 Hey everybody, today we are debating Creation vs. Evolution and we are starting right now. These gentlemen thrilled to have you here for another epic debate. This is going to be a fun one, folks. As today we are debating a classic on this channel, Creation vs. Evolution. And want to say that your first time here, consider hitting that subscribe button as we have many more debates to come. So for example, this coming Wednesday we are very excited as Sal will be debating against Dan, a professor in biology, and Erika will be co-moderating with me. So that should be exciting and the thumbnail is there in the bottom right corner of your screen for that. Well, long as you know as well, no matter what side you are on and all of these issues, we have debates on science, religion, politics, and all of the other controversies out there. We want to let you know no matter what walk of life you're from, we really do hope you feel welcome. And with that, let's get into the details of today's debate. Very excited as today it's going to be a tag team debate. Each side will get a roughly 12 to 15 minutes split where they'll get to make their case at the front and then we'll go into open conversation followed by Q&A. If you happen to have a question, feel free to fire into the old live chat and if you tag me with at modern a debate, it makes it easier for me to get every single question in that Q&A list. Super Chat is also an option in which case you can make not only a question for one of the speakers during the Q&A but also a comment and of course they would get a chance to respond and we ask that you be your regular friendly selves whether it be a question or a comment and last thing before we get rolling here want to mention all of the speakers I have linked in the description so that way if you're listening folks you're like mmm I like that I want more you can hear plenty more by clicking on those links. With that we are going to get started as our special creation team is going to get the ball rolling so want to say first though before we officially start thank you all for we really appreciate all of you guys being here standing for truth as well as I think in case someone turned off their camera if you're able to turn it back on just because it scrambles the picture on me when you if you turn it off is you let's see we have let me see what I can I'm going to readjust it here give me two seconds so as you see from left to right you see standing for truth as well as I'm going to move John back into his spot and then JL Warren who is stepping in today for fight the flat earth we hope fight the flat earth feels better as he's not feeling too hot today and want to say standing for truth and John and team and JL Warren thanks for being here all four of you gentlemen thank you for having us my pleasure James always a great time absolutely and with that we'll let you get the ball rolling standing for truth and John John go ahead brother right up appreciate you guys coming out for this James I need to share a doc with you gotcha all right let me know when that's coming through absolutely it's clear as day all right all right thanks so much for coming out for this very interesting conversation on creation versus evolution obviously this debate will go in many directions but before we even get to the fallacies of Darwinism we must address but I argue makes the entire premise of evolution fruit of a poison tree and that is a biogenesis through chemical evolution and my opponents will likely argue that it was much simpler than what we view today as life and they may even attempt to explain away the improbabilities by saying life exists therefore the probability is one however let us consider if their explanation for the prerequisites needed for the theory they stake their lives on to be if it is a remotely plausible to for it to have occurred in undirected manner or if in order for the probability to be one the rational conclusion is an intelligent agent even a simpler part somehow came into existence this does not circumvent the requirement for a minimum number of these parts to all exist at the same time in a specific location now while atheists and their origin of life researchers try to avoid this conundrum is just that unavoidable my event of special creation requires an intelligent agent theirs is nothing but chance and deep deep time so let's consider what is recognized as the simplest form of life and how its simpleness by comparison to other forms of life does not actually mean it is simple the mycoplasm genitalium has a genome of 580,000 base pairs this astonishing number enables it to contain 470 genes that code for 470 proteins with an average of 347 amino acids per protein the odds against just one such protein of that length are 1 in 10 to the 450th power if we calculate the entire genome and the odds are one in 20 to the 164,090th power and this is without accounting for the increased improbability when you consider that nature had to select only left-handed amino acids and bifunctional ones all of this before considering that these genes must have been in existence at the same time in the same location on a prebiotic earth in an environment that is admitted to be less advantageous for the required chemical reactions to occur now to put this in context the total number of particles in the entire universe is 10 to the 80th power and the total number of interactions by those particles in the history of the universe is 10 to the 143rd so all of this is before considering the origin of the genetic code the assignment of arbitrary values to codons equal amino acids and the requirement of DNA and transcription proteins and translation proteins to exist simultaneously even for basic replication to occur now I must address neo Darwinism directly here are four positions which challenge the premise of undirected evolution through natural selection being a logical plausible or probable conclusion for our existence first adaptation of existing functions to account for environmental condition variants is primarily executed through epigenetic factors or activation of recessive genes neither of which result in new core functions these realizations have shaken the entire premise of evolution towards core not only are these adaptations the result of variable gene expression they are not the result of mutations rather our controlled modifications are executed through read write and erase nanomachines second the variation of transcription factors and gene regulatory networks results in a significant difference in gene expression to date the most studied of these are in relation to cognitive function and show 9 to 23% of variation between chimps and humans for example has also been shown that these differences must work in unison and any degradation of this of this even to the level of point mutation results in cascade effects which result in dramatic impairment or death not only does this showcase the extreme importance of gene regulation it also decimates the relevance of similar coding genes in relation to final outcome moreover the significant differences in non-coding regions of the genome become apparent for things ranging from introns retro transposons enhancers and promoters to name a few almost all of which have been dismissed by those against intelligent design however the discoveries made in the last decade have now made their relevance unavoidable third is now become apparent through structural biology but not only is the prescriptive sequence information housed in the genetic code required it must also be geographically coordinated through dynamic real-time folding to enable gene expression this applies to inter chromosomal data transfer and gene regulation which not only forces acceptance of physical gene locations being vital it also decimates the relevance of similar sequences existing another organism but housed in completely different physical locations not only does this make the sequence similarities irrelevant in relation to undirected natural selection it also lends credence to intelligent design fourth the prescriptive information in our genetic code uses arbitrary values the meaning of which is unknown without translation mechanism this semantic meaning is immaterial and I know where the context can be interpreted without the prior actions of an intelligent agent not only was my opponent explain my opponents explain its origin they must also account for the subset code base with dual syntax for translational pausing which is vital for protein synthesis therefore not only does our genetic code provide translation templates and translation translation and transcription templates it also enables time variable base expression as this is considered in relation to both a biogenesis and the previous arguments the now unavoidable reality is that our genetic code is a four-dimensional programming code base unlike anything humans have ever conceived when all this is viewed to the now known reality that not only must the information exist and must also be in a specific physical location in the genome to conclude that for knowledge of the desired outcome is not required for life to exist requires those who dismiss intelligent agents to suspend all rational thought this leads me to a simple question for my audience and for the opponents if I asked you about the development requirements for any piece of technology that contains coding logic gates programming nanomachines and exhibits temporal controls which defy simple cause and effect outcomes before even accounting for the physical structures required for the execution to begin in a specific place at a specific time it insisted they'd all come into being without an intelligent agent being required would you think I was exhibiting rational thoughts or could even be taken seriously I think not therefore it is my position that the existence of life by an undirected physical process without the action of an intelligent agent is not only neither logical plausible or probable but impossible as you consider these arguments and expansion of them throughout the debate ask yourself this question whose position is more rational is it those who conclude is more logical plausible and probable these things cannot occur by chance or those who argue no matter how counterintuitive it is you must believe this could all happen without a designer being required awesome thanks so much there James let me get my presentation here thank you John let's get it all set up here it looks like John went just at the seven-minute mark this shouldn't take me any more than seven minutes so I'll set my timer here actually before I do thanks so much for doing this debate guys looking forward to this thanks so much for filling in there JL I think this is going to be a good profitable and respectful dialogue so let's not waste any time here I've got about seven minutes so let's get started okay which model is stronger creation or evolution the answer to this question will come down to who is making the best testable predictions this is gold standard in science of course creations are the ones making testable predictions on DNA function mutation rates speciation rates and more let us get right into the model God said be fruitful and multiply not be fruitful and clone yourselves and so what makes the most sense both scientifically and theologically is that God created DNA differences from the start this is the idea of created heterozygosity Adam and Eve would have had within their DNA the genetic potential to produce every shade of skin that exists on this planet time is not required for the diversity today because diversity can be designed and built into Adam and Eve this idea of front-loaded DNA differences applies universally across the biblical kinds a direct prediction of this model has to do with the rate as to when new species form predictions are already coming true let us use birds as an example there are approximately 10 to 12,000 bird species alive on the planet today fall bird species today descend from a handful of bird kinds on the ark this would predict that roughly two to three new bird species would be forming per year for 4500 years now evolutionists would have us believe that birds today descend from theropod dinosaurs roughly 35 to 65 million years ago the speciation rate predictions between creation and evolution are significantly different new species of bird have been documented in real time as you can see here with the new species of