In this episode of Real Science Radio, Fred and Doug take you on an enlightening journey, highlighting the fallacies in standard scientific teachings. Explore why concepts like junk DNA and Lucy as a human ancestor have been subject to misinterpretation and how emerging scientific evidence is challenging these ideas. Delve into controversial topics like man-made climate change and the Big Bang, providing listeners with a fresh perspective that encourages critical thinking and scientific exploration.
All right, so are you ready for the number one things that people believe about science that isn’t true? Yes, I want to know, Fred, what fooled you for 30 years? This fooled me for 30 years.
SPEAKER 05 :
design and DNA Scholars can’t explain it all away Get ready to be awed by the handiwork of God Tune in to Real Science Radio Turn up the Real Science Radio Keepin’ it real
SPEAKER 02 :
Doug, how many things regarding science have you believed growing up that has since been disproven?
SPEAKER 04 :
Regarding science, Fred, I was raised by Bible-thumping, Christian, creationist, fundamentalist parents. As far as science goes, I didn’t go in for a whole lot of it, but I did go to the government schools, and my teachers believed an awful lot of things that I’m pretty sure have since been disproven by science.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay, so let’s go through our own top 10 things people believe that science has disproven. And Doug, the number one item that we’ll get to at the end of the show is one that fooled me for 30 years.
SPEAKER 04 :
Oh, okay. All right, you got me on the edge of my seat now, Fred. I want to know what could have fooled the great Fred Williams. That keen engineering mind of yours for 30 years, that’s interesting. And Fred, the list includes a number of things that even our Christian creationist friends still cling to, even though they’ve been disproven by science. And let’s start, Fred, at the top with number… Ten.
SPEAKER 02 :
Vestigial organs. Ah! So this was the most popular one growing up, and it was the appendix. Remember that? Oh, yeah. Appendix is useless. Well, this is from PubMed in 2016, and the title of this article is The Immunology of the Vermiform Appendix, a Review of the Literature. And I quote, An essential part of the immunological function is the interaction with the intestinal bacteria, a trait shown to be preserved during its evolution. Of course, they have to get the word evolution in there. Yes. And it goes on to say, the existence of the appendiceal biofilm in particular has proven proved to have a beneficial effect for the entire gut. And then they go on to say that the idea of the appendix being a vestigial organ should therefore be discarded. You’ll still hear this on the internet. Even science teachers are still promoting that myth.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, yeah. And by the way, Fred, they didn’t really need to add the line about during its evolution. That was completely extraneous. It had nothing to do with the fact of what had been observed scientifically. But if you want to get published. you gotta bend the knee in the right place and so anyway hey i got the second favorite vestigial organ and i can remember my ninth grade biology teacher wait a minute eighth grade eighth grade biology teacher i had to go through the i had to go through the different rooms in my mind and mr tischhauser had the second favorite it was the tonsils the tonsils right but here we have from the journal of the american medical association from july of 2018 association of long-term risk of respiratory allergic and infectious diseases with removal of adenoids and tonsils in childhood and from the article fred some key points questions Are there long-term health risks after having adenoids or tonsils removed in childhood? The findings in this population-based cohort study of over a million children, removal of adenoids or tonsils in childhood was associated with significantly increased relative risk later in life of respiratory, allergic, and infectious diseases. Increases in long-term absolute risks were considerably larger. than changes in risk for the disorders these surgeries aim to treat. The meaning, Fred, the long-term risk of these types of surgeries, just removing the tonsils, pulling the adenoids every time the kid complains, that deserves careful consideration according to the researchers.
