In this captivating episode, we question the longstanding theories about dinosaur extinction as we look into a new AI study that suggests volcanism rather than an asteroid as the primary cause. We also dive into the complex language of DNA, uncovering new codes that further point to intelligent design. From the blinking behaviors of mudskippers to groundbreaking findings in predator-prey interactions, we explore scientific phenomena that align with scriptural principles. Tune in for discussions that fuse cutting-edge research with timeless truths.
Intelligent 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 01 :
Ryan, welcome back to the Real Science Radio studio.
SPEAKER 02 :
Great to be back.
SPEAKER 01 :
And you’re here because we’re going to go through another creation magazine. And this particular issue, we normally start with the focus section, but there’s an article on the giraffe, which obviously is interesting to me because I started a website years ago, I think late 90s, evolutionfairytale.com. And one of the features of that website was the giraffe graphics going through the intelligent design of the giraffe.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, this will be really cool. I remember you coming and doing talks at like our school and our church and the giraffe would be like one of your like marquee points. So it’d be kind of cool to go through and see what even more we’ve learned over the last like probably 15 years since you last created those talks.
SPEAKER 01 :
This show is proudly sponsored by the Wilsons from Wisconsin. A huge thank you to them for helping support our show. And if you’d like to sponsor a show, please reach out to us. We’d love to hear from you. Or you can go to rsr.org slash sponsor for more details. Yeah. And you know, the thing about the giraffe is one of the points I made in that talk way back when, it’s still valid, but it’s not as prevalent of a feature. And that’s one of the things I learned here in this latest article. There’s a lot more research that has been done on the giraffe. And so Ryan, what’s the title of this article?
SPEAKER 02 :
It’s called the cardiovascular complexity of the giraffe.
SPEAKER 01 :
Okay, so of course everybody knows this is the tallest living animal on the planet. A giraffe can grow up to six meters, which is 20 feet tall. You know, at the time, this is an assumption I made, that giraffes have a uniquely large heart to be able to generate this high pressure in order to get blood flowing up to the head, you know, because it’s so tall. That’s a lot of blood that you have to get up there and you’re fighting against, you know, gravity, and so your fluid mechanics has to be sufficient. Well, so there’s this assumption that it had to have this huge, huge heart. Well, that turns out not to be true. It’s not oversized at all. As a proportion of the animal size, the dimensions of its heart are comparable to other mammals. The reason it can produce the high pressure required is that the main pumping chamber, the left ventricle, has a narrow internal diameter and rather thick muscular wall. Furthermore, according to a 2009 study, drafts are not born with the high pressure which will be needed to deliver blood to the head as adults. This higher pressure develops progressively as their necks elongate, you know, as they’re growing older. And so as young drafts grow, the increasing pressure in the arteries, it exposes the drafts to potentially damaging effects of hypertension. Do you know what hypertension is?
SPEAKER 02 :
Isn’t that like where they basically have too much blood flowing, basically? It’s high blood pressure. Yeah, okay.
SPEAKER 01 :
You don’t know because you’re young. I know because I’m a codger status, and so you’ll learn about those things. And so, yeah, that’s high blood pressure. So there are mechanisms to prevent the consequences of this, and it has to develop in tandem. With this increasing blood pressure, so as a giraffe is growing, you know, these mechanisms have to be in place to address that, which is just an incredible design.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, it’s cool how they have to, like, one count can’t out-develop the other one. Like, they have to develop at the same rate, or else if one out-develops the other one, that’s not going to work, which is pretty cool how that’s set up.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, so this next point that the article raises is exactly the one that I would introduce to the audience. It’s when a giraffe lowers its head to drink, why doesn’t the sudden surge in an already high pressure blow the arteries in its brain? And so we have a graphic that we’re showing the audience. This is probably a 30-year-old graphic almost that we did on this original website. So if you’re listening on the radio, you’ve got to go to the YouTube channel. Be sure to subscribe, like the video, and then you’ll get to see this graphic. But it makes a good point.
SPEAKER 02 :
How does that work where you have all this complex blood pumping structure that’s designed to beat the gravity and get the blood to the brain. All of a sudden the giraffe puts its head down and doesn’t even get lightheaded like we sometimes do if we put our head down. Yeah.
