Ring Around the Species - this is Genesis Week, Ep 14, Season 2 with Wazooloo/Ian Juby


Uploaded by wazooloo on 14.12.2012

Transcript:
An astonishing molecular machine, ring species, they
can't make up their minds what killed the dinosaurs,
and much more! This is Genesis Week.
[music]
And welcome to this episode of Genesis Week, the
weekly program of creationary commentary on news,
views and events pertaining to the origins controversy,
made possible by the supporters of CORE Ottawa,
Citizens for Origins Research and Education, and now
carried on the Christianima network -
christianima.com - Christian cinema at its finest.
Excellence in pirate broadcasting, we are squatters at
the old Pod City of San Zhi so we can continue to
bring you the information the anticreationists don't
want you to see or hear, and giving glory to our
Creator while doing it. Remember if you get lost in
cyberspace, you can just punch in wazooloo.com or
genesisweek.com and you will find us, and also
subscribe to our youtube channel to get extras like
CrEvo rants and full interviews with our guests. I'm
your host, Ian Juby.
If you'll recall in CrEvo Rant #172,
Divergent/Convergent/parallel/Pr eadaptive/Reductive
evolution, I mentioned the Bacterial flagellum. This is a
fascinating example of a molecular machine. It is,
essentially, an inboard/outboard motor built into
bacteria like E-coli, which is a bacteria that lives in
your intestine and actually helps you to digest your
food. They are good for you when they are in your
intestine, but if you get them in your stomach, that's
called e-coli poisoning. I've had it - don't go there, it's
not pretty. It can also kill you. But - you know what
they say, whatever doesn't kill you only postpones the
inevitable.
These bacteria swim by spinning their tail - they don't
wag their tail, they spin it. Because of the structure of
the tail, when it is spun, it takes on a corkscrew
shape. Now they will spin their tail blazingly fast - up
to 100,000 revolutions per minute, or about one
thousand six hundred turns every second! Because of
this, they can swim up to ten body lengths per second
- they are incredibly fast. How do they do this? To
dissect them is incredibly hard to do - they are so
small you can't do it with a knife, so they do it with
chemicals and try to dissolve specific parts of the
bacteria - when we dissect them, we find they have a
miniature motor inside. It's a lot like an electric motor,
having all the parts of a motor: The rotor, the stator,
the bushing, the driveshaft. If you know anything
about cars, the "hook" is like a universal joint - it
allows the bacteria to bend its tail around a corner
AND spin it at 100,000 rpm. This motor is a
protonic motor, driven by protons, not electrons.
The question arises: What could this have evolved
from? As Darwin said,
This is good science - he proposed a way in
which we could falsify his theory. He said he did not
know of any such organ, but that was long before the
advent of molecular biology - and his proposal for
falsification is perfectly valid. Well, meet the bacterial
flagellum: The bain of one-small-step-at-a-time
evolution. If any one of these parts are missing, or not
quite evolved, the entire propulsion system breaks
down. If the bacteria had not quite evolved the rotor
for example - let's say it had a smaller rotor - just like
the engines in a car made by Ford or Chevy are
remarkably similar, but the sizes and tolerances are
not the same, you cannot just simply take a piston out
of a ford engine and put it into a chevy engine for
example. it's the same idea here - the size of the parts
is crucial - and if the rotor is missing parts or even
every so slightly smaller, the protons will drop out
from between the rotor and stator, and the motor will
not work.
Let's say it tried to evolve - get bigger and better! If
the rotor is just ever so slightly bigger, then it jams
against the stator, and once again the motor does not
work. But crucially, if any part is missing, the whole
system breaks down. This is the point Dr. Michael
Behe made in his book "Darwin's black box", which
he coined "irreducible complexity." You cannot make
the motor any simpler - you cannot reduce its
complexity, as it will not work.
Now several commenters and skeptics cited the
bogus argument against the flagellum's irreducible
complexity by pointing to what is commonly called the
Type Three Secretion System, or TTSS for short.
Basically, it's like a flagellum system, but with the tail
missing, and the bacteria uses the stub to drill into the
membranes of cells and stuff - it's quite a nasty form
of bacteria. Nicholas Matzke first proposed the
TTSS as the precursor to the flagella back in 2003.
Now what's interesting to me, is that anti-creationists
try to discredit my person allll the time on subject
matters like this. They will beg of me my qualifications,
and rant and rave about how a robotics engineer
cannot make any intelligent commentary on complex
biology...as if my background and training has
anything at all to do with whether or not I am right.
They will then turn around and quote Matzke....who
at the time was a GEOGRAPHY STUDENT making
arguments on complex microbiology.