SPEAKER 02 :
You know, Doug, they should actually reword that if they were brave enough and say the meaning, the meaning part. The meaning is evolution led to bad science and led to worse health by removing tonsils that should have never been removed. And thank goodness I was just after the period of time where they started kind of figuring out that they were useful. So again, that’s a false claim of evolution, this whole idea of useless organs. So Doug, next is number nine, and one that many creationists even use. And in fact, this could go on a future list of arguments that creationists shouldn’t use. So number nine, GPS won’t work without Einsteinian relativity. Oh, I’ve heard that one. Yeah, I’ve heard that a lot, even from creationists. So, you know, Doug, as a team lead at Trimble’s telematics division, I can say that this is totally and unequivocally false. Yet, again, this myth permeates not just creation circles, but the internet, lots of evolutionists. I hear it a lot. So, and even our friends at CMI, Ryan and I talked about an article that they had that mentioned this, what really is this not true. So now we do agree that clocks tick a little faster at higher elevations, but that’s not time dilation. That’s just simply, that’s clock dilation. The clocks are running slower. So, All the engineers did was launch satellites with a fudge factor that makes the clocks on satellites tick a very small amount faster. And that’s it. There’s no Einstein math at all. I mean, there’s this one little equation that some receivers have, but it really has no effect. I’ve challenged people who make this claim about GPS, hey, comment out that code and tell me if you really lose accuracy on your GPS data. So anyways, the GPS scientist, Dr. Tom Van Vlandern, he said this, the system manages to work even though they use no relativistic corrections after launch. He goes on to say, they have basically blown off Einstein. This is one of the leading GPS scientists and another big name GPS engineer, Ron Hatch. He has numerous patents and published papers. He wrote pretty extensively that GPS satellite data actually contradicts Einstein’s relativity theories. But Doug, we’re going to save that for another show.
SPEAKER 04 :
Oh, yeah. Oh, hey, that reminds me, Fred. We’ve been thinking about, we’ve been talking about putting this whole matter of Einsteinian relativity and special relativity to the Real Science Radio test. We’ve been thinking about that. We’ve been talking about that for… A relatively long time, Fred. We should get to that.
SPEAKER 02 :
I know. We will this year. We promise. I think we said that last year, too. It’s a challenging show, but we promise to get to it. Oh, and one last thing, Doug, on this whole GPS thing. You know, ground stations, they actually sync the clocks every day, so any relativistic effects that may be going beyond the clock fudge factor that they put in, they wouldn’t matter because they are in the nanosecond range and well under the highly accurate GPS devices that are specced to meet. so doug number eight junk dna oh yeah well that was an easy one fred right yeah that’s an easy one but hey doug before we get to junk dna yeah how about the interesting fact of the week we can’t forget to do that i’m ready fred this time i’ve been studying every interesting fact ever known to man i’ve tried to review it before air time so i’m ready okay have you been studying grasshoppers
SPEAKER 04 :
Grasshoppers are the one thing that slipped under my radar.
SPEAKER 02 :
So here’s the interesting fact. Where are grasshoppers’ ears located?
SPEAKER 04 :
Where are grasshoppers? Well, so their head is kind of shaped like a triangle. So if I were putting ears on them, I would put them like right there at the top of the upside down triangle. That’s my best guess.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, you were closer when you said it slipped under the radar. Your study of grasshoppers slipped under the radar. Oh, and by the way, on your last answer.
SPEAKER 04 :
Mel, is it that they don’t have ears? That they have radar instead?
SPEAKER 02 :
What? No, it slipped under the radar. It’s on their bellies underneath their wings. Yeah.
SPEAKER 04 :
On their bellies underneath their wings? Well, that doesn’t seem very efficient, but you know what, Fred? I think that we’re going to have to feature the grasshopper on a future show because if I’m an evolutionist, I’m thinking, well, that grasshopper, that evolved a very inefficient method for intake of auditory signals. And so I would be interested to find out how it is and why it is having auditory input on the belly under the wings of the grasshopper turns out to be the most efficient and most effective way.
