SPEAKER 02 :
Our jaws aren’t dropping.
SPEAKER 03 :
No, they’re not.
SPEAKER 02 :
I see your jaw in a normal position. Yeah.
SPEAKER 03 :
Fred, pick up your jaw just a little bit. So we got the headbangers, the Darwinist headbangers, the horrendous, the jaw-dropping shocked. And then I like this one, alarmed. I don’t think we use that word in our introduction.
SPEAKER 02 :
Alarmed hasn’t come up yet.
SPEAKER 03 :
No, alarmed.
SPEAKER 02 :
And what’s alarming him are what?
SPEAKER 03 :
Worms. Worms. I mean, how do you get alarmed when you look at a little worm? Yeah. And it turns out that according to Live Science, and this is a report from the journal Nature, Fred, these reports we give, time and again, they go back to peer-reviewed scientific journals. And this is the mainstream science media reporting on them. And so the reason they’re alarmed at this little worm is because they believe that this worm was the common ancestor of man and insects. So you got to go way back, right?
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah.
SPEAKER 03 :
In the evolutionary story. Well, it turns out that the missing link between man and insects has gone missing because they found out that these worms were are more closely related to humans than they are to mollusks or insects. Okay.
SPEAKER 02 :
So this is… So that doesn’t make sense as an ancestor to humans and insects. And insects. Because it’s in between us as opposed to in front of both of us.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, and mollusks are supposed to be way back there.
SPEAKER 02 :
So anyway… And didn’t we come from the ocean?
SPEAKER 03 :
Remember Granny on the Beverly Hillbillies?
SPEAKER 02 :
I do. I don’t remember her evolutionary worldview, though.
SPEAKER 03 :
Oh, well, you know, they moved to Beverly. Yeah. And she got a little tour, and there’s the Pacific Ocean. And the tour guide said, and Granny, that’s where we came from, the sea.
SPEAKER 02 :
Oh, man.
SPEAKER 03 :
She said, the only sea I came from is Tennessee. So I don’t know if that’s apocryphal or if that’s canonical Beverly Hills material.
SPEAKER 01 :
Okay.
SPEAKER 03 :
But either way. So, yeah, we’re supposed to have come from the sea. And Fred, this continues like that roundworm. See elegans? They say that 40% of its genes match humans.
SPEAKER 1 :
40%.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah.
SPEAKER 02 :
And they match a bunch of other things too. The sponge was 70%.
SPEAKER 03 :
The sponge thing was hysterical. Because everything is supposed to come from a sponge, right? They were alarmed when they realized that the link between humans and insects has gone missing.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah. Well, this next guy is both surprised and embarrassed about bulges, spiral galaxies and bulges. What’s up with that?
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, it turns out that when they look at the large spiral galaxies, they say that there’s a hierarchy to them. And that to get a large spiral galaxy, you need smaller spiral galaxies to merge. To merge. Well, all their computer simulation shows that if two galaxies merge, which doesn’t really make sense because they’re so far apart. Yeah.
SPEAKER 02 :
But forget that. But let’s say they’re merging.
SPEAKER 03 :
There’s so many collisions because each one has a billion stars. So, of course, there’d be collisions. And the Big Bang model has for decades said that’s why the spiral galaxies, which are pretty big, have not all of them, but so many. have bulges in the middle. A big bulge. Because of all the collisions. Well, the scientist, the astrophysicist who did this work from Princeton University, this is a cosmologist, Jim Peebles, he said, you know, this is really an embarrassment. Yeah. He says they look rather too perfect. They look too perfect. Cosmologist John Cormady says that it’s something of a shock. Ha ha. So, yeah, it’s a shock. They’re embarrassed. They’re too perfect. And again, this isn’t just a discovery. Discoveries are fun. But embarrassments are when your big discoveries contradict what you expected to be the case because of your paradigm, your worldview. And these are their fundamental predictions. Yes. Not like, oh, yesterday I thought this, and today I realized I was wrong. No. This is decades of thought of how it must be, and it turns out it isn’t. Something similar reported in the journal Science is 300 galaxies in what they say was the early universe look mature. They look old.
SPEAKER 02 :
They’re old, yet it’s supposed to be in the nursery of the universe.
SPEAKER 03 :
Right. So they baffle observers. The theorists shrug. They’re startled.
SPEAKER 02 :
So that’s another one, shrug. Yeah. What was the one, the other one? It was shaken.
SPEAKER 03 :
They’re shaken and shrugging. Shaken and shrug. It sort of sounds like when you’re supposed to tithe.
SPEAKER 02 :
No, sorry.
SPEAKER 03 :
That’s a TV evangelist inside joke.
SPEAKER 02 :
That’s funny.
SPEAKER 03 :
So shaken and shrugged. So, Fred, at Denver Bible Church, I’m the pastor there. We don’t teach tithing. We teach that you don’t have to tithe. That was part of the law, and we’re no longer under the law.
SPEAKER 02 :
We’re not under the law. That’s right.
SPEAKER 03 :
That’s a Theology Thursday topic.
SPEAKER 02 :
That’s a great show, too, by the way.