finch observed on the Galapagos island this was after these predictions were made the resulting species were due to shifts in heterozygosity to homozygosity and once again just as predicted why are there so few bird species of deep time evolution is true why are there only 10 to 12,000 bird species today when evolution were true we should be seeing hundreds of thousands of bird species this goes for all sorts of species as you can see here lizards reptiles bats rabbits i've got all the sources here how do our opponents today address these problems how do the evolutionists here today deal with the new genetic boundary study that concluded roughly 90 of all animal life was roughly the same very recent age i want them to answer this question here's a confirmed prediction based on the y-chromosome the y-chromosome only goes back 4500 years to y-chromosome NOAA and genetic stamps on the history of civilization have been detected we've got the three major haplogroups found in our mitochondrial DNA that confirms the existence of NOAA's three daughters-in-law how do they address these problems let me strongly emphasize the fact that the absolute best evidence for evolution has been overturned and it is now in favor of the creation model of ancestry the entire junk DNA paradigm has been overturned the chromosome 2 fusion has been overturned the alleged site where the fusion supposedly took place actually represents a highly organized and functional gene the area is far too degenerant and there's a lack of evidence for the so-called cryptic centromere how do our opponents here today address these problems how about homology well we know that human engineers design and homologous patterns across the globe we see shared designs and even shared blueprints what about the so-called existence of transitional forms well think of a military vehicle that blends the features of both a land vehicle and a vehicle built for the ocean for example an amphibious assault vehicle creationists too predict interesting mosaics nested hierarchies as is shown here are simply characteristics of design and reflective of God's hierarchical nature lastly the best examples of evolutionary change are either reductive degrading to the function of the organism or simply general organismal adaptation or epigenetic there are no examples that our opponents here can present of evolutionary change the type that is necessary to take their fish to fishermen mutations are detrimental to life and natural selection is a fine-tuning mechanism that keeps a species as strong as it can be Dr. Nathaniel Jensen has made incredibly specific predictions on mutation rates including mutation rates in African people groups not yet known molecular clock studies as you can see here confirm Adam and Eve and biblical creation evolutionists look to time dependency to explain away the data if our opponents here today disagree with the eve date derived from straightforward mitochondrial DNA coalescence equations they need to make testable predictions when does the molecular clock speed up and slow down maybe they can answer this question at the start of the discussion portion another major prediction of this model of biblical ancestry involves DNA function we would predict that the vast majority of DNA and DNA elements are functional while evolutionists assume much of our genome is evolutionary leftovers or junk we have preliminary evidence for genome-wide functionality ENCODE has revealed that over 80% of our genome is actively transcribed into RNA suggesting function Dan Grower is the one who said if ENCODE is right evolution is wrong can the evolutionists refute this as you can see here from these numbers of papers we have we know that ERVs and other classes of retro transposons and ALUs for example accomplish many crucial functions in regulating gene expression they help determine cell types they help with development and even assist in cell stress responses here's a fascinating paper that goes over intronic ALUs influencing alternative splicing this is exactly what we would predict a genome of functional DNA elements created DNA units of function what about functional orphan genes that show independent ancestries how do they explain this incredible class of taxonomically restricted and essential genes these orphan genes defy universal ancestry these genes are unique sets of coding sequences that are are specific to particular organisms and they show no consistent hierarchy maybe our opponents can start off the discussion by answering this question or really any one of these extremely important questions i have a minute here so i'm almost done a couple more questions i would love to see answered in the discussion portion how do they explain the incredible dissimilarity between chimp and human y chromosomes how do they explain the low genetic diversity in human beings genesis tells us god created two human beings adamany this would severely restrict genetic diversity and this happens to be exactly what we find evolutionists were shocked by this which is why they had to post hoc ad hoc invent their fairy tale out of africa population bottleneck is this out of africa bottleneck even remotely feasible we can discuss that in the discussion portion of course everything we see today points to the death and destruction of a once perfect creation this includes our genome what type of selection can be presented that will select away so many deleterious mutations that are pouring into our genetics and degenerating our information systems we are devolving and not getting better no forward evolution is observed most mutations are unselectable and invisible to selection and artificially contrived rescue mechanisms such as synergistic epistasis and mutation count mechanism have been falsified can our opponents today answer any of these questions we shall see thanks so much thanks so much standing we'll switch it over so we will kick it over to our skeptical friends or you could say skeptical of creation but proponents of evolution and the floor is all yours thanks for being here guys yeah you're gonna be uh i'm gonna be presenting the evidence today for our side um as we already discussed hold on one second let me adjust my mic as we've already discussed uh fight the flat earth couldn't make it today and jail warrant is filling in for him so it'd be unfair to ask jail warrant to uh to you know present anything for today's uh today's presentation so uh give me one second i'm gonna be answering a lot of those questions you asked already most of them will be asked in my presentation and i'm ready to start when you are james absolutely ready for you okay so uh you can give me one second to get my my presentation up and i'll tell you when to share my screen or i guess you're sharing my screen right now right not yet i can when you want oh yeah okay i'll let you know when i'm ready but you can go ahead and put me on screen and i'll i'll be able to switch over when i'm ready um all right so hey guys thanks for joining us today to speak about evolution today we intend to provide three pieces of evidence that do support the modern theory of evolution we will be doing this by uh well with two of these pieces of evidence will come in the form of erv's he specifically mentioned erv's it's great that we're having this conversation because erv's are undeniable proof that evolution and natural selection is in fact true specifically the locations of shared erv's with chimps in the human genome and the ratio of the ltr ltr discontinuity of erv's and the correlation between the two as predicted by the accepted model of evolutionary theory and finally we will have a look at chromosome two which you also happen to bring up uh of the human genome and speak on its origins but before we begin i think this uh i think with this being an evolution debate it's only proper that we actually define evolution evolution is the mechanism that is responsible for the diversity of life on earth through natural selection this is due to the procreation process in life not being 100 efficient as genes are copied relentlessly in our body slight mistakes or mutations can occur and given enough time are responsible for all life on earth so let's talk about retroviruses and erv's a retrovi a retrovirus like hiv is an RNA virus this is key guys it's an RNA virus not a dna virus normally a retrovirus infects a host cell and hijacks its internal mechanisms to create more copies of itself effectively killing the host cell and spreading its RNA to to other cells every so often a retrovirus can infect a sperm or egg cell though this results in the virus becoming inactive however the viral RNA which is converted to DNA will become part of the host cells genome and will be passed on to future generations why erv's are so important to evolution is because they offer us definitive markers in our genes and can help us identify common ancestors in a nested hierarchy and more importantly it can test the predictions made by our current model of evolution but before we get into the evidence we must first prove that erv's are indeed viral in nature in nature and this goes to answer one of your questions uh that one of your uh suppositions that you put out earlier um so this is easy uh all erv's consist of several RNA viral specific genes this means that without these genes the you know the RNA is not uh functional okay it can't without the certain of these genes you can't transcribe the RNA into DNA uh and then you also can't protect the RNA virus uh from so that it can spread from one cell to another all right these genes are the the gag genes the pol genes and the env genes all right the gag uh the gag gene sole purpose is to produce the nucleocapsid that protects the RNA virus the pol gene codes for reverse transcriptase and the env genes allows the virus to produce glycoproteins which allow the viral cell to pass through a future host cell membrane all three of these genes are specific and unique to retroviruses the second way we know these are viral in nature are due to the discontinuity of LTR to LTR sites or long-terminal repeats that connect the viral DNA to the host DNA using integrase uh now now that we know generally what an erv is let's discuss the two independent ways it validates the standard model of evolution first is location of the erv in the genome i'm sure most of you have probably heard that the 96 percent of the human genome is identical and shared with the chimpanzee i don't think this actually sets into most people and i'm going to share a screen right here uh that that's going to highlight the the similarities between the human and champ genome now these are the human and champ dna strands the genome strands genetic material strands set next to each other side by side on each each column has two strands you can barely tell because they're so similar if you're not really getting close into the screen or making it bigger you can't even in some parts you wouldn't even be able to tell that there are actually two different lines there that's how similar they are now on the left of each of those lines is the human human dna on the right is the chimpanzee okay or the chromosomes i'm sorry the the chromosomes for the human on the right are the chromosomes for the chimpanzee as you can see they all line up but there's also something else that that's important about this okay give me one second to get back to my notes um all right so this graphic of course it shows that these two are lined up but there's also something that you need to notice on the short arm of chromosome 10 we find something interesting what's called an erv or the fossil of an old retrovirus another interesting find is that not only do both humans and chimpanzees share the genetic markers for this particular erv but the markers are in the exact same position on both the human and chimpanzee genome now that alone might not seem too impressive you know he threw out a bunch of big numbers just coming up with them and saying hey these are these are real numbers right let's talk about some real numbers there are 500 over 500 nucleotides and over 100,000 base pairs on those nucleotides this gives at minimum a one in 50 million chance that two identical ervs place themselves in identical spots on two separate species chromosomes one in 50 million now that's a lot but the odds of winning the lottery are much lower than that and people win the lottery all the time now let's head over to chromosome one again on the