SPEAKER 01 :
its head doesn’t explode because of just rapid blood flow down with gravity now all of a sudden if you were designing this from scratch and you’re not thinking of everything and you’re doing okay the fluid mechanics to get the blood up to the head is this and then when he lowers his head it’s this and then you have to test it and you’re gonna probably the first like 10 times you do it the head’s gonna explode before the engineering you’re gonna lose all your giraffe figure it out yeah Yeah, so it’s obviously a design. And so conversely, when a giraffe raises its head after bending down to drink, the blood pressure to its brain should drop rapidly. So why doesn’t it cause a more severe version of the dizziness many humans experience when they stand up quickly? That is, why don’t giraffes faint, you know, when it then puts its head back up? So I used to raise that point, and then we have the graphics that would show this effect, so… Again, part of it was the assumption that the heart was really huge and it’s just not proportional to the size of the animal. So the article says, part of the explanation concerns the way giraffes are capable of buffering these changes in blood pressure. So these changes are far less abrupt than otherwise. For example, scientists discovered that when the head of a giraffe is lowered, blood is allowed to accumulate in the large veins of the neck. This temporarily decreases the quantity of blood returning to the heart by storing over a liter, which is two pints of blood. With less blood available, the heart generates less pressure with each pulse while the head is down. As the head is raised again, the blood abruptly returns to the heart, which responds with a vigorous high-pressure stroke that helps pump blood to the brain.
SPEAKER 02 :
Pretty cool.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, exactly. And so when it lowers its head, the pressure in the network itself only drops a half of a percent. You would think there’d be a mechanism that you really got to drop the blood pressure rapidly when this is detected, but it only drops a half a percent. So how does this work? So why doesn’t that slowing down a flow to the brain make the giraffe even more likely to faint when the head is raised up again? One reason is that before the blood pressure picks up again, the pooled blood stored within the network is available to supply the brain, aided it appears by contraction of some of the small vessels in this network. I mean, what an elaborate design. And here’s this last bullet point. Lesser mechanisms come into play, such as valves, which I used to mention years ago when I did this. There’s valves in the neck that shut when it’s opening and when it’s raising its neck and lowering its neck. Well, that’s a lesser mechanism. They’re there, but they don’t play as big a role as we once thought. And also, there’s one last thing. There appears to be a little known detail that when giraffes raise their head after drinking, they do not lift straight up. They do it in an upper circular motion, upward circular motion. So I don’t know. Let’s see here. When I raise my head to get a drink, that didn’t really help. Okay. But it does help giraffes. So, okay. So anyways, that’s the giraffe. Before we get to the next article though, Ryan, I wanted to do the interesting fact of the week. You’ve been kind of doing fairly well with these lately.
SPEAKER 02 :
I think I’ve got a pretty good track record here.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, you’ve had a pretty good one.
SPEAKER 02 :
Let’s see if you can give me something actually hard.
SPEAKER 01 :
Okay. So here is the interesting fact of the week. What is the airspeed velocity of a European swallow?
SPEAKER 03 :
What do you mean? An African or European swallow?
SPEAKER 1 :
Huh?
SPEAKER 02 :
That’s pretty good. That’s a pretty good one. Well, what is it? I wish I remembered what he said in the movie. At least I could say that exact thing. Yeah, I don’t know. Am I going to get, like, launched? Yeah. Well, I didn’t even get to guess yet.
SPEAKER 01 :
Oh, okay. I’ll let you guess.
SPEAKER 02 :
Seven.
SPEAKER 01 :
Okay. So let me ask you another question. Now, I already asked this to Doug, and I checked before the show that you have not watched that show yet because it just aired recently. So I’ll ask you the same question I asked him. What is the fastest flying insect? We also asked Dr. Tom Dykstra, and he said it was a different insect, but he’s probably right.
SPEAKER 02 :
The fastest flying insect? Yeah. So it’s an insect? Yeah, it’s got to be an insect. Is it the, hmm, good question.
SPEAKER 01 :
You have a chance to, if you mention two of the ones mentioned in our last show with Dr. Tom Dykstra, you get it. You get either one. If you say either one, I’ll give it to you.
SPEAKER 02 :
Is it a bee?
SPEAKER 01 :
It’s the one that could go forwards and backwards, not like a hummingbird, it’s an insect. Forward, backwards, it’s like a helicopter.
SPEAKER 02 :
Is it a dragonfly?
SPEAKER 01 :
Ah! Well, there you go. Okay, we’ll give you that one. Well, you know, you missed a couple, though. You didn’t get the European Swallow Airspeed Velocity.
SPEAKER 02 :
But, you know, we’ll… What was the other one, out of curiosity?
SPEAKER 01 :
The Botfly? Yeah. Huh. Okay, Ryan, so what do you want to do for the next article in the latest Creation Magazine?