SPEAKER 03 :
It’s fun, isn’t it?
SPEAKER 02 :
I like listening to that.
SPEAKER 03 :
Oh, we have some great shows coming up on the Incarnation. Stunning.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, here’s another one where this guy’s embarrassed. Hey, wait a minute. This is the same guy that’s embarrassed before, so here he is embarrassed again. This is Peebles, Dr. Peebles. From Princeton University. He’s embarrassed again about the dominant forms of matter in the universe. Hypothetical.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yes. So it’s like 97% of the whole universe, not only do they say they can’t see it, but they say, we don’t know what it is.
SPEAKER 02 :
So they have to do this whole dark energy thing they came up with. Yeah.
SPEAKER 03 :
And that’s like at cosmologystatement.com. Notice I said .com.
SPEAKER 02 :
.com, you did. I did. I was about ready to correct you, but it sounds like you know what you’re saying.
SPEAKER 03 :
Cosmologystatement.org, which lists hundreds of astronomers who say the Big Bang is bogus, That website is down. Oh, it is? It’s down. But thanks to Real Science Radio, it’s back up. Oh. If people go to cosmologystatement.com, it goes right to our website, and they click, and they get an archived version of cosmologystatement.org.
SPEAKER 02 :
Statement.org. Okay.
SPEAKER 03 :
So isn’t that wild that the website is down? That is.
SPEAKER 02 :
So, hey, I really love this next one. We’ve talked about this before. The axis of evil. Oh, yeah. So here’s another thing they’ve observed in the universe. And they call it evil. Now, why would they call something evil?
SPEAKER 03 :
This is the world’s leading astronomers and astrophysicists. This is the greatest satellites we’ve ever put out in space. Telescopes. The WMAP and the Planck space telescopes. And Fred, they’re looking at the whole universe and they’re saying the universe has a preferred axis. A preferred axis. Yep. Like you could put a plane through it. And something really weird is that the preferred axis of the universe seems to pass through the solar system of the Earth. The Earth’s solar system. Not only that, it’s even more astounding. Yeah, doesn’t it tie in with the equinoxes? The spring and fall equinoxes on the Earth’s orbit, and you define a plane that divides the universe. It’s just astounding. You and I did a whole show on this.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, we did. And I know there’s quotes we could add to this that we don’t have in here now about these scientists that are, again, they call it the axis of evil, and they’re just…
SPEAKER 03 :
That’s like saying it’s horrendous, right? Exactly. It’s horrendous. It’s evil because it makes the Earth look special. It does.
SPEAKER 02 :
And so, in fact, just March. Plus it refutes the Big Bang. Why would one side have a different set of variations in temperature than the other side? One globe is different than another globe.
SPEAKER 03 :
And even if you look at quasars, they’re not divided evenly statistically the way you’d expect. Yeah. Something is afoot in the universe. There’s a preferred direction. Fred, in March of 2014, another paper, the astronomers are perplexed by the asymmetry in the universe. Perplexed. I just love it. We’re amazed. I think it’s cool. And if God made the universe such that it’s pointing to the earth being special and Hey, that’s fine with us. That doesn’t perplex us. We’re not dumbfounded.
SPEAKER 02 :
We’re not. In fact, I brought this whole topic up in a talk at Cornerstone Christian Academy, and some of the people said afterwards, that’s really cool. They didn’t say, oh, that’s shocking.
SPEAKER 03 :
Let’s all go bang our heads against the wall. So it’s fun. And with the apparent concentric spheres of galaxies… so that the universe does have a center and the Milky Way is approximately in the center of the universe, that’s really cool too. And so that is totally unexpected to the Darwinist worldview. So what should we do next? These are so fun, Fred.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay, I like this next one about the solar system formation theory, which, you know, these guys are admitting, hey, this thing looks like it’s wrong. So here’s this guy, Mike Brown. He’s with the California Institute of Technology, and he manages this huge database of NASA’s exoplanets.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, so he’s NASA’s guy there. He is, absolutely. The database of exoplanets, that’s all the planets they found outside of our solar system.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, and he said before we discovered any of these planets, we thought we understood the formation of planetary systems pretty deeply. You know, real deep. We really understand it. We got it. It was a really beautiful theory. Hey, Wikipedia had the whole thing. Oh, yeah. And if you doubted it, you were an idiot. And you didn’t know how to read. You didn’t. Right. And he now says that they were clearly, thoroughly wrong.
SPEAKER 03 :
That is fun because when they said, here’s how solar systems form, they were just telling a story that matched our solar system. That’s sort of easy to do. You make it up after the fact. But then you find another planet orbiting another star. And they said, you know, that didn’t fit our model. Now they have hundreds of planets and they don’t fit their story. So they don’t know how the moon formed. They don’t know how planets form. They don’t know how stars form. They don’t know how solar systems form. They don’t know what comes first, galaxies or stars. They don’t know how life forms from non-life. They don’t know how DNA started to get encoded. They don’t know anything, Fred.
