Kevin it seems
what you're describing here is that there is a large part
of the scientific community that is in kind of a desperate attempt
here to preserve age. But here, it seems
that we have evidence that at, least to me, and of course I'm
not a microbiologist, but I think most people
would say well that that just seems reasonable, to think that maybe,
these are not that old. But it seems like there's a desperate attempt
to hang on to a lot of time. Why is that? Time is the critical
component for evolution. If you're going to say that a simple cellular system
became a multicellular system that then became fish, and the fish then
jumped up on land, and grew legs,
and started breathing air, and then that creature
grew feathers and wings, started flying. So if you give us time, we'll claim to account
for all of this massive change of organisms. But we got to have the time. So what you're saying is that if you pull out the notion
of a long period of time, you're pulling out
a major foundation for the conventional paradigm. Absolutely. Evolution, specifically
neo-darwinism, requires a lot of time. And it's their
foundational issue. You pull that out, they've got to come up
with a whole new understanding, because without time,
they don't have anything. Well, as a microbiologist,
looking and understanding, no doubt, that conventional paradigm
that requires a lot of time, why does it require
a lot of time? Does that bring us
to the issue of mutations? The mechanism claimed to drive
evolution is mutation, where we'll define
mutation as a change in the nucleotide sequence of DNA. So the driving mechanism claim
for evolution is mutation, and then natural selection looks and sees what effect
that mutation had, and if it likes it, and says - this is giving a lot
of power to natural selection that it doesn't have, but if natural selection
likes it, see, then that organism survives. If it doesn't like it,
then that organism dies off. And then, you do the next step, and you keep repeating
that step over and over again. The idea being that somehow,
in that process, the fish who only breathes
oxygen through water, who doesn't have legs, whose vision is based
upon seeing through water, not seeing through air,
somehow plops up on land, and through these very
slow processes transforms its entire anatomy and physiology where it
can breathe air, it can walk on land, and they can see in air. And so they see it as, you give me enough time,
we can account for all of this. See, now really doesn't but time becomes one
of those things to a human, you know, yeah it's almost like anything
can happen given enough time. Mind gets fuzzy when you - Yes. And they hide
behind that fuzziness. Oh, it just took a long time. Somehow that becomes
the magic wand. You know, a long time,
poof there it is. Forget the idea that there's
no biological mechanism that accomplishes that. Time, poof, we got it. But we have heard, I think, over
and over again, that the notion of mutation
really does happen quickly. Because, you know, we're talking about bacteria
and those kind of things that we're told, well,
they mutate very quickly, and they can change rapidly. This is your specialty, right? This is my specialty. The first point
I need to make is that Darwin wrote
his original ideas in a time where there was very
little known about the cell, and even less
known about genetics. Now, Gregor Mendel, who's the kind of considered
the father of genetics, he did the pea plant studies and all that, he
and Darwin were peers and there was even found
in Darwin's library an unopened copy
of Mendel's paper. But it's questionable, even if Darwin
would have opened it, if he would have
understood it because, and that's not
putting Darwin down, this is a matter of most people
in that time didn't understand Mendel's studies. They just simply
didn't understand it. And so, Darwin proposed these ideas and they became
very popular at a time where genetics and even
cellular biochemistry was not well understood. So, in essence, there was this big vacuum
of lack of knowledge that they were able
to quickly step into and we could just pretend
that it all made sense, because maybe, maybe not. We just simply didn't know. You could not, and this is
a challenge I put out over and over again you could not, today, present Darwinism
and it be accepted, because we would know better. But because it's
already accepted, then well it must work somehow. But if you came in today with what we know
about the biochemistry, and the genetics of cells, and tried to propose, brand new,
as a fresh idea, neo-darwinism, it'd be laughed at. But it's not laughed at because
it's the accepted paradigm. And so we struggle to look
at things like this and maintain the paradigm, rather than maybe
from an honest perspective, to sit back and say well this
may be telling us something that is gonna change
the paradigm completely. Examples of, again, the paradigm driving
the conclusions. Several years ago I listened
to a Nobel laureate give a talk, and in that talk, he describes cellular systems
as Rube Goldbergs. You know what that is, where it'd be all
hobbled together. And he was trying -
Nobel laureate - trying to claim that because of evolution, evolution just
hobbles things together, whatever works, so the cellular systems
are all hobbled together, so he called
them Rube Goldbergs. And even at that time,
I thought that's a very, very foolish thing, especially in absence
of not knowing. But what we already knew, I felt, challenged
what he said. I would defy him
to say that, today, in the face of what we know
about cellular systems today, they're not Rube Goldbergs, they
are enormously sophisticated, where we still don't understand. It's still beyond that. And the DNA is
