Did Darwin Deceive Us? CET Pt. 1 | The Creation Podcast: Episode 21
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 лип 2024
- If natural selection is a mystical delusion, what then is driving the adaptions we see in living organisms? And how can the principles of engineering help us to understand biological design?
In episode 21 of The Creation Podcast, host Ivana Semidey and ICR President Dr. Randy Guliuzza talk about the circular reasoning of evolutionary theory and introduce a new theory of biological design known as Continuous Environmental Tracking (CET). Stay tuned for part two of this discussion.
Related resource: Twenty Evolutionary Blunders | Get the book here: store.icr.org/dr-randy-guliuz...
#TheCreationPodcast #Biology #Science #NaturalSelection #CET #ContinousEnvironmentalTracking
---
Do you have questions about science or Scripture? Post them in the comments and we might answer them in future episodes.
Tune in every other Tuesday here on UA-cam for new episodes. You can also find the audio version on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, and Google Podcasts.
Don't forget to subscribe to our channel to get notified about all of our upcoming episodes!
Hope to see you next time on The Creation Podcast!
---
Learn more about the Institute for Creation Research: www.icr.org/
Shop our store: www.icr.org/
Support our ministry: www.icr.org/donate
Plan your visit to our Dallas creation museum and planetarium: discoverycenter.icr.org/ - Наука та технологія
Another great Podcast. Thank you so much. CET is a gamechanger for the Creationist perspective and we cannot wait to hear more! Great work and thank you for this vital service to the body of Christ!
When I was in the seventh grade, in junior high back in the 1970s I remember questioning what the scientific Community was telling me because it differed from what I was learning in Sunday school. But because my parents didn't have any answers I had to seek it out for myself and over the last six decades I can tell you that Darwin not only lied to us but he was lying to himself. The pressure of being a pastor's kid was too much for him to Bear LOL but seriously I pray the children better growing up now will be the strongest and know Jesus more than any other group on the face of the Earth. And although it looks like Satan has one in the public schools I pray that God will break that stronghold and that we will teach the Bible and true science in our schools again
How did Darwin lie to us?
I wish to thank you for sharing this awesome Christian video with me .
Awesome. Thank you ! Everyone, share this video and channel - it should have hundreds of thousands of subscribers, at least as many as some popular worship group channels do ! The more we like, comment and share and remind others to do likewise, the more it'll boost it getting recommended to others by the algorithm ( from what I hear).
Nice succinct summaries by interviewer.
One of the best takeouts of this is that it dignifies man as God's self determining creation (within limits, of course) and not just organisms that dance to the random unguided changes in their genes.
Thank you for posting! Appreciate your work!
Thank you so much, !hat was terrific!
Great topic thanks. Reminds me of this Bible verse: Proverbs 8:36 “But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.”
God put all the variety in every breed. From the Wolf came all varieties of Canine/Dog breeds etc.....
This is the first time I've heard Dr. Guliuzza speak. Correct me if I'm wrong, but trying to discover what drives CET is a bit like reverse engineering a fully-functional software program, right? For a large program, trying to figure out the cause for every result and vice versa would be a daunting task! I know the analogy is a little crude, because there's not really anything man has created that works quite like the human body, or frankly, anything among God's creations.
This is a fascinating subject to me, and I'm wondering if CET may have played a part in Jacob's getting animals with different coloration from the parents, and Jacob may have actually understood the mechanisms. Most people think the change in coloration comes from enough variation within parentage, but I suspect there may have been some epigenetics in play. What do you think? How close are we to discovering the mechanisms of CET? I hypothesize (as I'm guessing your researchers probably already have) that there is a sensory/input system, a trigger system, possibly providing a complete range of expression for every gene, and an actualization system, that does the work of changing how the genes are expressed. Is this all a part of epigenetics? Am I understanding the concept? How quickly can this happen? Can it happen WITHIN one generation, or is it cross-generational? Also, are albinos truly genetic, or are they the result of a breakdown in an epigenetic system?
Sorry, that's a lot of questions. I get your emails but I don't often have time to really follow the subject of epigenetics and/or CET. FYI, I'm in Dallas and hope to visit your Discovery Center here sometime this coming summer.
Those are some great questions, some of which will be answered in Part 2 a couple of weeks from now. You're on the right track! Adaptation can happen quite rapidly. Our current research is heavily focused on this topic right now and we hope to have more answers soon. Thanks for watching and we look forward to seeing you at the Discovery Center!
The organism driving itself from the inside out, internalist perspective, is from a n engineering perspective. It is also a correct doctrinal and theological perspective if you listen to David A. Bednar. :)
I'm very excited to have found your podcasts and appreciate your trying to present this astounding information in a way laymen can approach some level of understanding! I'm probably not understanding where the changes in function are taking place. If changes are taking place in the organ (eye, liver, etc.) and there is some modification that is beneficial how is that modification passed to the reproductive genes? And when the reproductive genes pair up what is to keep the beneficial change from being over-written? Again, from my minimal understanding of the reproductive characteristics of male and female I've been understanding that at birth the female has all the eggs that she'll ever have already in her ovaries and that the male is continuously producing sperm does that mean that only the male can initiate change?