short arm we find evidence of another erv and again when comparing to the chimp data we find the exact erv in the exact location the probability of finding this erv in the exact location is the exact same as finding the first one one in 50 million to find both of them would have to be one in over 2.5 times 10 to the 15 or a really small number now that's two of them and these are just two of the 14 plus k-class ervs that are shared between chimps and humans one class of ervs and we're already reaching numbers that would way surpass whatever number you made up now these don't include w-class ervs or any of the other ervs because there's multiple types of ervs that are shared between humans and other species all right so the probability that this is by random luck alone is just too low to be statistically significant the second strong piece of evidence involving ervs is the LTR to LTR ratio of discontinuity in ervs due to the nature of how a retrovirus inserts itself into a host genome the two LTR sites are identical after insertion however any genetic mutations that occur on one LTR site will be unique from the other and this discontinuity between LTR sites gets passed down from generation to generation and species to species so I've basically explained ervs but I have not yet or I have yet to really tie down their exclusivity to the evolution model while I did point out the absurdity that the observation of unique ervs identical identical to chimps is completely due to chance ervs offer something much more useful to the explanation of the diversity of species let's say we have a species who has erv1 in its DNA it would stand to reason that if evolution were true then only descendants of that species should ever have erv have the erv1 now let's say that that species splits into two species species 1a and species 1b let's also say that species 1a contracts a second retrovirus and we're going to call this one erv2 it would stand to reason that the offspring of all future descendants of species 1a will have both ervs1 and 2 while all descendants of species 1b will only have retrovirus erv1 if this mechanism it's this mechanism that helps out or helps us hold on let me see that helps us design an independent nested hierarchies that at all levels appear to be consistent with the nested hierarchies established well before the science of genetics was born as far as LTR to LTR discontinuity discontinuity as previously stated the LTR sites are identical at the original insertion of the retrovial DNA into the host genome and given time random mutations will occur at one LTR site that is not present at the other LTR site given more and more time more and more discontinuity should occur between each LTR site or of a need i'm sorry not or of an individual erv these two pieces of evidence because they give the model of evolution or because they give the model of evolution through natural selection falsifiability um give the model or give the model of evolution through natural oh wait i'm sorry because i'm sorry because these i'm reading from a script right now they're great pieces of evidence because they give the model of evolution through natural selection and falsifiability, because these pieces of evidence make predictions which we can test today using modern technology. Now, do want to keep in mind something, the original tree of life was well before the discovery of genetics and DNA. So the fact that the data coming out from new science is consistent with the predictions made from old science stands as a strong indicator that the old science was indeed right as well. Let's see, one instance of this violation, or I'm sorry, the first prediction is this. If ERVs are genetically passed on to only future offspring of a previously infected species, then finding a common ERV in a species that does not share a common ancestor while not finding that same ERV in a species that has a more recent common ancestor would violate that. One instance of this, in fact, would destroy the evolutionary model. That's all you have to do, prove me wrong. Find one ERV that I do not find in a common ancestor that I do find in something that we don't share a common ancestor with, that based on time, because we all have one common ancestor. So based on time, you find a violation of this and you should be able to violate the evolutionary model. The second prediction made is that of LTR to LTR discontinuity. Since the ratio of discontinuity is a function of time, ERVs that are inserted into common ancestors much further back in our history will have a greater LTR to LTR discontinuity ratio than ERVs that are much more recent. And according to Dangle in a paper published in 1995, the degree of LTR to LTR discontinuity is proportional to the degree of taxonomic separation of the species that share the ERV. Now what really defines this evidence to be a killer is that both of these predictions are made by an independent mechanism. The ERV insertion location is completely independent of the random mutations at the LTR sites. Yet both of these events can be predicted by the understanding of speciation through natural selection and verified with modern technology. The key point to take away from these two pieces of evidence is that random chance alone cannot explain these observations while the mechanisms of evolution perfectly predict them. The third and probably most damaging piece of evidence against creationism or anti-evolutionism is the second chromosome of the human body. See humans have 46 chromosomes, 23 from mom, 23 from dad. Couple of creationists may have an extra one but that's besides the point. The three primates that most closely relate to humans all have 48 chromosomes. Now, if the model of evolution and nested hierarchies are to be correct, then this missing chromosome needs to be explained. It could not have just been lost as that would have been lethal to our species. Leaving us with just two possibilities. Either our common ancestor had 46 chromosomes and the others gained two chromosomes or the most likely option was that we originally had 48 chromosomes due to the fact that the other three primates have 48 chromosomes and the human lineage lost to as a result of some other mechanism. In this case, it would be fused chromosomes. So we actually have 48 chromosomes or there's 48 chimp chromosomes in us but two of them are fused together to give us 46 total. Now this explanation cannot be regarded as nothing more than an ad, or I'm sorry, this explanation can be regarded as nothing more than an ad hoc explanation filling the gaps. I'm sure creationist surely shouldn't have a problem with that since God of the gaps is essentially their entire argument. But in the interest of intellectual honesty and integrity, I will posit that if this observation cannot be scientifically explained and backed with evidence, then evolution is wrong. Bottom line. And sure enough, scientists were able to prove that the human chromosome too has telomeres and centromeres where they do not belong. Suggesting that the individual human, that the suggesting that the two chromosomes fused together to form one. Not only did they find the individual human chromosome that this took place in being chromosome two, but they could also identify which chimpanzee chromosome was the one that it fused with chromosome 13. Resulting in the human lineage losing a chromosome pair and passing that on to future generations. Creationists currently have no explanation at all for the fusing of this chromosome. And the genetic passing of these mutations on to their offspring. While the evolutionary model perfectly and eloquently describes and predicts these events. In conclusion, the location-specific ERVs that are shared through common ancestry, the ratio of discontinuity of LTR sites is a function of time. And human chromosome two are all strong and irrefutable pieces of evidence to suggest that the model of speciation through natural selection is in fact correct. And the creationist explanation of the diversity of life is nothing more than a fairy tale. Gotcha, thanks so much. Appreciate that. We will kick it back into the main screen. So, J.L., if you have anything to add, we can kick the mic over to you. Otherwise, we will get going on the open discussion. Actually, team presented the excellent evidence and it's exactly where I would have stood. So, I'm ready to go when you guys are. You bet. All right, floor is yours, guys. Okay, I think I'll start here. I appreciate that opening team skeptic that was well done. You touched on some of my favorite topics. So, I think this is going to be a really good discussion. I'm sure it's gonna fly by. Nested hierarchies, chromosome two fusion and dodgenous retroviruses, for example. I'll give a quick rebuttal and then I'll follow it up with a question. So, as I kind of pointed out in my opening, nested hierarchies in general, say in DNA, anatomy and physiology are also expected by creationists based on the design model. Therefore, when it comes to the endogenous retroviruses and the retro transposons, the question we need to ask ourselves is what are retro transposons? Are they really the leftover remnants of viral infections in our DNA? And I know you pointed to the pole gene, the gag, the ENV, for example. So, they do have similarities to RNA viruses, of course, but evolutionists, they've assumed the former. And this is because, as you've pointed out, and I agree, they bear strong similarities to actual viruses. So, that would actually predict that these sequences are, for the most part, non-functional evolutionary leftovers. But according to our model... Hold on, can I ask you a question before you move on to the next part? Because I do have a question about that specific topic. What would be the function of the Pol and the Gag gene before, if they were not viral in nature? Well, I can directly answer that on the GAG gene. For retro transposons, it actually acts as a security passcode to get it to move into new locations through portals and such. It's well-documented in different uses of the Gag gene. So, I'm not really sure what your point is on that. Can you give me a notation on that? I do have notations for everything. If I could jump in real quick. I've put about 12 technical papers in my opening suggesting that these endogenous retroviruses and the other classes of retro transposons accomplish many crucial functions. And just to name a few of them. And I can screen share the papers again. But, for example, Yeah, please do. Gen expression, differentiation and development. And what's fascinating, actually, is many of these retro transposons, they have the start sequence for many different genes, especially genes in the brain. So, these jumping genes, they can actually jump around the genome, turning on and off genes performing functional roles. So, my question to you, and you can take as much time as you need to answer it, would you have a technical paper, a peer reviewed technical paper that can show any one of these classes of retro transposons, including the endogenous retroviruses, going from non-functional to something extremely functional in our genome. For example, in determining style types and the number of other functional roles. Because that's what we would predict that they are functional DNA elements. And that's exactly what we find to be true. Take your time to answer it and I'll screen share the papers as well. So, take your time. Yeah, let me, you asked for evidence of a retro transposon going from non-functional to what? So, since the, if you can see here, I'm screen sharing, there's probably a bit of a lag. So, my question was, do you have any like empirical evidence, any technical papers that show a non-functional endogenous retrovirus or any one of the... I'm seeing a bunch of things jumping around on here. I'm not sure. Cause I've got a lot of papers here. Stop it. Yeah, stop it on one that gives, that supports your... Hey, while you're finding the right paper standing. I'm there, I'm there. So retroviral promoters in the human genome, endogenous non-retroviral RNA viruses, elements, evidence of a novel type of antiviral immunity. And John can speak to this as well. So we do know that they're functional DNA elements. Even the ALUs, fascinatingly, look at this. Entronic ALUs influence alternative splicing. So a direct prediction of our created heterozygosmine model would be that the vast majority of our genome and DNA sequences and DNA elements, including the