a classic example. The Human Genome Project, the irony is that instead
of the Human Genome Project destroying the foundations
of biblical creation, all that, it has been one
of the biggest booms. One of the greatest things
for creation to ever happen, because among other things, what it has shown is,
it has shown that in each cell in your body
that has chromosomes, there is a system going on there that we don't yet have
more than the very minor understanding of. Let me give you an illustration. Let's say you take
the book War and Peace. 2000 pages. Let's say you are able
to write it in such a way that it's on 20 pages. Now this isn't 20 pages
of small print, this is just 20 normal
written pages, okay, but the way you read that book
is you read it left to right, top to bottom,
but then you turn it over, and read it left to right,
and top to bottom, and then you take a page and you fold it
into another page, then take another page
and fold it into another page, and you keep - see,
it becomes three-dimensional. But it's actually
four dimensional, because time's involved, because each time you fold
the page, there's been a change of the information in the book, and the book reads
the entire novel. It's not like you
start with each fold, you get a different story. It's the continuation
of the novel That's an analogy of the human genome. And so the question is, would we know
how to read that book? I wouldn't know
how to read that book. Would we even have a clue
how to write that book? Of course not. And yet, that
book's been written. It's called the human genome. Now you cannot tell me
in rational terms that a process that relies on mutation, and natural selection,
could write that book. Don't even begin to pretend
that I'm gonna buy into that. It doesn't make
any rational sense whatsoever. Evolution can't
account for this. The human genome has gone so far
beyond evolution now that they're just
stumbling in the dark. And I'll get people to write me,
what about this, and what about that? Well you don't know what
you're talking about. You don't understand mutations. I spent 20 years
studying mutations. See, I was talking
to gentlemen just the other day, and I said well,
beneficial mutation, you know, we define a beneficial
mutation as a mutation that provides a benefit
to the organism. In other words, I'm now resistant
to the antibody which is beneficial
if that antibody's around, okay? As a human,
I like to drink milk. Okay, I have a mutation in me
that allows me to drink milk. It's a mutation. Oh, is that right? To me, it's beneficial, you know, but it's
still a mutation. So if you look just
at beneficial mutations, which is what evolutionists
love to look at, beneficial, beneficial,
beneficial, and I say, but that's really irrelevant. What's happening at
the genetic level, that's the key. It's not whether it's beneficial
or not beneficial. It's what's
happening genetically. And what we see, for example
with antibiotic resistance, antibiotic resistance comes by one of two ways
for the most part. You have a vector come
into the organism, which is bringing
in some kind of gene that makes it resistant, okay,
well that vector already exists. You're not introducing
anything new into biology, it's already there. That doesn't account
for the origin or anything, it just accounts for
how it moves around, okay. The key thing then
becomes mutations. That's why - that's why evolution is mutation
and natural selection. Because if you do
change the sequence, that has the potential to give you a whole
new genetic component, a whole new genetic activity. But when we look at mutations that cause antibiotic
resistance in bacteria, what they are is mutations that
eliminate transport proteins, eliminate enzyme activities, eliminate functionality
of certain proteins, illuminate, eliminate, reduce, cut down, eliminate, see,
is there a trend here? Alright, with lactose
utilization in a human, the reason I can drink milk is because the normal
regulatory system that shuts down the gene
that makes the enzyme so you can digest lactose, when you reach - when you move through puberty,
that gene gets shut down. If you have the mutation
that blocks the shutting down. But what have you done? What you've done
is you've eliminated a pre-existing system. There are people that are
actually resistant to HIV. Do you know
how they're resistant HIV? They are missing the key protein
the HIV virus binds to, and as the virus can't bind,
it can't infect. Now, if you're exposed to HIV, that'd be a pretty
beneficial mutation right? But what's it caused by? It's caused by loss
of a pre-existing protein. And so what we see,
and I can go on and on - what we see is, repeatedly, what the evolutionist community
does is, they offer example, after example, after example, of
what they claim, here's how evolution works. No it's not,
because what you're doing is, you're taking pre-existing
systems, and knocking them out, or reducing them. You're not explaining
how they evolved to begin with. It's the analogy of, if you have a house, and in your house,
you have the dining room, and a wall,
and then your recreation room, and your wife, being, you know,
the big socialite that she is, she wants a bigger dining room
to entertain her parties. We have a choice. I can keep my rec room, or I can knock out that wall
and get a bigger dining room. Well, you know, everybody knows
happy wife is a happy home, so you knock out the inner wall, and now you have
a bigger dining room. And it's beneficial
because she's happy, but don't tell a carpenter that how you built the house was
by knocking out a wall. But that's what
evolutionists do repeatedly, is they give you an illustration