The fact that the anti-creationists are so hypocritical
and try to pull an ad-hominem attack speaks volumes
about their inability to adequately respond to the
science I cite - they cannot prove me wrong, so they
attack me personally, instead of the argument - this is
called argumentum ad hominem - a falacy of
irrelevance.
But let's take a look at Matzke's argument: Has the
flagellum been show to be reducible? Is it possible
that the flagellum evolved from this TTSS system?
No - not at all, for multiple reasons.
Let's first use the evolutionary conclusions to see
which form of bacteria "appeared" first! Multiple
researchers have concluded that the fully formed
flagellar system came about FIRST, and the TTSS
system is actually a DETERIORATED form of the
flagellum - in other words, the bacteria LOST some of
the information on how to build the inboard-outboard
propulsion system. But notice the "spin" put on by
those contending this is an example of reducability: it is
missing a part, but is still functional! Not as a
propulsion system it aint! Let's take my van for
example. I can drive right across the country with it,
and I can live in it. In fact, I live in it all the time. Now
if I remove one part of the drivetrain: the drive shaft,
my van can still be used for a home, but is useless for
transportation, which is what we're talking about when
we say irreducibly complex! So even if you want to
contend this is an example of reducible complexity -
excellent! You've finally provided proof that better
things evolved into worse things - the exact opposite
of upwards, onwards evolution which still does not
address the question of "Where did the flagellum
come from?"
Now let's take a quantum leap in complexity, just
published this past week in PNAS. Ruan et al
examined a bacteria called MO-1 which has seven
flagella enveloped in a sheath. This bacteria can
outstrip the already incredible speeds of E-coli by 10
to 1! The research team was wondering how this
bacteria could have all its flagellar tails in a sheath, all
spinning at the same time with so much efficiency.
Well, the DESIGNER had a novel solution to keep all
the tails spinning in synchronization.Using what can
only be described as a transmission, apparently
composed of some 31 gears! Using a scanning
electron microscope and a whole mess of images, the
researchers were able to deduce this configuration.
This amimation is straight off the supplementary
information on the PNAS website, which shows what
they believe they are seeing. Each of the yellow gears
has one of the seven tails going through its middle, so
you are looking down at the cross-section of the tail.
The gears keep the tails in synchronization so that
even if the tails touch each other, they do not cause
resistance or opposite-rotating collisions.
Remember Darwin's proposed method of falisifying
his theory? If any organ can be shown which could
not evolve in small, numerous, successive, slight
modifications, his theory would be ruined? His theory
was ruined with the advent of microbiology - and this
particular bacteria is just another example of its ruin.
But evolution and creation are mutually exclusive to
all other theories! In other words, if one is falsified,
there is only one other theory left - Creation. Which
leads us to the question of "Who is that Creator?" I
would say the Creator was none other than Jesus
Christ, who performed so many miracles that even His
enemies didn't deny it, and even rose from the dead.
The Creator of these bacteria blows away our best
minds and technologies on planet earth. If we make a
machine that's smaller and more efficient, we call it a
higher technology. The technology involved in the
DESIGN of this bacteria is mind-blowing. These
motors are so small, you can fit 8 million of them on
the tip of one of your hairs. You have molecular
machines on this scale all throughout your body - and
you can quickly see why King David said to the
Creator
I got multiple questions sent in from viewers over the
past couple of months regarding "ring species", and
the shows had been so packed, that I had put off
responding - till now.
Corlene wrote in from South Africa:
Corlene was, indirectly, asking about what is known
as "ring species" and the speciation question. We
creationists of course do believe in diversification of
species - for example, we would say all dog kinds
came from one dog kind which was taken on board
the ark of Noah. That's right - the wolf, great dane,
french poodle and chihuaha all arose from one dog
kind, probably something like a wolf. In fact, we can
historically track when these different kinds of dogs
arose! Why? Because people BRED the specific
types of dog! Notice what has happened though: The
world's most useless dog, the chihuaha, wouldn't
survive a day in the wild, so it wasn't natural selection
that bred the chihuaha, but rather unnatural, or
directed selection - people directed the selection.
They specifically separated out certain traits and then
bred the remaining dogs in order to weed out
attributes they did not want. For example, to breed a
chihuaha, they separated the smaller dogs, and
smaller, from each generation, to acheive the ultimate
useless dog. Notice what these people did: They
REMOVED information and variation from the gene
pool. You will not be able to breed a German
Shepherd from two chihuahas - why? Because the
German Shepherd, while it is a dog, has different
genetic information that the chihuaha no longer has,
because that genetic information was methodically
removed by people in selective breeding.