pseudogenes, would be functional and important to the organisms, of course. So that's exactly what we see here based on peer-reviewed technical papers. So if you want to answer my question- And your assertion is that the non-functional are all just junk DNA that they were... How did they get there to begin with then? Well, that's the thing. These were created units of DNA function. That's our prediction. So we've predicted, and it's in print from intelligent design PhD scientists years ago that we would discover- Intelligent design PhD scientists. Okay. I need to- So real quick- I just need- Standing, hang on, man. Real quick, I know you're excited. Okay, go ahead, John. Go ahead. I'll leave the papers- I just need the references. Since our opponent is going to try and go down that rabbit hole, let's go science direct. Neuronal gene arc encodes a retro-transpose on gag protein that mediates intracellular RNA transfer. Can you share the papers? Arc protein exhibits- I'm on my phone, man. I can- I've got the papers here if you want to see. Arc protein exhibits similar biochemical properties as retroviral gag proteins. Endogenous arc protein is released from neurons in extracellular vehicles. Arc EVs and capsids can mediate intracellular transfer of arc mRNA in neurons. That's just one example. There's plenty of those. And that's directly from Science Direct. Okay, and these are transcribed from ERVs, from the components of an ERV or just components that are similar to components that are in ERVs. See, I don't know because you're not providing me with any information. You're just reading it over a cell. It's the retro-transpose ones themselves that have- Can you not share the link to that so I can see what you're actually reading? Okay, so are you going to listen to what I just said, which is I'm trying- My computer crashed. I'm doing this from my freaking phone right now. I can't be doing as much as- Well, if he could just answer the question, then we can, I mean- But the point I'm making is that you're trying to argue that we're not being able to counter this. You specifically used the gag protein as a specific example, trying to play a gotcha moment. And I am responding with a specific use of the gag protein for retro-transpose ones and the retro-viral elements that it is as functional that you just used as evidence for it not being evidence in our favor. So I'm not really sure how you're reaching that conclusion. If I can, can I jump in there and get a little clarification on something real quick? Of course, of course, go ahead, Gail. So real quick, I'm just kind of curious. What about this process are you questioning that is allowing for the insertion of a creator or designer in order to explain the mechanism of what you're saying? Right, so we're saying that these supposed ERVs, they're claimed to be ancient infections of viruses. Therefore, are they really the ancient invasion of viruses or are they functional DNA units? And I'm pointing out that the evidence shows that these ERVs are functional, but not only that, they have crucial functions that help regulate genes and even determine cell types. For example, real quick, real quick. For example, I have a paper here that says far from being junk DNA, and this is in pure view journals, the pervasive retro transposons that populate the genome and no one's disagreeing that we find these retro transposons in our genome, but it says they have a powerful capacity to influence genes in chromatin. So my question is, do you have any evidence that suggests that these are not functional units of DNA function? Yeah, there is no need outside of a fucking RNA. There's no need to have any transcriptase, right? There's no need. Why would you, hold on, hold on. Why would you need reverse transcriptase? I'm sorry, reverse transcriptase. Let's give team a chance to respond. So reverse transcriptase would not be needed for anything that had DNA. Our entire genetic thing, our entire genetic code is DNA. There is no RNA in it. It's a DNA. Okay, so why is there, why is there a code inside of our DNA that codes for the reverse transcriptase gene or protein? Okay, so you obviously don't know exactly, actually know what retro transposons do in many cases, especially in embryo developments where they are physically inserted, taken from being DNA. In embryo developments where you have, we have half of the genome, half of the genome is your mom, half is genome is your dad, yeah. No, no, I'm talking post-recombination skeptic. So if you'll shut up and listen, the point I'm making, you just said they had no purpose, right? Well, what we now know is that in, as an example, in embryo developments, retro transposons are put into specific locations during embryo development. That process, which by the way uses the gag protein is taken from DNA, turned into mRNA, transferred by proteins, reverse transcriptase back into DNA and inserted into a specific location during that developmental process. Right, it happens twice. I got not done yet. Then, this goes back to time-based temporal controls. I talked about my opening statement. At different, once that stage of development is passed, that same retro transposon is grabbed, is extracted from that position, moved to a different one, and now results in a different outcome when it's reinserted into a different position than genome. So to say that that does not have significance when studies show that if you don't do that, embryos die. So I'm pretty sure that if you can't live without it, that actually constitutes being rather important and having function your mental position aside. Actually, and real quick, and I just want to make a quick point without being interrupted, and then Team Skeptic, take as much time as you need, so I just, no, no, that's okay, that's okay. It's a good discussion, and you've brought up some good lines of evidence. Hopefully we can move on to the fusion after this, but this topic deserves- No, we're not done yet with this. Heavy discussion. So, no, we can talk about this all day. So our point is that many of these so-called ancient viral infections are actually very good for us. So these retro transposons, they're jumping around the genome, they're turning on and off various types of genes. Now, as John was kind of iterating regarding embryological development, there's a class of retro transposons in the mouse embryo, that when you deactivate it, the mouse embryo will develop and then it stops. Well, the question is why? It's because it depends on the function of these retro transposons, which the evolutionists have always assumed was junk. So if these are incredibly important to our DNA, and you're saying that they're nothing more than ancient viral infections millions of years ago, were these mice just not having children until they got that viral infection, and then somehow that viral infection was co-opted? So the very simple question is, do you have any evidence? So yes, the human placenta, the human placenta is exactly evidence of a useless junk RNA virus, ERV, okay? A retro virus that got introduced into our genome and became pushed on from generation to generation, physically changed the way cells bind with each other. And this led to eventually, it didn't immediately happen, but it eventually led to the humans being able to have a placenta on the inside of their body and babies to be born inside instead of being put out as an egg on the outside, okay? Now we can track this, this ERV all the way back to the beginning of primates, or not to be, I'm sorry, not primates, mammals. We can track this all the way. You can't track it. It's inferred, you're looking in the false record. So you're, no, no, we can know, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. We can go into the genetic, no, we can find this, we can find this ERV in the genetic, no, of all mammals. We see the ERVs are there. And the cytokine, cytokine one and two, no, cytokine one and two, hold on, yes, listen, cytokines are from, hold on, no, no, no, no, because listen, the original mutation. Hold on, one sec, hold on, one sec, hold on, bro, sorry team, I'll let you talk in a sec. I muted you both just because, just to regain order. Let's give team a chance to respond, and then I promise we'll come back to you standing for truth. Interrupt, go ahead. Yeah, so no, so the actual mammals, as humans, we don't even use that mutation anymore anyway. We've already gone beyond that to cytokine one and two proteins that we use for our placenta. So yes, we've continued to mutate away from that original mutation that was because of the ERV. And we can track that ERV across all mammalian species, not just primates. Okay, here, let me respond real quick. So you can track through genome sequencing. You can track the patterns regarding these ALUs, the ERVs, the retrotransposons. Yes, they do form nested hierarchical patterns. Therefore, are they thereby designed or ancestry? So we're pointing out that these ERVs specifically, if you wanna focus on that, they accomplish extremely crucial functions in regulating gene expression, differentiation, and development, and this is seen across the entire animal kingdom, for example. So you're assuming that they are the result of ancient viral infections. And we're pointing out, no, these are functional DNA elements and we're listing off function after function after function and paper after paper after paper. So our question to you is, do you have a technical paper you can screen share that could show us a non-functional endogenous retrovirus or any one of these classes of retrotransposons going from non-functional to something extremely functional in our genome? Can you provide that? Actually, if I can jump in there real quick, because there's a problem with the line of reasoning that you're going down because what you're asking him for would not be evidence to support the insertion of a creator into the arguments. So whether it exists or not, it's still not evidence to put a designer or any kind of creator in that fashion and external influence. It still would not be evidence for that. And that's where you're coming from. That's the foundation of your argument is the influence of a designer exterior to the natural processes of the earth. Okay, so let's think about your point right there. So the point that I was making in the context of the temporal variable control of gene expression, in something that until this was realized was considered junk DNA with no purpose, supposedly evidence of evolution. You gotta stop using the term junk DNA. It's vestigial DNA. That's what it is. It's vestigial. It's no longer useful, but it's still... It's really being called non-coding DNA or gene regulatory networks now. It's actually the real term. Okay. And we know... And the junk DNA is a dog whistles to another area of thought, so. But remember, but remember. The dog wear is the words that come directly out of people like Dawkins' mouth. Okay, I don't think so, buddy. But the point I was making is you're claiming that there's no evidence for a designer when I'm talking about time-based variable control of time-based... Okay, so you're suggesting that natural selection somehow had the ability to foresee the future and put in time-based controls in two different areas that aren't have zero connection point? No, these are natural functions of DNA under evolutionary pressures. Oh, really? Time-based control that's happening in... Oh, yeah, no, no. Did that... No, you're coming with... You're coming with an argument from complexity is that it's so... It is complex. It's extremely complex, but complexity is not evidence for an external effect. Let's think about this. It's also a prediction of our model. That's the important thing to think about. The problem is that... The problem is that however you want to argue the complexities of how DNA works or how all of these processes work in an environment of evolutionary pressures, none of this leads to evidence that supports the insertion of an external creator and external instigator. Okay, hang on. I just want to make a point real quick. I just want to make a point real quick. Do we get all your point there, Jail? Yeah, yeah, go ahead. So it's not just an argument from complexity. It's also an argument from the fact that we're making testable predictions. The gold standard of science is making testable predictions. Evolutions have always assumed that the vast majority of our genome is non-functional evolutionary leftovers. You can