of knocking out a wall, and this is
how the house was built. Kevin, a lot of your research
was done in the area of studying bacteria. Correct, correct. Yes, particularly
mutations in bacteria. Okay. And I want us to examine
that for just a second, because I know and I have heard, and many people
have heard how often, the notion of
how bacterium mutates, and therefore survives, as being a key piece
of evidence to say that well, the evolution of mankind
and animals must be true, because we see it in bacteria. Is that a proper a way
to compare that? It's even called evolution
in the petri dish. Yeah. They like using bacteria
because first off, you have very
short generation times, because you can get several
generations in a day, you know, even if you're
studying fruit flies, it takes more than a day
for a generation, okay, so bacteria makes
themselves very nice as a system when you're trying to study
a lot of generations. And bacteria readily mutates, so that makes it
very nice also. See, hopefully, humans don't readily
mutate to the extent that we constantly change
our physical features, so that makes it a little
tough to study humans when you're wanting to study
the effects of mutations. The bacteria readily mutate, and so a lot of that makes it
a very good model for studying those kind of problems, for studying what
do mutations do? What causes a mutation? You know, what happens
to the mutants after they form? Now the problem becomes
that humans are not bacteria. Bacteria can make
a fairly dramatic mutation, and then come back later
and correct it. Let me give an example. To become resistant
to certain types of antibiotics, some bacteria will
eliminate an enzyme, or a transport protein. Just get rid of it. Now if a human got rid
of a certain enzyme, or transport protein,
we'd probably die. If we didn't die, we certainly wouldn't
be very healthy. The bacteria may experience some loss of health,
shall we say, but it survives the antibiotic. And then, once the
antibiotic is gone, it starts making that again. It regenerates. Humans can't do that so easy. We can't just shut things
on and off like that. And particularly because
our generation time is, you know, every 20 years,
not every 20 minutes. Bacteria, because of
the generation time, they can reproduce very quickly and they can pay what is called
cost of selection. if I were to expose
a large container of bacteria to a very, very traumatic environmental
condition like starve them for an amino acid, I may kill 99.9999%
of that population of bacteria. But the next day, those few that are left
that have the mutation that allows them
to compensate for, you know, lack of a particular
amino acid in the immediate, they've regrown, and the whole population
is restored again. Just, boom. Just like that. Whereas, with humans, if you wipe out
99.99999% of humans, first off that's
a potential extinction event, but second off, even if we do - if we do survive, how many centuries
and millennia will it take for us to recover from that? See, so bacteria can pay that extremely
high cost of selection where you eliminate almost all
of them but a few survive, and the population returns
back very quickly, and voila, evolution has occurred. That's what we're told. And you can't really do that in humans,
and in dogs, and in cows, and such. They don't respond that way. So what works for bacteria
doesn't really work very well for animals. But because bacteria
is so easy to study, they like to extrapolate, like say, well look this is how it would've worked
in the animal, too - well, not necessarily. So, the comparison of us
and bacteria only goes so far, and then it starts falling down. Kevin, how would
you define science, first of all? I just simply define
science as a tool that we use to understand
the world around us. And it's just simply a tool. Now, within science, there's obviously
a certain methodology. But science itself is
just a general approach that's used to try
to understand, you know, what's happening, understand
what do we see here? Understand what is it
that causes thunder? What is it
that causes earthquakes? You know, what is it
that causes you to be sick? It's never been a matter
of science this way, creation that way. Science this way,
the Bible that way. You know, so many times,
that's put as the paradigm. And that's never been true. It's always been the opinion
of some people versus the Bible. The opinion of some
people versus creation. Because science doesn't
hold an opinion. Science is a tool. Science is a tool that is used to understand God's creation,
is what it really comes down to. It's a tool to understand
what's around us. See, so science then hopefully gives us a better
understanding of things. But that's really all it is. The idea that science has to
only offer a natural explanation and cannot in any way
account for God, that's absurd. That is a definition intended for their very purpose
of eliminating God. And I would challenge people that would consider themselves
Christians and evolutionists, sometimes known as
theistic evolutionists, I would challenge them to consider that evolution as
an official scientific idea, as in what's in the literature, what's in the textbooks, what's talked about
at scientific meetings, is God ever in any of that? Of course not. Evolution is viewed
as kicking God out. So, as a Christian, why would I ever
be attracted to something that prides itself
on kicking God out? And theistic evolution
is considered no more scientific in the scientific circles
than creation is, because it involves God. Evolution claims it
doesn't need God. You know, God certainly
doesn't need evolution, so why would you
try to mix the two? I don't know why you would.