This is not evolution - though some of the extreme
evolutionary camp are trying to redefine different
breeds of dogs as different species. This variation
within the dogs is variation within the species! You
will, however, often see dog variation in textbooks
with the implication that if dogs can turn into other
dogs with small steps, then surely a cow can turn into
a whale in small steps and more time! This is where
the alleged relationship between the hyrax and the
elephant comes in: They're only considered related,
depending on who you ask, and how they deem them
related. Many evolutionists disagree that the hyrax is
related to the elephant - but it depends on how you
define "related." YOU are related to the whales,
because both people and whales are mammals.
However - proposing that the hyrax evolved into an
elephant, or a cow evolved into a whale is a radical
leap compared to dog "evolution." First of all, notice
that the breeding of dogs is a REDUCTION in
variation - not a gain - it is the opposite of upwards,
onwards evolution. To turn a cow into a whale, you
have to somewhere along the line develop a sonar
system that cows don't have - that's a gain of
complexity - and such an observation has never been
made in all of scientific history I might add. All we
have observed is the LOSS of genetic information, the
LOSS of organs, limbs, etc...
Secondly, the dogs are still dogs - they can breed one
with another.
Now - this brings us, however, to ring species: Some
dogs may technically be able to breed, but it's either
very difficult to impossible due to the physical
variations for example. A great dane and chihuaha
would have difficulty mating. And so you could
consider the Great Dane and the Chihuaha a type of
"ring species."
The most common "ring species" cited in textbooks
has to do with two types of sea gull
The different breeds of gulls make a sort of
ring around the arctic where they are found, hence
the term "ring species." For whatever reasons - be it
inability or disinterest between the types of birds, the
European Herring Gull will not breed with the
American Herring Gull. Because the basic and
common definition of "species" involves interbreeding,
one could classify the European and American
Herring Gulls as separate species, though they are the
same bird. So is this evolution? Well, like with our
dogs - we've watched as sea gulls have evolved
into....sea gulls. We've watched dogs evolve
into....dogs. Yes, there's incredible variation, and
sometimes even isolation to the point where two kinds
won't breed anymore, and you can call that a
different species if you'd like, but this is no help to
upwards, onwards evolution which requires the
gaining of new information, new organs, new skeletal
structures, etc... Upwards onwards evolution which
caused bacteria to turn into university professors.
Ring species is not the evolution that is taught to us in
school. I go into more detail in CrEvo rant #41 Define
evolution..
I've had a PILE of requests for instant digital
downloads of episodes of Genesis Week, CrEvo
rants, and the Complete Creation video series. We
aim to please, just please note that I'm still adding
files, some are for a PC, while others are for your
Ipod, and you can get most videos for cheaper than a
coffee at Timmies! Head on over to
ianjuby.tradebit.com. I'm working on getting the files
on Itunes as well, but that is not available as of yet.
If you'll recall, last week we discussed the mystery
question "What was it that killed the dinosaurs?" in
CrEvo Rant #17. I showed multiple lines of evidence
why the evidence most clearly pointed to a flood.
Well just to stir the pot some more, a paper was given
this past week at the Annual meeting of the American
Geophysical Union, contending that it was volcanoes
that killed the dinosaurs! Well, getting closer!
Notice the history of claims and counterclaims, each
of which refutes the other: First it was an asteroid that
allegedly killed the dinosaurs. Another group
contended the dinosaurs killed themselves by farting
too much (I'm not making this up!). Then another
group of scientists argued it was COLD that killed the
dinosaurs. Now another group is contending it was
Volcanoes that killed the dinosaurs - yet when you
look at the actual evidence itself, the physical fossil
conglomerations, the geomorphology of the dinosaur
beds, and provincial - sometimes continental geology,
it all screams loudly of a massive flood - global in
scale. This evidence is acknowledged indirectly in the
research papers, and in the museums displaying the
dinosaurs. The evidence is easy to interpret: If you
found fossil clams which had been buried alive with
the dinosaurs, as well as other marine life, like fish, as
well as land plants and animals, turtles, etc... all in the
same layer - what would you conclude buried them?
The reason the researchers keep coming up with the
wrong model is because they are ignoring the obvious
evidence, and not allowing an interpretation of a
world-wide flood. Question: Is that good science to
remove the possibility of a world-wide flood without
consideration? The correct answer is: NO, science
follows the evidence, wherever it leads - and in this
case, it leads clearly to the interpretation of a global
flood. And thus those who believe in deep time will
never get the correct answer, because they rejected
the correct answer out of hand, and have continued to
seek an alternative explanation, which is wrong.
If you have appreciated this program, please
remember we are a viewer supported program.
Canadians can make a tax deductable donation to
help keep the program on the air by donating to
CORE Ottawa - the details for that are at the end of
the show, and for those international viewers who still
want to support, we can't give you a tax deductable
receipt, but you can make a direct donation on line
here. And thank you for your support.