SPEAKER 02 :
We’ll do a grasshopper show right after the relativity show. That’s it. All right. All right. Okay, so back to number eight, junk DNA. So I just want to read some headlines. This is from the Yale School of Medicine. Junk no more. From March 2024, junk DNA no more. This is from John Hopkins. June 2024, this is from the Department of Biomedical Informatics at Colorado University. No Longer Useless, The Important Roles of Junk DNA. And then finally, just this December 2024, headline reads, Tens of Thousands of Hidden Dark Genes Discovered in Humans. And this is also reported in Science Magazine, and this title was Dark Proteome, Survey Reveals Thousands of New Human Genes. And Doug, they’re finding these Genes, they call it dark genes. They call it that because they’re finding it in the area of the genome they thought was junk DNA.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, yeah, yeah. These aren’t new genes. These are genes that were always there, but that had been called junk by the likes of Eugenie Scott and even some online evolutionists remain in some state of denial, including our good friend, Professor David James Farina.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah. And Professor Dave, by the way, on Junk DNA, wrong again. Wrong. Okay, so Doug, number seven, Lucy is a human ancestor. That’s something you were taught that’s not true.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, yeah. Now that’s one of the things, by the way, when I was in eighth or ninth grade, that was one of the things that they tried to pawn off on me. That was one of the tests that my mom and dad told me I was able to fail without getting in trouble with them. If I got an F on the biology test for evolution, that was okay. Okay.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, good for your parents. So, you know, Real Science Radio has long documented the evidence that refutes Lucy as an ape ancestor. Just go to rsr.org slash Lucy if you want a lot of details. But I want to mention the three things, the three uncovered indisputable frauds. that Dr. Carl Werner uncovered. And these aren’t like mistakes, they’re outright fraud. So here’s the three frauds. The discoverer, Donald Johanson, claimed that all analysis showed that the knee joint was human, but this was contradicted by his own dig partner who said it was ape. The second fraud, Johansson hid the fact that a human skull, Laetoli Fossil 18, was also found at Laetoli where they found Lucy. So I thought Lucy was supposed to evolve into a human, yet they find a human skull. How many people listening to this show, Doug, do you think have ever heard this? Unless you’ve watched our show with Dr. Carl Werner. Yeah, that’s the only way. Yeah, and then number three, Joe Hanson hid alterations to Lucy’s pelvis to make it more ape-like. He actually hid the alterations. So that was, you know, Lucy’s been refuted.
SPEAKER 04 :
That’s right, and we’ll link to Carl Werner’s expose that he did right here on Real Science Radio. All right. Can I introduce number six, Fred, because it’s one of my all-time favorites, and it’s one of the biggest ones. Plate tectonics.
SPEAKER 02 :
Proven. Plate tectonics, yes. That’s right. That’s what a lot of people think. Plate tectonics is science that’s proven. Now, this is another controversial one, Doug, with our Christian friends, right? Oh, unfortunately, yes. Yeah. And we submit, they were, like all of us, we were duped by our geology professors in college. and you know they are they fall for the hypothesis that has been disproven by physics and observational data i’d like to mention in christian smoot he worked for the ocean survey program of the u.s naval oceanographic office from 1966 to 1998 and he helped map the ocean floors doug this was you know back in the cold war days and all that stuff was classified and he he was a plate tectonics guy christian schmute And he actually gradually came to realize that none of the predictions of plate tectonics were valid and no subduction zones existed. None?
SPEAKER 04 :
Absolutely none? 30 years this guy crawls around the bottom of the ocean and he doesn’t see any? Nothing.
SPEAKER 02 :
And these zones, Doug, should span 40,000 miles in length, yet he couldn’t identify a single mile. So he wrote a book called Tectonic Globuloni. And he was pretty harsh in his book. I’ll include one of the quotes, and that’s that plate tectonics is fraught with misinformation and misconceptions, and the purveyors of plate tectonics are the present-day snake oil salesmen. Ooh, that’s pretty harsh. Pretty brutal.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah.
SPEAKER 02 :
So we at Real Science Radio, we recommend Ellis Hughes’ book, 20 Reasons to Question Plate Tectonics, and you can purchase that at rsr.org. And that helps us out, by the way. We don’t have any big church backing us. We only rely on your donations to stay on the radio and to help us produce these videos that show up on YouTube. So, Doug, I wanted to mention my favorite from that book because it’s so easy to see visually. And it’s the total lack of fractures that should exist at the arcs and cusps where subduction is supposed to be occurring adjacent to the continental crust in the Pacific. And so if you’re listening to the radio, try to make it over to our YouTube channel. We’re showing pictures of this, of where these wrinkles should be. And we know for mechanical engineers, this should… cause tears absolutely there’s nothing that should could prevent it yet we don’t see any tears at all they’re completely missing and this alone to me refutes this subduction idea that you know plates are subducting underneath the continental crust yeah and one of the reasons that uh dr hughes book
SPEAKER 04 :
is so great is because the pictures are simple enough for a child to understand, but the physics are PhD-level physics. It’s real, it’s just not possible, and it’s really easy to understand, and you should pick up Dr. Ellis Hughes’ book for sure.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yes. So number five, man-made climate change. Oh, oh.
SPEAKER 04 :
No, say it ain’t so, Fred. We’ve invested a trillion dollars, I think, into protecting ourselves and correcting climate change. You can’t say it’s not true.