see a recent paper in 2017 from Dan Grar that says, well, if ENCODE is right, which ENCODE revealed that over 80% of our genome is actively transcribed into RNA, suggesting function, then evolution is wrong. Because that means those mutations that are accumulating are going to degenerate us a lot faster than they ever thought. So they have to hold to the assumption that the vast majority of our genome is jumped. Yet now we know even pseudo genes, they produce RNAs that increase the expression of their corresponding functional genes, the ERVs, ALUs, all of these other classes, the retro-transposons, the non-protein coding RNAs, they regulate virtually all aspects of the gene expression pathway. And we have these predictions in print and they come true and they're confirmed every single day. What kind of predictions can you guys make regarding DNA function? Go ahead, go ahead. Let me ask you a question. Let me ask you a simple question real quick. How, I want you to explain to me how it's possible for humans and chimpanzees to both have that ERV on on arm 10, on short arm 10, how is it possible for both of them to have the ERV in the exact same location with the exact same LTR to LTR, I mean, not the LTR to LTR continuity, but the exact same location on both of the arms, on both of species, I'm sorry. That's a good question. That's a good question. So that comes down to my initial question. Are they really the ancient infection of viruses or are they created units of DNA functions? So when it comes to the nested hierarchical patterns, you're right, we do see more shared endogenous viruses and ALUs, for example, with chimps than we would with the old world monkeys and down the line, we do see nest hierarchies. Right, no, I agree with that. So that's why that question is, are they created units of DNA function or are they the result of ancient viral infections? So I pointed out in my opening that naturally we as humans, we have designed things with groups within groups patterns, okay? So if we were to look at the types of vehicles, for example, or even just modes of transportation that we have created, we accidentally build in these groups within groups nested hierarchical patterns. For example, if we look at a sedan, they have a tremendous amount of similarities with other sedans. Now, if you bring in say a semi-tractor trailer, that's obviously much more different than a sedan, kind of comparing it to like a dog versus a human being or a chimpanzee, but those two modes of transportation are similar enough to each other that it sets them apart from airplanes. So we would expect based on the design model that humans and chimps would share more of these DNA units than a human and a dog. So the nested hierarchical patterns, that line of evidence, that observation, that's agnostic to the debate, but the differentiating line of evidence would be the DNA function. Are they non-functional evolutionally? Or are they created units of DNA function? And the evidence suggests that they are functional DNA units. Go ahead. No, no, no, no, no. But okay, yes, you could say that there's an equal probability on both models until you bring in the LTR to LTR discontinuity as a function of time. So as you stated, we do see more, let's say with old world monkeys, okay? We do see, let's say we have an ERV that we both share with an old world monkey. We expect to see, based on the evolution model, we expect to see every lineage that broke off from the old world monkey, the orangutan, the gorilla, the chimpanzee, the human. We should see that ERV in each of those people, but also another prediction that's made because evolution says that random mutations happen. For it to be random means that some LTRs will eventually have a random mutation on them. If we were to always see LTRs always exactly the same, then we would need to explain that with our theory of evolution, with our model of evolution. So what we see in the old world monkey, what we should see is the ratio of discontinuity between the two LTR sites should be greater with old world monkeys, a little bit less with orangutans, a little bit less with gorillas, a little bit less with chimpanzees, and then all the way down to what we have as human. Now, that's another thing, that's a second model that validates, that works exactly with what we're saying when it comes to natural selection. Well, real quick, yeah. So it's just like your highly conserved mitochondrial DNA proteins, for example, the cytochrome C, all of these gene sequences that you look at, they form nested hierarchical patterns and the evolutionists, universal common descent, would predict that those differences are a reflection of time, divergence time. We're gonna share more with the chip because we share more of a recent common ancestor with the chip than we do with the rabbit. But that's why the question is, are they actually the result of mutations over time? Evolutionists assume that all the DNA differences are the result of mutation over time, but the prediction that we make, and I explained it in my opening regarding the created heterozygosity hypothesis that God would have front loaded these functional DNA elements and units into Adam and Eve, which would apply universally across species, we predict them to be functional. Since we both predict the patterns, the nested hierarchical patterns, we both expect more similarities in a human and a chip than we would with a human and an old world monkey or human and a rabbit. This is just common sense, realistically. Therefore, if you can provide evidence that these are really non-functional evolutionary leftovers or the result of mutations and mistakes over time, then yeah, that would be evidence for universal common ancestry. But what we find is that they are extremely functional and important to our genome. And that's why the same question I've been asking you since the beginning, you need to provide us evidence, whether it's in a technical paper or just give us an argument here as to how these retro transposons or the pseudo genes ALUs, whatever you want to look at have gone from non-functional viral infections or mistakes to something incredibly functional in our genome. And I want to give you as much time as you need to just- Right, well, the- How's that possible? Evolution is an extremely complex system of pressures, okay? It's not, a lot of people always think it's just one pressure that dictates how a species will evolve, but it's not. It's the environment of pressures that pushes a species in one direction versus another. Even just seeing when we separate modern day species, we separate them for long enough in different environments, we start to notice genetic differences based on just the simple separation of the two species. Even though they still remain in the same species and they can breed with each other and whatnot, we can begin to see genetic changes in one species versus another, okay? So the evolution of a retrovirus into something that's functional and from something that's non-functional into something that's functional, it's possible due to exactly what we say is the driving mechanism for evolution. That's just stories. The fact that it's a random mutation that ultimately either was selected for or against when it comes to the pressures of the environment. So in other words, no answer that's been given. Hey, go ahead, John. Yeah, I don't want to dominate. Go ahead, John. Quick interjection here. So to me, it sounds like the logic flow you're trying to follow is if the he, what's the story? Tom Brady and his wife, before he got married to his wife, you tried to have sex with her and she refused. Then she goes and reproduces with Tom Brady and then all of their people stay and only procreate with NFL players and former Victoria's Secret models. And then you fast forward down and now, oh my goodness, we're seeing some differences in these people. Does that mean that they are now examples of evolution or are they still humans that are now having existing functions expressed in a different variation? Right, good point. Because that's exactly what's happening and that is also exactly what is occurring in what you're trying to explain as evolution. It's not the result of new function. It's the modification existing function, whether it be through epigenetics or through actually degradation of existing function or the maximization of recessive genes now become dominant genes. This isn't some kind of new, whole new organism coming into play. We're talking about variations within existing functionality. That's like saying if you went and did some drag and drop on software and you turned on a function that you had deactivated, now you're gonna say that's evolution. Come on now. Okay, so here's what we say. We say we have a idea, a concept, a model, okay? And this model will give us predictions that we can test. And here's what our model says. Random mutations are going to happen and these mutations will be passed on through sexual, through genetics, through the passing of procreation, okay? So we can take just those two concepts and begin to test theories out, begin to test our data to see if it matches what our theories say. And how is that hypothetical tested? How are you guys, how is it actually being accomplished? Is there any? Okay, so do you understand, listen, listen, listen, listen, do you understand that when a retrovirus, when the ERV inserts itself, that the LTR sites on each side will be identical? Hold on, hold on, no, we see no wrong, you're incorrect. HIV is a fucking retrovirus. It inserts itself into our DNA. This is not something new to us. You do understand that the LTR sites on both sides are identical, correct? When they're inserted. Well, that's a bad example because HIV exists in all primings. Hold on, hold on, you're saying that the LTR is an assumption I'm making that the retrovirus is inserting itself into the DNA. This is not an assumption that I'm making. This is absolutely genetic fact. Hold on, do you agree or disagree? Hold on, do you agree or disagree that the LTR sites on both sides of the insertion of a retrovirus are identical? That's the first thing I wanna ask you, yes or no? Sure, it doesn't matter if they're identical or not. Okay, great, great, yes it does. Absolutely fucking does because retroviruses are nothing new to us, okay? They've been going on for millions and millions and millions of years and we see it in our DNA. That's fine, you can say. That's fine, that's fine, that's fine that you don't want to accept it. But we see it in our genetics and you're gonna have to explain it other than to say, right, hold on. Then walk through this project. I started by asking you first off if the LTR sites were the same on each side of a retrovirus and you started and you began to say, how do we even know that retroviruses are inserted? That is intellectual dishonesty at its finest because we know for a fact that retroviruses do exist and they do insert themselves into the human genome. Okay, that is, that's how they fucking, that's how they expand and go from cell to cell. Here's the thing, the retrovirus, well real quick, let me say, the thing is the retroviruses themselves could have originated from within the host genome instead of invading it from the outside because this would have had to be in the case. Do you have any proof of that? I've shown it right. We have proof today. Real quick. No, do you have any proof that it was automatically inserted? You're right, go ahead, go ahead, you're right. Let's kick it over. Retroviruses are dependent upon post-cells. That means that the cell's genome had to predate the viruses because if viral DNA is inserted, as you're saying, at random into the genome millions of years ago and became an endogenous retrovirus, guess what? It's more likely to disrupt existing genes. For example, a blindfolded painter is obviously going to mess up the painting he is working on by just applying random brush strokes to it. Therefore, that's why the question is, you can't say that it would most likely do that because our sample size is one. Well, let's give him a chance to respond and then finish that point he was making. And then, Prans, we'll come right back to team and JL. Right, so my question is very simple. We both expect the nested hierarchical patterns and the similarities, okay? We predict that these are functional DNA elements, important to our genetics, and that's exactly what we find, that they're important in regulating gene