SPEAKER 02 :
Let’s do the ant amputations ones. That was pretty cool.
SPEAKER 01 :
Ant amputations? You’re not talking about, is something wrong with your ant gene?
SPEAKER 02 :
Not that ant. Okay.
SPEAKER 01 :
So astonishing ant amputations. So what’s this all about?
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, so it’s basically ants are able to perform amputations on each other based on like performing amputations that can be helpful. Like the article opens with Carpenter ants in Florida can identify wounds on the legs of their nest mates before treating them to prevent the spread of infection. They do this either by cleaning only or amputation after cleaning. So they identify wounds that they somehow know are going to get infected and they clean it. And if that’s not good enough, then they amputate the leg pretty effectively. Like at the end of the article, it says that survival rate for these things that have these injuries goes up pretty drastically from 40 to 90% in the femur. And then in the tibia, it goes from 15 to 75% survival rate when they do this. So it’s not like there’s taking shots in the dark, you know, kind of chuch hopping wherever they feel like. They’re actually pretty good at knowing what they need to do and how to get these things fixed. It’s pretty cool.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, that’s remarkable. The article says it’s the only example known in the animal kingdom other than humans that do this. And Ryan, how would evolution and blind chance and mutations over millions of years, how is it going to create this mechanism where ants learn to do this? And the key word is learn. How do they learn to do this? I mean, it’s information that’s already there.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, not only do they have to learn it by evolution, they would have to randomly mutate that trait, and then that trait to survive. Which, I mean, the ant that in theory randomly mutates that trait, it has to save its brethren But if it dies, then that trait would, in theory, go, too. So you’ve got to kind of have multiple ones that are good at it at first, which is pretty interesting and cool. And it’s hard to see how, one, that trait can even just be a result of a mutation, and then you know that they got lucky for that trait didn’t die off. It’s not going to happen.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah. That’s amazing. So, Ryan, before we go to the next article, I wanted to give a shout out to our producers for Real Science Radio. They’re doing a fantastic job. And I wanted to mention to the audience, we’ve started RSR Project 2025. So if you want to help out with this project, you can donate now directly to Real Science Radio. And what you donate will go directly to producing the show and our promotion efforts. So this page is at realscienceradio.betterworld.org. So please go there, check us out, and if you can help us with a little bit, you know, we don’t have a big church backing us, I don’t think, do we, Ryan?
SPEAKER 02 :
Not last night yet.
SPEAKER 01 :
And you know, it costs us also to be on the radio. We have to pay for that. So please give us a look at that website. If you can help us out, that’d be great. You can also click on the donate button on the YouTube channel. And of course, if you haven’t subscribed yet, please be sure to subscribe, like the video. And as Doug and I says, if you want to dislike the video, that’s fine. Please leave comments, let us know what you think of the things we’re talking about here. Okay, Ryan, so the next article I actually want to talk about was, did an asteroid kill the dinos? And AI study says no. It’s kind of cool.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, now AI is getting on board with creation, which makes sense because it was created. I don’t think that would have evolved out of nowhere, but… That’s a tangent. It’s not about AI. It’s about the dinosaurs.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, exactly. So there’s been two main ideas, as this article mentions, about what happened to the dinosaurs supposedly 66 million years ago. And there’s this asteroid that supposedly hit Mexico. And it’s widely promoted as the cause of the dinosaur extinction.
SPEAKER 02 :
There’s been other ones. That’s what most of your laymen are definitely going to think. Like, even if… Even the second theory that it goes into, most people won’t, your average Joe isn’t going to even know about that. They’re just going to be like, oh, Asteroid came and it had dinosaur killing potion that couldn’t really kill anything else and killed the dinosaurs. I know it’s not the way the actual theory goes, but that’s how I like to make fun of it.
SPEAKER 01 :
well and there’s a lot of other theories because this one’s always been really weak people don’t know that it’s been a weak theory they’ve come up with other ones like climate change and aids killed the dinosaurs i mean all kinds of weird things that i saw you know this one guy came on fox news and you know was promoting the whole climate change one or at the time global warming this is a while back but Anyways, Ryan, so what’s this study saying? It’s from Dartmouth College researchers, and they claim they’ve settled the debate using AI. So what did their analysis say that contradicts this whole asteroid thing?