Greetings
Our middle school teacher is very happy to teach her students about LUCA evolution. She even goes on to tell the students about how some priest who tried to discredit LUCA theory went on to find more evidence for it. Any info on this would be appreciated.
Teihard de Chardin "found" Peking man, but then put it on a train and it ws lost. He proved nothing.
A link please for the followup video.
I could not get the podcast on Spotify, was not even listed. It showed up on Podbean, but would not play or download.
Here's the link to the show on Spotify. It should be working today. open.spotify.com/show/4tzVFE119pAxjtPMkeGdDa?si=f602d3d7dd5848e6
I couldn’t get this podcast to work in my podcast player! An error would come up saying, “this episode may have been moved or deleted, contact the podcast author?”
Well that's not supposed to happen! Can you let us know which platform you're trying to use?
@@icrscience I've been using "Pocket Casts" on ios for years. I don't recall ever having a problem with your podcast before. Maybe just a glitch?
Hello again, Sam. The issue appears to be resolved now on most platforms. Let us know if you're still having technical issues. Thank you for your support!
@@icrscience Thanks 🙏👍
Everywhere around us, we see this new religion with the "nature" as God.
They will give there whole soul and salvation for their god, the nature.
They even apologize there existence, for producing CO2
Natural,selection selects things already in existence, it doesn’t explain origins
So Darwin is giving “nature“ all of the power. So he’s kind of just another level of pagan.
Anyone who says "externalistically" instead of "externally" is patently untrustworthy. I bet he says "evidences" too (rather than just "evidence").
I'll grant you, externalistically is a bit odd, but as for evidences, from Oxford: In general English, evidence is always uncountable. However, in academic English the plural evidences is sometimes used.
@@icrscience
Since evidence is a mass noun, why would you ever use evidences??
It's archaic, and I'm only half kidding when I say if it were left up to me, I'd have people who use it shot; no ifs, no whens, no howsoevers.
@7ebr830 Were you d* ropped on your
h* ead as an infant? Also, i notice you want to talk about anything but actual evidence.
Oh by the way, Jesus luvs you
Ok, it's clear that this guy either doesn't understand evolution and natural selection or he's purposely arguing disingenuously by creating a strawman - he knows that the personification of nature is an explanatory tool right? This isn't part of Darwinian evolutionary theory.
Would love to know his explanation as to why so many biologically 'engineered' functions were created to have so many flaws ie the human eye, the laryngeal nerve of a giraffe etc
Would like to know the mechanism as to how organisms engineer themselves and why he thinks mutation isn't random.
The reason why natural selection works and CET doesn't is because you can't engineer mutations 'on the fly'. How do you 'engineer' for something at the point of conception for future changes in environment? Genetics that are in place at birth cannot be changed, so contrary to what he said, you are at the whim of the environment at that point.
Your arguments are a bit out of date for the current research being done. For example: Genetics can shift due to environment. It’s not just what information you have on your DNA but how the DNA is folded and accessible at any given time. Environmental changes can trigger a refolding that will bring information to the surface of the ball of DNA so that it will be accessible for transcription but it’s more complex than that because it’s not just the information on the strand that determines expression but also the information that it’s next to when it’s folded in a certain configuration. Environmental factors can also involve the regulatory information (formerly known as “junk DNA” before they knew it’s function). In addition to the physical folding of your DNA that determines what is being read there’s at least 3 layers of information written on top of the information depending upon where you start reading it. It would be like if you have a book that you can read and it tells a story but if you read every 5th word it tells you a different story but then if you fold the pages over you can read another book that is contained within the book.
That’s the basic problem with the old idea that mutations are responsible for the changes resulting in one type of organism becoming another type of organism. The mutation would cause the destruction of multiple layers of information. Random mutations don’t explain how we got multiple layers of information that can be read depending upon how the DNA is read.
The explanation for why the human eye is wired “backwards” has also been explained and the short answer is that we don’t live underwater like the octopus where the argument was taken from. Light waves traveling through air which strikes the back of the eye creates more heat and requires the eye to be designed differently from the octopus. The explanation for this is more lengthy but you can look that up if you are interested.
Your other argument is one that I am not familiar with.
I hear the argument frequently that the reason why a person doesn’t agree with evolution is because they don’t understand the theory. I think the problem with evolution isn’t that it’s hard to understand the concept but that it’s concept doesn’t work to explain how intelligent information can come from an unintelligent source. Essentially chemistry becomes the causal agent but it doesn’t have observable and reproducible properties under controlled conditions. We can’t create life from nonlife even when we have intelligent agencies purifying and controlling the conditions. We can’t breed new species outside of the genetic limitations of that species even if we use selective breeding. Hence there’s no connection to origins if we can’t use the same proposed processes to make any new origins. It’s like me arguing that tornadoes in machine shops created watches and if you disagree then you don’t know how tornadoes in machine shops work. Ok, sure. Nobody understands how that works because nobody can actually get it to work. Maybe it’s because wind and machinery can’t actually make watches. Maybe it’s a watchmaker that is a lot smarter than we are about watches that is making all the different kinds of watches. Except watches are magnitudes of complexity simpler than life.
Nah 😂