SPEAKER 02 :
How dare you? Yeah, at least that much money. We learned from Paul Holman, the greenhouse effect is mostly from water vapor. What about the CO2? It’s interesting, with the LA fires that have been going on, a UCLA study estimated that California’s 2020 fires You know, from four years ago, five years ago, they released twice as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as had been prevented by that trillion dollars they spent, Doug, of the previous 18 years of primarily government-enforced restrictions. Wow. They released twice as much. And here’s what John Keeley said. He’s with the U.S. Geological Survey. He’s a scientist with them. He said this, quote, I don’t think these fires are the result of climate change. And he’s referring to the current ones here that are going on January 2025. You certainly could get these events without climate change. They have nothing to do with climate change, Doug. And so, you know, of course, the politicians are blaming the fires on climate change.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, yeah, that’s because they don’t want to take responsibility for the rampant homelessness that, by the way, Fred, the L.A. Fire Department In years when there’s not these dramatic Santa Ana winds, they investigate thousands upon thousands of fires that are started by homeless, derelict bums. It’s just that they’re not ignited into… you know, firestorms all the time, but they happen to be now. Anyway, I just read an article from a guy who lives in, well, lived in Pacific Palisades. We’ll link to it. It’s pretty obvious what’s happening. It’s not climate change.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, liberal policies both symbolically and now literally burn down cities. And just to mention, we mentioned this at our show to open the year, Doug, even if there is a problem with fossil fuel carbon, It won’t have that much of an impact. And I will say, you know, Real Science Radio, we do realize there has to be some stewardship of the environment. If you can control smog efficiently, because, you know, I’ve been to Shanghai, China, and I thought it was just overcast every day. And I found out they live in permanent smog. So Doug, this fossil fuel carbon, again, it just won’t have much impact, right?
SPEAKER 04 :
Right, right. Eight Taiwanese scientists led by Professor Pengsheng Wei found that the sensitivity of the climate to a rise in CO2 atmospheric levels from 100 to 400 parts per million, he called it negligibly small, possibly 0.3 degrees centigrade.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, and then in 2024, a group of Polish scientists, they found the same thing, and I quote, the carbon dioxide concentration can no longer cause an increase in temperature. And in 2023, three scientists, including atmospheric professor Yi Huang of McGill University, stated that Transmission in the carbon dioxide band center is unchanged by increased carbon dioxide as the absorption is already saturated. So they’re already at saturation level, so it doesn’t matter as far as the greenhouse gas effect goes. You’re not going to hear this in the news, from the media, in your classes at school and college. It’s much more political than real science.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yes, and I’m going to guess that the recent development of the utter stench of marijuana between 6th Avenue and Colfax on I-25 has more of an impact on the environment. And somebody needs to be looking into that. I mean, what’s going on with that?
SPEAKER 02 :
Good point, Doug.
SPEAKER 04 :
Man, that stinks.
SPEAKER 02 :
Okay, so number four, the Darwin’s Tree of Life. What?
SPEAKER 04 :
Darwin’s Tree of Life? That was Mr. Tischhauser’s. I mean, he had that on a poster. I mean, that was like Catholics have a religious icon hanging on the wall. Well, my eighth grade biology teacher, he had Darwin’s Tree of Life on the wall. Just say it ain’t so, Fred.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, you know, from New Scientist, they had an article, Why Darwin Was Wrong About the Tree of Life. And another article, Charles Darwin’s Tree of Life is Wrong and Misleading, Claims Scientist. And here’s a quote, We have no evidence at all that the Tree of Life is a reality. This is from Eric Baptiste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. There’s no evidence of the Tree of Life, yet they taught that icon, that evolution icon, for decades. And we had Sal Cordova on. Remember, he said that when you look at the genetic level, you go down to proteins. Proteins do not have any common ancestor that they can identify, none. And it even made Aaron Raw, the internet atheist, exclaim, he admitted proteins. proteins do not have a bleeping common ancestor that’s right so the tree of life that’s another thing it’s it’s now mulch you can you know maybe somewhere they’ve got some free mulch for that thing yes yes yes and and so that’s the one thing that we credit aaron raw with being correct about in his entire career
SPEAKER 04 :
Hey, a broken clock is right once in a lifetime. Anyway. Yep, yep. All right, now, let’s go. Number three, Fred, and this is a big one. In fact, it’s so big. Number three, they call it the Big Bang. And I would call it the Big Bang and standard cosmology.