SPEAKER 02 :
Yes, they collected a ton of data and then had AI work on it, basically. And the conclusion was that it was volcanism hands down, as the article says. So based on what the article says, at least, it sounds like it’s not really even close. After AI analyzed all this data, it thought a hands down volcanism, which is starting to get closer to the most likely truth, because after the flood, you got a whole lot of volcanism. You have the Ring of Fire. Oh, you’re not talking about Spock. No, not vulcan. Vulcan. Vulcanism. Yeah. Okay.
SPEAKER 01 :
So where did a lot of the vulcanism come from? You just mentioned it. So the global flood. Global flood. We know that there would have been a lot of vulcanism. In fact, we’re at adherence to the hydroplate theory. And there’s a lot of evidence for, you know, the Ring of Fire, the Pacific Basin sinking. And so we, you know, there’s still Pacific crust. We discovered an entirely new continent, New Zealandia. And so when the crust dropped in the Pacific, there was all kinds of tectonic activity. And it’s along this Ring of Fire, you get a lot of these volcanoes. In fact, the Hawaiian Islands, that’s, you know, that’s the volcano. There’s volcanoes associated with that that’s left over of this catastrophic event during the global flood.
SPEAKER 02 :
Even though the Hawaiian Islands would be like kind of in the middle of the Ring of Fire.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, exactly. Yeah, but there’s like 40,000, I think, seamounts and maybe even that many volcanoes. I’d have to go look.
SPEAKER 02 :
And you can look up like images and they’re kind of cool to look at because just like basically all around the Pacific, you just got this kind of cool looking ring. That’s why they call it the Ring of Fire. It’s pretty interesting. Yeah.
SPEAKER 01 :
So, you know, they’re getting closer. At least maybe they’ll start abandoning this whole asteroid, you know, fable that they really try to push on the people what killed the dinosaurs.
SPEAKER 02 :
Hope my fingers crossed.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, we’ll see. We’ll see.
SPEAKER 02 :
I figure next we could do the mudskipper one. It’s the first article in the focus section. Okay. And the mudskipper… If you subscribe to Creation Magazine, which I would recommend because it’s really great, they have a picture of this thing, and it’s very unbecoming. It’s not a nice-looking creature. But it’s interesting because there was a YouTube channel recently that claims that the blinking… of that thing of its eyes on land is evidence for evolution because of how that was something that in theory emerged from the water and then, you know, eventually, you know, as a, I guess, common ancestor of, you know, what then evolved in the mammals, however that works. But they say that it’s blinking. It’s an evolutionary feature to keep its eyes wet. So when it blinks, it’s able to keep its eyes moist. So it’s because of, you know, people, when we don’t blink very often, our eyes get really dry. So it’s saying the same thing for this guy. And it’s trying to argue that it’s a evolutionary, like an evolution, new adaptation that gave it that ability. It’s really just was already in the biology of these mudskippers. There was a quote from the article that says mudskippers have not evolved any new eye muscles for blinking. not in the skin around the eye, the proto eyelid or anywhere around the eye itself. Instead, their eyes just stick out further. And because of this, the normal eye muscles that all the gobies possess are slightly stretched and rearranged, which allows blinking. So it puts blinking in air quotes too. So it’s not really, it’s not a new structure or anything. It’s just the way this creature always was that gave it the ability to quote unquote blink while on land, which makes sense because that’d be how it was created and how it started and how it always will be.
SPEAKER 01 :
So they say here that the claim is that our alleged fish ancestor evolved the ability to blink in a similar way to the mudskipper. Of course, they always do that. They kind of try to have a convergent evolution via a simple rearranging and stretching of muscles. Simple. A simple rearranging.
SPEAKER 02 :
And even the original article concedes that it didn’t need any novel information. The researchers say it didn’t need anything new, and they already have what was there. But they still kind of try to say it’s evidence of the fish-to-land creature’s evolution.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, so you know what they say, basically, it’s ironically, it’s irreverent as evidence for explaining the quite different blinking mechanisms of true land creatures. So it’s not evidence for evolution at all. They pretty much admit that in a backhanded, you know, backwards way.
SPEAKER 02 :
Because if you’re watching on YouTube, or if you need to have the Creation Magazine, you’ll see that our eyes are nothing like that thing, thankfully. Yeah, exactly.
SPEAKER 01 :
Okay, so Ryan, while skimming through here, I see another one that I really liked. Animal fear research confirms Genesis. Now, what’s that about animal fear?