Give us 30 seconds, we'll be right back with the
mailbag!
Funny, fast and furious! Ian's CrEvo rants cover a multitude
of topics in a comical, easy to understand way
complicated subjects that normally make your brain hurt,
hurt a lot less when Ian explains them... while wearing his
anti-government mind reading equipment.
Have questions about carbon 14? Natural selection?
thermodynamics? or...what on earth is he doing there???
3 volumes of rants on dvd - take your pick for $15 each
plus shipping and handling, or order all three as a package
and save yourself ten bucks! order on line today at
Ian's bookstore.
[scary, dramatic music]
Wahoo! Mail for me?
Hmmm......
[scary, dramatic music]
YouTuber Kiwifrog wrote in:
Thanks for writing in. Actually, Kiwifrog hit on one of
my areas of expertise, as I have studied multiple
"fossil forests" across North America, most of them
comprised of these scale trees. And actually, to be
more specific, there was actually only about 1,500 to
2,000 years to grow all these plants, not 4,000 years.
Basically, there is so much coal on earth that it could
not be accounted for by plant growth in 2,000 years,
as there is just not enough land. There's several wild-
card factors here: There was most likely more land
available before the flood, and there is the possibility
that some of the coal was produced by material other
than plants. But ignoring that for the moment, there
was an excellent article in Creation Technical Journal
a few years back Scheven had previously noted the
unusual root arrangements of the lycopods - the scale
trees, and concluded that the lycopods probably
comprised a floating forest, which we do see today.
Various plants will interlock their roots and make their
own "forest floor" which is floating on water. I have
seen precisely what Scheven pointed out with the
roots of the scale trees - they are unusual indeed.
Often, these scale trees are buried vertically in the
rock layers - they are polystrate fossils; poly for
many, strate for the strata of rock they cut through. It
is conventionally claimed that these are trees buried as
they grew - but in 2003, I found this polystrate trunk
which had been buried upside down. Obviously, it
didn't grow this way. but of even more interest is that
its roots appeared to be intertwined with another
stump, which was now preserved above it. That
would seem to lend support to the floating forest
model. But the roots also tell another story that
answers Kiwifrog's most excellent question about how
the plants are buried so deep. The roots, which are
hollow, woody tubes, have been crushed by extreme
pressure provided by the sediments piled on top of
them - The roots were obviously still soft when they
were crushed, and the sediments had not yet turned to
rock, because they were compressed too. But to
crush these roots takes enormous pressures - at the
very least hundreds of meters of sediments piled on
top - all before the roots turned to coal, or the
sediments turned to rock. Yet these roots are
scattered throughout the 18,000 vertical feet
represented at Joggins - showing that all 18,000 feet
had to be rapidly deposited - so fast that the roots did
not have a chance to turn to coal, and the sediments
did not have a chance to lithify into rock. The scale
trees provide powerful evidence of a world-wide
flood.
In last week's show I pointed out the discrepency
between the ages assigned by old-earthers to Grand
canyon. Using various old-earth "dating" methods,
they arrived at ages of between 5 to 70 million years
old - they were different by a factor of 14. Many
people, apparently not grasping the point, angrily
wrote in saying that a 4,000 year age we creationists
assign is different by a factor of millions. Yaaaa?
Soooo? What does that have to do with it? That's
completely irrelevent. Apparently you guys didn't
understand my point: If the dating methods used to
"prove" deep time cannot agree with each other, then
they prove each other wrong. The reason for the
discrepency between the deep time ages and our
young-earth ages is because the deep time ages are
WRONG. It's irrelevent what the discrepency is
between the young earth age and the old earth ages
because we are saying the old earth ages are
WRONG. As I previously cited in CrEvo rant #100,
when we use conventional dating methods on rocks of
known ages, the dates invariably come back far, far
too old - usually out by factors in the millions. The
methods of dating in deep time are just plain wrong.
We had many more questions to cover, but I'm afraid
we're out of time for this week - I'm your host Ian
Juby, signing off for now and thanking you for
watching. Please join us again next Genesis Week...
assuming the end of the world isn't next week.
Remember you can send in your questions,
comments, criticisms and hate mail to us in a number
of ways - email us, send us a tweet, or leave a
comment on the last show on our youtube channel at
genesisweek.com. Let us remember those words of
comfort and warning from our Creator, the Lord
Jesus Christ who said "I am the way, the truth and the
life - no man comes to the Father but through me."
See you next week.
[music]
We need your support to help keep this program on the air.
You can help by making a tax-deductable donation to
CORE Ottawa
You can also sign up for Ian's newsletter, detailing current
research and news items at ianjuby.org
[music]