SPEAKER 02 :
That’s right. Number three, standard cosmology and the Big Bang. Here’s the headline from earth.com a few months ago. Big Bang theory can’t be true based on new Webb telescope study. So the discoveries, Doug, of the James Webb telescope, they were exactly what we expected. And they have all been into the Big Bang model and standard cosmology that goes with it. And as the article shows, most evolutionists won’t go quietly into the night, but some are admitting a new idea is needed. In this case, these guys promote tired light theory that photons emitted from distant galaxies are fading out or losing energy as they travel through space. Now, this loss of energy would cause the redshift observed in light from distant galaxies. That’s why we’d observe redshift. So we believe this warrants further consideration of plasma cosmology theory. You know, we’ve been pushing plasma. We believe we lean towards plasma cosmology as the proper explanation of what we see in space. We have shows on that we’ll link to. We’ll do more on that this year. But also note that many secular scientists have lamented at flimsy so-called evidence for standard cosmology. And back in 2004, they published the website cosmologystatement.org where a whole bunch of these secular scientists signed this document. And it reads, in part, The Big Bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed. Inflation, dark matter, and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the Big Bang theory.
SPEAKER 04 :
Ah, three strikes and you’re out, Fred. Inflation, dark matter, and dark energy, out of there.
SPEAKER 02 :
And why are we relying on things you cannot observe? For as invisible attributes are clearly seen by the things that are made. There we go. Yeah, so we know dark matter is a fudge factor because there isn’t enough matter to account for galaxy star rotation, and then they needed dark energy because the universe appears to be accelerating according to their model. Well, how could that be? So they added dark energy. If you want more, go to rsr.org slash big slash bang. The list is long. And, you know, another powerful one is the universe’s worth of missing antimatter. But, Doug, the list is enormous. The Big Bang has been refuted, and even secular scientists are starting to admit it.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yes, and they don’t get a fourth strike, so antimatter doesn’t even get to come to bat. It’s already just out of there.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yep. Okay, so number two, evolution. Now that’s a big one, Fred. And we’re talking the macro, you know, molecules demand evolution. How have those been refuted? Well, go back and look at items on this list, number 10, number 8. number seven, number four, and number three. Hello, yeah. And you know what? There are some intellectually honest, or trying to be intellectually honest, secular scientists, I’m sure some of them are even atheists, and they’re admitting there’s something seriously wrong with neo-Darwinism. In fact, from 2009, here’s the title of this paper, The Origin at 150 is a New Evolutionary Synthesis in Sight. Hmm. In sight? In sight?
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah. I think they’re saying, is it possible we can find something else to grab onto?
SPEAKER 02 :
So I quote from this article, the summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the origin is somewhat shocking. In the post-genomic area, all major tenets of the modern synthesis, which is neo-Darwinism, are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right. Yeah. So the translation of that, Fred, genomics and ENCODE proved we were wrong about natural selection fueled by random mutations. So we need to come up with another story quick. Is there anything in sight?
SPEAKER 02 :
Right? Yeah, and this is from July 2024. Oxford biologist Dennis Noble admitted, quote, the fact is that I think neo-Darwinism is dead. And then also check out this website from James Shapiro. He’s the head of the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at University of Chicago. He’s a well-known evolutionist. He’s created a website called The Third Way of Evolution. And if you read the opening paragraph of that website, He says this, the vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is creationism that depends upon intervention by a divine creator. That is clearly unscientific because it brings an arbitrary supernatural force into the evolution process. Wow, it brings it into the evolution process. Give me a break. Okay, so he says a commonly accepted alternative is neo-Darwinism, which is clearly naturalistic science, but ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation. Are you listening, Professor Dave? Oh, no. Neodarwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA, and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neodarwinists have elevated natural selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis. Many scientists today see the need for a deeper and more complete exploration of all aspects of evolutionary process. Wow.
SPEAKER 04 :
I couldn’t have said that better myself except for the creator part, but that’s a remarkable bit of honesty from an ignorant evolutionist. Wow.
SPEAKER 01 :
Stop the tape. Stop the tape. Hey, this is Dominic Enyart. We are out of time for today. If you want to hear the rest of this program, go to rsr.org. That’s Real Science Radio, rsr.org.
SPEAKER 05 :
Intelligent design and DNA Scholars can’t explain it all away Get ready to be awed By the handiwork of God Tune into Real Science Radio Turn up the Real Science Radio Keepin’ it real That’s what I’m talkin’ about