SPEAKER 02 :
This one’s pretty cool. It’s talking about animals literally being afraid of things. I kind of like how one of the first things the article quotes is Genesis 9, verses 2, where God says to Noah’s family after the flood, he says, “…the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps in the ground and all the fish of the sea.” In this article, this research is confirming this. They’re scientifically saying that animals do have an inherent fear of humans.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, this professor, Zanet, she’s an expert on predator-prey interactions. She did 44,238 independent trials, and it conclusively showed that wildlife fear human beings even more than lions, which is amazing. So animals were twice as likely to run away And, quote, abandoned waterholes in 40% faster time than they would any other predatory creature. So you see a lion, you know, most of the time they’re going to run. But, boy, they see humans, they’re terrified. So it says fully 95% of species, including giraffes, leopards, hyenas, zebras, kudu, warthog, impala, elephants. Is that a Chevy, impala? Yeah. rhinosauruses, they ran more often or abandoned water holes faster in response to humans than in response to lions. And again, this is over 4,000 independent trials. This is pretty overwhelming evidence.
SPEAKER 02 :
And 95% species.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, this pretty much confirms Genesis 9 too. You know, the Bible isn’t a science book, but whenever it touches on science, it’s always correct. The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens.
SPEAKER 02 :
And I’d be curious to know what the 5% of species were that weren’t afraid of humans, because you wonder if they were like, you don’t know exactly how the research was done, but if they were like more domesticated creatures that, you know, maybe have a history of domestication interaction with humans, so it’d make more sense that they’re not running as scared as like, you know, giraffes really are pretty undomesticated. Yeah.
SPEAKER 01 :
It’s part of the fall probably too. You think of like lions and those type of predatory animals. Obviously, they’re not as afraid of humans and then they’ll prey on humans. Not all the time. I don’t know what the statistics are, but they’re obviously terrifying animals. And so that could be, they’re just part of the fall. Maybe they’re part of that 5%. This article doesn’t say, but yeah. I remember this zoo down at Branson West. That was one of the coolest zoos I’ve ever seen because these animals were really… It was unlike any zoo where most of the time you go to a zoo and they’re tired. It’s so boring. Most of them are like docile. This one was not. And there were these leopards. I know they were tigers, actually. And I growled at one, and that thing got me. It wanted to kill me and eat me. It wanted to probably catch me and play around with me like a cat does with a mouse. That actually scared me, even though there was a fence between us, because that thing was mad angry. Yeah, yeah. Legitimately mad. And I actually kind of scurried through that section after I ticked that thing off. That was something else.
SPEAKER 02 :
If that fence wasn’t there, you would have been tiger food.
SPEAKER 01 :
I would have been tiger food. And, you know, they ended up closing that place down because some animals escaped from that place. I know, I know. Did you ever get to go to that one?
SPEAKER 02 :
I did. I was there that time. Oh, you were there when that happened. Yeah, so you remember. I was also there when that snake got out of its thing and you’re walking down this corridor and you see this guy at the end with this snake on the stick. You’re like, geez, you really had a bunch of venomous things. When they said it wasn’t venomous, but I don’t know if I believe it. That thing was like a jet black snake and they had black mambas in there.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, they had spinning cobras, and they had spit on the glass. I mean, it’s like they just got these animals from the wild. I don’t know. It was an interesting zoo. It’s no longer open.
SPEAKER 02 :
Probably for the best, unfortunately.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah. So, Ryan, there’s one more here I want to talk about, and it’s New DNA Code Spatial Grammar. Now, you as a software engineer, you know, I’m sure you can appreciate this. I know I appreciate it a lot as also a software developer, electrical engineer. So it starts off, DNA is life’s message molecule. Like any message, it must have a language to provide meaning. We’ve known that for a long time. So the article says, you know, for comparison, this article won’t mean anything to anyone who doesn’t understand English because the article is written in English. So in the same way, DNA language must be decoded using machinery, which is itself encoded on the DNA, which is remarkable in itself. But while this article is written in only one language, the stretch of DNA has multiple languages with different messages. So geneticists have long known that genes on DNA are regulated and The regulator proteins are called transcription factors, TFs. TFs themselves are encoded by genes, and activators can start or increase the reading of a frame. Repressors can decrease or stop the reading of a frame. Remarkable. So in July 2024, geneticists at two American universities showed that activators can also function as repressors. The difference depends on their position. So it’s a spatial grammar depending on their position.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah.
SPEAKER 01 :
Do you have any code that can do that, Ryan?