expression, they're important in the gastrointestinal tract. I mean, I provided about 15 papers. Here's a question. All of that is predicted by natural selection. Okay, well, real quick, I don't want to add a lot of you. 18, how about you shut your mouth and let us actually talk? You've been dropping F-bongs, how about you shut up? Yeah, here, I'm gonna ask a quick question. I want you to actually answer this, okay? So if we're looking at something like a DNA unit that's not consistent with a hierarchy, it's a question I ask in my opening regarding orphan genes because there's a huge problem for your model here of animal origins is the fact that these novel DNA sequences that are highly functional exist. And guess what? They're unique traits that are associated with and appear suddenly and fully functional without any real trace of evolutionary ancestry. I asked this question to conspiracy cats in a debate the other day and unfortunately no response from him. Do you have an explanation for these? Oh, he responded to you, he responded to you and you ran from his 57 independent studies that he gave you of volume of the ocean. I saw that. No, actually, I pointed out the assumption. Yeah, you didn't, you didn't. Well, you're going to get right to mine, hold on. I was making a point when he started getting away from the point and I'm gonna bring it back to the point, all right? Evolution predicts that first off, evolution doesn't predict that the LTR sites are going to be identical. That is how genetics works. That's how a retrovirus inserts itself into our DNA. So the LTR sites at insertion are, they have to be identical. There's no arguing that they have to be. It wouldn't fit in if it didn't. It would result in a damaged DNA and it wouldn't work. So it has to be original. Now, all I'm saying is I'm not saying let's go look at the data and make up how this happened looking at the data. I'm saying let's talk about what evolution is and let's go look at the data and see if it matches our evolutionary model or not. Now, what evolution says is that random mutations from the point of insertion moving forward in time, any random mutation on one LTR will be unique to that LTR. You won't see it on one LTR and then get it on the other, okay? So evolution suggests that retroviruses that were inserted less further back in time will have less of a discontinuity between the two LTR sites. And ones that are inserted further back will have more discontinuity between the LTR sites. And just like you guys were agreeing that in our hierarchy, it's humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, old world monkeys, right? I believe that's how it is, old world monkeys after orangutans, but then you should be able to go and look to see what the ratio of this discontinuity is and invalidate evolution based on just that. You should be able to go and do that, but you can't because it matches up exactly with what we should say. We are going to go to Q&A soon. I'll give you a chance to respond, Stanley for Truth. And then hopefully we'll hear just a bit more from J.L. just to be sure that he's had plenty of time to contribute as well as John. And so yeah, go ahead, Stanley for Truth. I'll make one last point and then let them take it over. So as I pointed out, the nested hierarchical patterns, the similarities in all of the biological world are expected on both sides. We build in homologous patterns. We also build in nested hierarchical patterns. And of course, since the creation event, mutations would occur. For one, mutations are degrading to the organism. So mutations are not going to take your fish to fishermen, but we would expect subtle differences in these sequences that could or could not reflect the nested hierarchical patterns. That's why I pointed out to a differentiating line of evidence like the orphan genes that are actually specific to particular organisms and they're fully functional without any real trace of evolutionary history and they're also inconsistent with any real hierarchy. So I was just looking for an answer to the orphan gene. Yeah, so let me ask you a question. I wanna bring up, you said that any mutation is going to result in a degradation of the gene. Is that correct? That's right. Okay, well that is incorrect because the sickle cell anemia gene is a, I believe that's a remnant of a retrovirus. No, sickle cell? Yeah, and it's population specific to all ancestors from Africa. Sickle cell anemia is due to a broken protein, broken cell. That was caused by an ERV. It was caused by an ERV. Let me see. We are pretty soon here. Are you suggesting that something that, from a macro level has a degradation in function is equals a non-negative mutation? Is that the point you're trying to make? No, he said a mutation is always, no, he said a mutation degrades the DNA. It does. Because sickle cell anemia is a degradation. No, you're completely ignoring some of the disengagement. It enables a slight advantage in terms of staving off malaria. And if you had a thing of the overall negative. Yeah, right. And why did we not have that? Why do white people not have sickle cell? Why do we not have the ERV or the sickle cell anemia? Let me explain the sickle cell. I've studied that in a week. Standing, hang on a second. Yeah, go ahead. I'll give you a second. Team, I honestly wonder if you actually use your brain because- What are you fucking talking about? I literally just said that an ERV is damaging. Let him respond. You've got Q and A soon. We've got to make this snappy. So let's get to the arguments. Okay, so well, you team skeptic then, because he's interrupting me every single time. The, you have a mutation that allows for a adaptation in a specific subset. But that mutation, do you point about why do white people not have this? Well, they weren't in the same scenario needing the adaptation, which was a result, it was a degradation of a genetic function in the cell. And- So the degradation- I'm not done talking yet, man. Put it back on mute. The- Fuck you. Yeah, that put, would you suggest that people with sickle cell anemia do not have massive, the greater risk and a plethora of other issues than, oh, cool. I'm not- Oh yeah, sure. When they're in America, but not when they're in Africa. No, in Africa it helps them defend against malaria. Don't you think that's an evolutionary advantage? Okay, did you not follow the words that came out of my mouth? Jesus Christ. They had one advantage, one advantage, but overall negatives. So it got passed on in that subset of population and not passed on out. If you can comprehend that premise, then clearly you do not have- If it's not advanced- Right. If it's not an advantage, then we'll give it a stretch to the other- Well, can I make a quick point on sickle cell? People that have that mutation that cause sickle cell anemia have a broken gene, which makes a broken protein. This means that overall this mutation is reductive. That's our point. Yeah, why is it beneficial? They say, well, okay, people with this broken gene and broken protein, the red blood cells are defective to the point, okay, where malaria cannot thrive in the person with this condition. Therefore, they are more resistant to malaria. But guess what? The sickness associated with the disease results in a resistance to the malaria parasite due to broken cells, broken protein. That's reductive. That's not taking anything forward. Stay in winter insertion here. Sickle cell anemia is an inherited disease, operative word, that affects red blood cells with an abnormal version of hemoglobin. Approaching the cure. So, we're going to- We're going to, because we let both- It is literally a disease- We're going to let- Because we let standing- Say it wasn't a fucking disease. Hold on one second. You can't- Are you saying the cancer is a positive? John, listen up, hold on a second. Yeah, Lord, make your stupid tail. It is because we are, okay, it's on mute, only because of, so, you're on mute. So, the point here is, we gave standing for truth in John, those last two, one, two, that one, two combo there, and then what we'll do now is give the last word over to team and JL, and then once we give them the last chance to reply, we will go into the Q and A. So, is it on me and JL right now? Yep. Okay. So, the entire argument that, that God created us all this way, and this is why we see similar ERVs and primates, why we can go and track which primate is least like us based on all these genes, and we can just say, oh, well God just did that. Or we can say, we can apply scientific knowledge to it, and without even saying, let's try to get our evidence to support our conclusion. We can just define what the mechanism is, and we can say what should, what do we expect to see? And every time we look, we expect to see exactly what evolution predicts. We expect to see the ERVs in the same location as they're not fucking random. They don't just randomly select from one, you know, one genetic one, when we have an offspring, that ERV doesn't just move completely to a different chromosome. It's going to be location specific, which is one of the ways we can use it to identify common ancestors. The LTR to LTR, I'm sorry. Did we get a quick closing too? Yeah, I was thinking like last word is in like, like the last one. Oh, I was just doing my conclusion. I was doing my conclusion. I was doing my conclusion. I was doing my conclusion. John can take the rest. So the one thing, unfortunately, so we addressed the ERVs, yep, so we addressed the ERVs. Well, I didn't know that team, well, let's go back to team to let them finish that closing and then we'll give you a closing scanning. No, I'm totally confused as to what the fuck's actually going on. Am I doing my outro right now? By last word, I meant like the last word on this, the particular issue that you guys were going back and forth on, but we can do a closing that's, that works. Let's do a closing. Okay, I'll, not you. We just, I didn't, I interrupted team. So I got to let them finish that closing and then we'll come back. Of course, my apologies, James. No problem. So basically the entire argument is that it, God all set it in motion and there's looking beyond what we want to find is, if we ever find anything that science can explain, we'll just go ahead and attribute it to God and just blow off the scientific explanation. However, we can not assume God as someone like me, right? I can not assume God and I can come to the same exact conclusions as you can based on scientific models. And then when comparing the data, the scientific, the modern scientific data that we can take will corroborate the model of evolution. This is done with LTR to LTR ratio discontinuities and it's done with the placement and location of ERVs. Two things that creationists will never be able to explain no matter how hard they try. Well, okay, hold on. So sorry, I've done something wrong because now standing for truth would be both starting and ending, which is not good. So what we can do is... I don't even care. I'm getting a closing statement, Jay. Oh, well, yeah, I just, I have a quick closing. I'll even set my time to us in a minute. JL gets it, why don't we do, we'll give you standing a closing or John and then we'll go back to JL for a final closing. Thanks for that idea. I just need, I was team's idea. Sure, I just need 30 seconds. I'll even put my timer on. So, yeah, obviously we address the ERVs sufficiently. He had no answer, he dodged the question the entire time. We addressed the nested hierarchies. The other thing he brought up was the chromosome 2 fusion. I predicted that, so I refuted it in my opening. That reputed fusion site is overlapped by a functional gene. The so-called fusion site he points to is not a fusion site at all. It's a functional component of that DDX11L2. So he can look that up. There's no evidence for the cryptic centromere he talks about and no evidence for the vestigial telomeres. And then there's a satellite DNA problem. So we've provided predictions on DNA function. We didn't even get to touch on the molecular clocks. That point is right back to Adam and Eve, but I would say this was a good debate, but I don't think they answered any questions, including the orphan gene question. So go ahead, John, you can finish the rest of it. Well, I mean, obviously team skeptic has some serious anger issues and also a significant IQ problem, given the fact that he can't comprehend that something that is classified as a disease would not equal a