SPEAKER 02 :
They don’t. Now, this next one reminds me of the platypus. So they discovered a platypus in space, right? Because aren’t asteroids and comets kind of looking the same? Oh, that’s a good one.
SPEAKER 03 :
The platypus… Looks like it’s put together from so many different animals.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah. Scientists at the time said it was a fraud. They didn’t believe it. Because how could it look like a beaver? It looks like six different animals all put together. Yeah. Different warm-blooded animals put together with cold-blooded. It was, yeah.
SPEAKER 03 :
An echolocation. It’s just utterly dumbfounded. And so what did it evolve from? A bat? Yeah. And a beaver.
SPEAKER 02 :
So since you said dumbfounded, they actually say that these objects that they find that are combining asteroids and comets, they’re literally dumbfounded.
SPEAKER 03 :
Oh, and this is based on observations with the Hubble telescope. And they’re finding out that things that are supposed to be asteroids are behaving like comets. Yeah. And that’s not supposed to be because they allegedly originated in very different ways. And so you’re not supposed to have asteroids with tails like a comet. They’ll just alter their Oort cloud theory, right? Just throw some asteroids in there. They’re going to have to alter it in a really major way. In fact, more recently than this story, which is only a couple of years ago, just a few months ago, they watched an asteroid disintegrate before their very eyes and they said, That’s not supposed to happen. And they think they figured out maybe why it happened, because the sun’s radiation could cause the asteroid to become unstable, possibly, and break apart, which is fine. That’s cool. But they already had so many physics problems forming an asteroid. It’s like it won’t form because dust in space doesn’t collect into planets or asteroids. If two dust particles come together, they bounce off of one another or they accelerate as they come together and they pass each other and go off in their own trajectories. By the laws of physics, you can’t form stars. You just can’t. So now it’s even harder for them to… to explain how asteroids could form when they see that the sun will break them apart. So they’re literally dumbfounded.
SPEAKER 02 :
Literally dumbfounded.
SPEAKER 03 :
Because now, what, asteroids and comets, they’re the platypuses of space.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yep. Well, you know what people would be dumbfounded about? You know, somebody saw our pictures on our website of us dressed like cavemen.
SPEAKER 03 :
Oh, yeah.
SPEAKER 02 :
And I had just gotten back from the Bahamas, and one of the guys on my forum said that, hey, did you wear your caveman outfit on the beach? Caveman. And I said, well, my wife wasn’t. I was going to put it in the suitcase, but she wouldn’t let me. So, you know, this gets to the next one, which is Denisovans. Maybe we were Denisovans.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, Fred, the New York Times, we might have been, right? Dressed up in our caveman garb. The New York Times said that scientists are baffled because they got DNA now from, I think it was a thigh bone. And they said that they believed that this thigh bone was 400,000 years old. Okay. Now, first of all, they should be baffled that they got DNA from it.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, DNA that can’t – DNA is a fragile molecule. It can’t last – Right. It probably can’t last 4,000 years.
SPEAKER 03 :
It has a half-life of 521 years. A half-life. Half-life, yep. So how many half-lives are in 400,000 years? Yeah. It should be totally unsequenceable. Absolutely. Well, anyway, first of all, they sequence it. And they think 400,000 years ago, it would be a forerunner of Neanderthal. However, when they sequenced it as much as they did, they said, you know, it looks like these Denisovians. Looks like Bob and Fred. It looks like Bob and Fred and Denisovians. lived allegedly 300 and some thousand years after whoever owned that thigh bone.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah.
SPEAKER 03 :
So that doesn’t fit. The New York Times says that the evolutionists are baffled.
SPEAKER 02 :
Baffled again. Yep. And like you said, they should be baffled both by this thigh bone not matching their sequence, but also finding, you know, again, DNA that’s 400,000 years old.
SPEAKER 03 :
Wow. Right. And I love this next one. This is from PLOS, Public Library of Science Biology. about the tree of life, how evolutionists are surprised. Now, that’s not a very strong word, but if they were more honest, they would say they were baffled because they looked at 1,400 groups of organisms. 1,400 groups. And they said some are ancient in their Darwinist worldview. Some are like hundreds of millions of years old. The old groups. And some are more recent. Well, they said what surprised them is the pattern that it didn’t matter if the groups were very old or relatively young. They had the same amount of diversity of species.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, the same amount. Now, if you’re a lot older, common sense tells me you should have a lot more species because you’ve got a lot more time to diversify and do that whole natural selection and mutation.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, you have 100 million years of extra evolving. And so why would the new groups have as much diversity as the groups early on in evolution? And Fred, that reminds me exactly of the astronomers. They have the same problem with stars and galaxies because they say, you know, galaxies after billions of years disappear. They cluster. They said, but the problem is the clustering of the nearby galaxies is the same as the clustering of the most distant ones at the beginning of the universe. It’s the same problem. Same problem. From biology.
SPEAKER 01 :
Stop the tape. Stop the tape. Hey, if you want the rest of this broadcast, we are out of time here on KLTT Radio. Head over to rsr.org slash shocked. RSR, that’s for Real Science Radio. rsr.org slash shocked for RSR’s list of shocked evolutionists.