SPEAKER 02 :
I don’t think I have any code that can do that. Depending on where it is and when it’s used, it works differently.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah. And you know, and this doesn’t even mention the jumping jeans. It can go grab a piece of code over here and bring it over here and… it’s almost like subroutines. You can go run a routine here, and it’s just amazing. So an example they give is a given protein might be an activator when it’s upstream from the beginning, the transcription start site TSS of a gene. So it’s upstream of a gene, but downstream, it might switch to a repressor. So it goes from activator upstream, and if it’s downstream downstream, It might switch to a repressor. Thus, quote, these findings highlight the importance of accurate TSS positional information to decode TF function. Wow. So the reports call the spatial grammar a newly discovered code. They keep discovering code in the DNA. And it reminds me.
SPEAKER 02 :
They probably will keep doing it for. Oh, yeah. Hundreds of years. It’s so complicated and really cool.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, and it reminds me of a debate that Bob Inyart had with Eugenie Scott years ago. I think late 90s, 1998. It was when I first started watching Bob Inyart on TV, a fantastic show. And he debated Eugenie Scott. And one of the things she said when he asked her, what’s your best evidence for evolution? She kind of hemmed and hawed and she said junk DNA. 97% of the DNA is junk DNA. And Bob predicted at that time that there was so much more that we had to learn about DNA. And that was kind of a rash. prediction or statement for her to make. And Bob predicted, hey, we’re going to learn a lot more. And he asked her, don’t you think we’ll learn a lot more? And she goes, no, we’ve learned the highest percentage that we’re going to learn. She was basically saying we’ve learned almost everything we’re going to know about the DNA. Man, was she wrong. You know, Francis Collins, the guy who headed the NIH for a while, who’s a Christian, but he’s also, you know, theistic evolution and whatnot. He believed in junk DNA for years, and he had to eventually admit after the ENCODE project that there’s basically no junk DNA. It’s all got function. It’s pretty much the end of evolution, everybody. It’s the end. Neo-Darwinism is dead. We even have evolutionists saying this now. They’re going to have to come up with, I don’t know what else they can come up with to try to explain away God, but evolution is dead and the ENCODE project has already proven that. You know, maybe we can dig up that clip from that debate with Eugenie Scott where Bob made this prediction that we had so much more to learn about the genome.
SPEAKER 02 :
And the funny thing is, it’s not even a bold prediction, because DNA was discovered, what, in the 70s, if I remember correctly?
SPEAKER 01 :
I think it was the late 50s.
SPEAKER 02 :
The late 50s, but still you only have 30, 40 years of studying something, and you’re thinking that we know everything we have to know about it yet? Something that complex? Like, after only 40, I mean, there’s things we’ve been studying for 500 years. They’ve been studying space for thousands of years, and we still know so little of what it is. For something as complex as DNA to think you’ve got it all figured out after 40 years is… You know, a little arrogant.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, absolutely. So the article concludes that we know that an article with only one language points to at least human level intelligence. How much more does a cell with multiple languages point to a superhuman intelligence?
SPEAKER 02 :
It’s like somebody who speaks Spanish being able to read this at the same time we’re reading English.
SPEAKER 01 :
That’s a good way to put it. Yeah. And then we know that you can read DNA gets read backwards. Try writing a book that or try writing code, Ryan. When you read it backwards, when the program counter goes backwards, it provides a whole other function.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah. What if you read this thing backwards and it told you the mud skipper article?
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, exactly. Yeah. So, Ryan, always amazing stuff that we go through in Creation Magazine. It’s fun. Thanks for having me on. Yeah, absolutely. So, again, please, if you get a chance, subscribe. If you haven’t already, like the video, leave comments. We’ll try to reply. Sometimes it’s hard, but we’ll definitely make an effort. And we also got… We’re going to start doing more shorts, and we’re going to give those to the younger generation. So you’re going to see more of this guy doing our YouTube shorts. You’re going to see my daughter, Abigail, Doug’s daughter, Nicole. She’s already done a great job. Nicole has one on gender and sanity that’s pretty much gone viral. So you might want to check those out. So again, we thank you for joining us on Real Science Radio. It’s always a blast having you here. So for Ryan Williams, I’m Fred Williams of Real Science Radio. May God bless you.
SPEAKER 03 :
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
In this captivating episode, we question the longstanding theories about dinosaur extinction as we look into a new AI study that suggests volcanism rather than an asteroid as the primary cause. We also dive into the complex language of DNA, uncovering new codes that further point to intelligent design. From the blinking behaviors of mudskippers to groundbreaking findings in predator-prey interactions, we explore scientific phenomena that align with scriptural principles. Tune in for discussions that fuse cutting-edge research with timeless truths.