degradation in genetic function versus a positive. I mean, that just how you can even come to that conclusion and then angrily defend it, obviously speaks to his lack of rational thinking and inability to use his brain to actually contemplate whether or not this crappy spewing actually has reasonable expectation or if it's a fantasy fairy tale that gets told based on dramatic assumptions on, oh, we're gonna track all this history and this lineage, but let's not talk about or tell people what the assumptions are in our algorithms that we're using to supposedly prove our evidence beyond all doubt. It's fine, it's so ironic how people who believe in intelligent design are accused of being the ones making things up when, of course, you can make your predictions and have evidence if you literally argue or alter the factors and the variables needed to result in the end outcome that supports your position. So, hey, everybody, I'm gonna be doing a after-cardie over on my channel, come over there and we'll discuss some of this stuff in more detail. We'll give the last word to JL and we were basically, what we'll do is if anybody on any side has an after-show, let us know and we can make you a mod so you can put it in the live chat and we can even put it in the description for you and that's no matter what side you're on. So we will kick it over to JL for the very last word before the Q and A. Wow, where to begin on that? So, yeah, the forest of genetics and evolutionary biology is very, very dense and it's not typically where my focus usually is. I'm usually focused on a theus and where they try to inject their God into the arguments. As far as the conversation that went, we never did get to chromosome two, they never did provide anything to oppose that and never did address the reproductive advantages of sickle cell anemia in African populations and they don't have a response to LTR and LTR discontinuity, but ultimately our opponents are bearing the lead in the respect because they're creationists, they come from the theory of growth or this hypothesis of creationism and the problem is that whether the environment, you don't wanna get lost in the miasma of information that you can get from genetics, but the problem is you're still inserting a creator, you're still inserting a designer at some point in there and there is no evidence for that. So when you create your theory and then you try to mold the facts to fit your theory, that's where your problem, you're inherently biased in that and in the conclusion that you draw from that, you have to take the facts and then mold the theories to fit the facts as you come across them and that you have not done. In your arguments, you throw, you completely throw out synergistic epistasis, which facilitates the purging of deleterious mutations in sexual reproductive populations. You can completely ignore the function of telomeres and I noticed how you didn't mention it, but you did post it up in a deal that you have a big thing about genetic entropy, which is pretty much bullshit. It's been completely debunked. It's just a made up term for, if I remember the actual scientific term is actually error catastrophe and error catastrophe has never been observed or demonstrated in a lab or in nature. So it's literally just a made up thing that just thrown around saying that mutations ultimately are degrading the human genome or degrading human genetics. That's all bullshit. You made a lot of false, just straight up false claims. I can't go into all of them because I have a giant list here and I'm trying to be quick for James's account, but ultimately the guy that you're basing all this off of Dr. John Sanford's work, he was a plant geneticist. He worked with plants. He is a masters in horticulture and horticulture and he's an intelligent design proponent. And unfortunately all of the papers that he constructed into Mendel's account, none of them were peer reviewed. The reason he didn't have them peer reviewed is because they were easily debunked when people looked at them. That's why he didn't put them out there. He put them in non peer reviewed journals. So unfortunately everything you're coming out with has either been debunked or is based upon the biased conclusion that there was an inserted creator somewhere which you have no evidence for. Even the lack of information on our half is still not evidence for a creationer or a designer or a God if you wanna put that term on it. So until you have that evidence, creationism has no foundation. We'll switch into Q and A. I wanna say thanks to our speakers as today has been a rowdy one. If you, by the way, if you didn't see last night's debate, dear gosh, I didn't expect that. Did anybody ever tell you that philosophy isn't exciting? Watch last night's debate on whether or not we can know if we exist. Never would I have guessed it would have been the way it was. So Woden Toad, thanks for your question says, James, can we have a young earth versus flat earth debate? That would certainly be interesting. I know that Nathan Thompson wants Kent Hovind. Kent Hovind is not as responsive as he used to be with us. So if there's anyone else out there, especially I think Nathan also wants to debate whether there's a dome over the earth. Let us know. I have a suggestion. Why don't you have Nathan Thompson and another flat earth or debate these two guys. That will be a word salad that everybody can enjoy. That would be juicy. And stupid whore energy strikes again. She says left-handed molecules can be created inside asteroids and proteins started out very small and became today's more complex proteins through duplication and fusion. Creationists. Yeah, we didn't get to my evidence for the chromosome too. I'm sure he wanted to speak at SFT. We didn't get to that point, man. I know that you wanted to talk about it. Why are you still here talking right now? So I- This has to do- Shut the fuck up, dude. I'm talking to SFT, not to your dumb ass, all right? I'm pretty sure there's a question that's just addressed towards us. No, I mean, technically this is, it's I think targeted. It's meant to refute standing and John. Okay, well, yeah, after John gets done being butthurt, I'll be able to face a comprehension. When John gets done fucking rambling, I'll ask SFT my relative question. What we will do is, we'll kick it back to you for a rebuttal team. Standing for truth. John, what have you got? Stupid whore energy all up in your face. Yeah, so that whole synthesis that we can't pull off in the lab. Yeah, that's a problem. You've got stunning probabilities, which I think is pretty, oh, you think that's funny, team skeptic? Yeah, okay, we'll go do some research on how they can't do it in the lab without proteins, without ribosomes and enzymes already existing. Tea or, sorry, standing, did you want to mention anything before we kick it over to team for his rebuttal? No, I think John covered it in great detail. So there's obviously no evidence for a myogenesis and I think the evolutionists would even admit to that. So yeah, whatever they got to say, go ahead. Yeah, SFT, all I wanted to say was we didn't get a chance to talk about chromosome 2. I have a lot of evidence for that. We'll have to get together and talk about that in the future. I felt like I could have a conversation with you, this other jackass just can't seem to get my cock out of his mouth. Yeah, you're right. All right, time to rebuttals only. No, no, no, there are theories for a biogenesis. We just don't know particularly which one it is, but there is certainly no evidence to support that it was a guy. I will happily have a full scale of a biogenesis only debate with either one of y'all. I did either one of us, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. Either one of us at any point tonight say that a biogenesis is a fact that we know exactly what happened. Did either one of us say that? How was that even, why are you even asking that question? Why are you fucking straw manning you? Why are you straw manning? I can actually have comprehension skills because apparently you are an idiot and we'll do it. When I laugh, what did you say? When I laugh, what did you say? Oh, is there, you really think there's stuff for a biogenesis? I wouldn't even laugh in about fucking anything that you said about a biogenesis because I can honestly sit here where you and I differ. You can honestly say that you're joking. No, where you and I differ, let me tell you something, where you and I differ is that you can't admit, you can't admit that a creator is only a fictional possibility for you, that there's no evidence to support that. You can't provide me with a single piece of physical evidence. Every piece of your evidence has to be made up, but here you are, you're willing to debate anybody on a biogenesis, which is something most physicists will sit there and say is a possibility, a probability, but not a guarantee. I'm gonna give, just because the Super Chat was originally targeting Standing for Truth and John, I'll give them the last word when we gotta move on to the next one. Sure, I'll say one thing, I guess. My problem is the fact that DNA is extremely fragile as we know it's subject to oxidation, oxygen destroys it, water destroys it, the strands break, so this is not a system that's actually maintainable without a maintenance system. Therefore, you can't start with DNA because it's gonna break down far too quickly. In order to maintain DNA in ourselves, we need very complex repair mechanisms, and there exist different repair mechanisms for different types of problems. So what came first? DNA or the ability to maintain the DNA which is encoded in the DNA, so it's chicken and egg problems abound. Next up, Dwayne Burke, thanks for your Super Chat set. It's delusional to think that intelligence isn't required to assign each individual that ever lives a unique DNA code in fingerprint. I think that's for you and team and JL. I think that's a facetious question directed at them, to be honest. Can you re-ask the question again? Yeah, please. No, I know Dwayne Burke, that's directly at you, buddy. I was like, no, they'd like to hear it again, please. They said it's delusional to think that intelligence isn't required to assign each individual that ever lives a unique DNA code in fingerprint. Yeah, that's... That feels like it's an old question. Yeah, that's... Somebody's asking a facetious question for them, facetious. I know him personally, so that's the only reason why I think he's being sincere. Oh, okay. That's exactly what fucking evolution would predict, that in fact, evolution would predict that each one of our DNA is slightly different than every other person out there. Gotcha, and thanks for your super chat from Stupid Horror Energy Strikes Again. She says, quote, it has been established that a decrease in the number of chromosomes by two in humans is a result of the fusion of two autosomes, unquote. That is a quote from a paper published this year. It hasn't been overturned. I think that's for you, Stanley, for Judith and John. Yeah, I mean, we could do an entire... I mean, I've had entire debates on the chromosome two fusion. I'd love to... We could have a respectful discussion on that with Team Skeptic. I mean, just even forgetting about the degeneracy of the area, the lack of evidence for cryptic centromere, the function of it, I just have one quick question that the fact, and I have a paper here, I provided it in my opening, that chimps have very distinctive in very large satellite sequences at the end of their chromosomes, but they're absent in man. And guess what? These large ape-specific satellite sequences should be seen flanking the reputed fusion site on both sides if there really was a fusion and if we really are related to apes. But guess what? They're not there. They're absolutely absent. So I'd like an answer to that. I think that's an important question. And I don't believe an answer has been provided. Therefore, it has been overturned, so... Let's get to the next one. Smokey, thanks for your super chat set. After show, LPPs, namely John Maddox, Logical Plausible Probables Channel, open mic in all caps. Next up, thanks for your super chat room. Angel Gray said, need evidence for creation. Need evidence for creation? Yes, special creation. Is there any? I spent, you know, seven minutes providing predictions regarding speciation rates. We didn't get to get into that unfortunately. There's still not evidence for a creator. It's evidence that you don't understand how something happens. And it's a God as the eye-opening statement. You guys don't understand because there were lack of answers to the questions I gave, but I pointed out that the gold standard of science is testable predictions. And we're doing it in molecular clocks and the mitochondrial DNA. The book of Genesis tells us that God created two people, Adam and Eve. Therefore, we can make predictions. And the predictions that we're making are coming true. And that's the gold standard of science. Evolutionists aren't making predictions. Creation wins. So the Bible is a science textbook. That's what you're asserting. No, but we can read the Bible in the account of human origins in Genesis and we can say, okay, let's see if we can make accurate predictions and retrovictions. And it turns out that we have and evolutionists aren't doing. Evolutionists are not making predictions in mitochondrial DNA. The mitochondrial DNA takes us back 6,000 years. And the mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome are nothing like chimps. So the Judeo-Christian faith. The Judeo-Christian faith. So the presuppositions of the Judeo-Christian faith are paramount in determining science. No, but- That's what you're asserting. The gold standard, there's two models here but a lot of lines of evidence are agnostic to the debate. Therefore, when we look to the differentiating lines of evidence like molecular clocks, DNA function, we are making predictions in those types of sciences. And guess what? The evolutionists aren't, for example. Yeah, but the problem is you're still basing your argument, you're still basing your conclusions upon what you've read in the Bible. That you're going to the Bible. You're basically taking the Bible which is a subjective book that can be interpreted in a myriad of ways and you're driving your conclusions from those. But the Bible differs from other original, from other texts. So this response that you're making is indicative of the fact that you don't actually know what the heck you're talking about in regards to our arguments. And that the just because- No, I'm questioning your use of the Bible and determining anything critically. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Going and figuring out whether or not something exists in terms of evidence for an intelligent agent and then extrapolating it back. I mean, I'm sort of sure how it's any different than doing an electronic research, going back to the foundational premise of Darwin. Ultimately, you're asserting the book. Come on now. No, you guys go back to Darwin as your resource. You are asserting the book is evidence of your creator. I didn't bring up Darwin. You're asserting the book is evidence of your creator. Hey, hey, I didn't bring up Darwin one fucking time and we have Neanderthal, mitochondrial DNA that dates back further than 6,000 years. No, no, no, you're asserting that you know, you're going back to the Bible because you're asserting that the Bible is evidence of your creator. And it is not. The Bible is just a book. I have a paper here that shows that Neanderthals. Sorry, you guys are some of the dumbest people I've ever seen. And all you can respond with is, all you can respond with are a text to our intelligence. That's a good point. That's all you've got. Is we are going to go to the next question. I think that because that Super Chat was originally for, it was for us. Oh, that was for us. So go ahead if you want to have the last word and then we'll go to the next one. Yeah, my last word would be if those predictions and retro-addictions that flow from a literal interpretation of Genesis were shown to be falsified, then we'd have to rethink the model. But it just turns out that the molecular clocks, the genetic diversity found in people around the earth just so fits an origin of just two people. Adam and Eve and the evolutionists had to invent post hoc ad hoc rescue devices with their hypothetical population bottleneck in out of Africa. So we're the ones doing the science and they're the ones doing the non-science. No, you're not. J.P.3030, thanks for your question. Said, do any of the authors of the papers standing for truth sites agree with him on anything he said in his opening? Yes. Gotcha. Next, stupid horror energy strikes again. This time she says, we don't expect big differences between populations except where there has been local selection for different genetic variants. I think this is for you standing for truth and John. Whoever wants to take that one, John, you or myself. Sorry, read the question again. Next, let's see. That question was, we don't expect big differences between populations except where there has been local selection for different genetic variants. Well, I know by rule we see, for example, we can look at the paper that I pointed out in the opening. I wish we would have been able to talk about where. It suggests that over 90% of species originated at the same time with modern humans. You can look at even the CO1 gene, that highly conserved subset of a mitochondrial DNA protein, and you'll find less differences within species and more differences between species. So these nested hierarchical patterns exist and those differences, the evolutionists will say are markers of time and divergence time and creationists would predict that those differences are there for functional purposes. So we're making predictions, they're on paper and it seems that those differences are there for functional reasons. So that's my answer. So why are there no mammophones? So why are there no mammophones? Stupid whore energy has another response. She says standing for truth, not sure what you're talking about. Chromosome 2 also has satellite sequences, not only at both ends, but also in the middle. No, she, yes, stupid whore energy thinks I'm using a different argument about how telomere to telomere fusions. Every fusion observed in nature has satellite DNA. I'm talking about the Ventura paper. I'm not sure if stupid whore energy has Reddit, but the paper itself actually says that the presence of abundance amounts of chimpanzee specific sub-telomere satellite DNA sequences are absent in humans. So I've discussed this with Ruhiff through email. He's studied this topic in great detail and he admits it's not there. The question is why isn't it there? We'll have to debate that at a time in the future. Stupid whore energy has yet another response. She says, chromosome 2 fusion site is degenerate because the high immutability of telomere repeats. It's normal. What's funny about that is those telomere-like motifs that are actually found there, yeah, they're degenerate and yeah, they say that it should be because it's highly mutable and it happened six million years ago, but guess what? We found and I've got papers showing this that those sequences are involved in expression. They're functional DNA elements and they're found elsewhere in the genome, not even associated with chromosome fusion. So it's a double whammy for us. I know they have the rescue device, but that's what refutes that rescue device. Good question though. Next up, Henrik Simonsen, thanks for your question said, just like a snowball rolling down a hill is not a product of chance, but a product of gravity. John Maddox needs to demonstrate why life is a product of chance or drop his silly calculations. Okay, yeah, come over to the live stream and we'll have you on and I'll give you a little education on why that question is quite possible and one of the stupidest things of the night. And that's saying something, given the fact we've been debating Team Skeptic and the lunacy that comes out of his mouth. Let's get to the next question. I found your, I found those numbers you threw up to be hilarious as well. You're well-accepted. You're well-accepted to premises. You don't understand anything. James, if I may, really, really fast. I'm still kind of curious as to, you said that all that it was stated that you guys stated that all species came up together, that we came up together to your whole like young earth creationist bullshit and everything. So why are there no mammalian fossils found in the Devonian strata? Well, now we're getting into a totally different argument with the fossil record, but you just completely dodged the paper that suggests based on the highly conserved CO1 gene that there's low genetic diversity in this mitochondrial DNA protein. What they're doing is they're looking at a subset of a subset of mitochondrial DNA. There's low genetic diversity across the entire biological world, suggesting that all of biological life came into existence at the same time with humans. I'm not sure if you've read the paper. If you haven't, there's no point in commenting on it, but that's exactly what we expect from Genesis. Have you ever heard of extinctions? Right, that's what they resort to, yeah. Yeah, so in the paper, and that's good. Do we not experience extinctions, but do we not experience extinctions here in our modern history, history that can be confirmed by multiple reliable sources that we can follow like the possession of the evidence, you know what I'm saying? Like we can follow it that back to the original person who made the prediction or made the observation. I mean, can we not agree that we do observe extinctions going on every year? We can see that the cheetahs are experiencing a huge bottleneck. They're down to like 7,000. Yeah, extinction events are real. And when you read this paper, that's what they say. They say, you know, we fought the evidence as hard as we could. And what they did was they invented a near extinction event, I think 200,000 years ago, just based on geology, not actual observed mutation rates or genetic diversity, to explain the low genetic diversity. But what's funny is our starting point would be a Genesis flood 4,500 years ago. There's your extinction. Sorry, move. You wrote a genetic diversity. That's exactly what we see in this. I'm sorry. I just find it, I just find it incredibly helpful. Sorry, I find it incredibly telling that you got many, many questions. I hate to do this, but we do have to keep moving. We have another, I didn't interrupt you. Ilya Moon, thanks for doing it. You have to keep moving. I hate to do it, but I'm just like, we have many enlightening, I do have to keep moving. You have a lot of questions. So Ilya Moon and also criticism for me now. Ilya Moon, thanks for your friendly feedback. Says more skeptics need wrenches just saying. Well, we will definitely do that, Ilya. If it's out of balance, our goal is to have like a roughly equal amount. And so our goal is to have like, as long as they're responsible moderators, not insulting people in the chat, we're happy to have them regardless of their view. So thanks for that feedback, Ilya Moon. Ash Ketit, thanks for your statement question, says vestigial organs. I'm not sure if they're, I'm not sure who that's for. Do you guys know? I think I was directed at JL. JL actually said it was vestigial DNA, not true. He was just making the distinction between trash DNA and junk DNA and vestigial DNA. Yeah. Gosh. Well, what's funny is when it comes to the- Hold on, I hate to do it, but just standing- Well, let me just make one point real quick. Hold on. No, this one's even for you. Stupid horror energy. Thanks for doing it. Why doesn't she just debate me live? She says, there's a world of difference between all sequences have function, quote unquote, and some subset of all sequences have function. Right. So one thing that's good is stupid horror energy is putting our kids through college with all these super chats. But oftentimes they'll downplay the function. So for example, N code has revealed that over 80% of our genome is actively transcribed into RNA. Now we don't know exactly what every single genetic sequence does. That's why we've made testable predictions. They're on print. They're in paper that based on genetic knockout tests, we will find out in the future. And the thing is we understand so little of the DNA language. We're discovering more and more every day, but once we do these genetic knockout tests, we'll find out exactly what these sequences are doing. But we do know that there's at least preliminary evidence for over 80% of our genome being active to some extent. So it's fascinating time right now. Right. And one expansion to that point too, short and pithy. They're also now discovering that the things they thought were non-functional even through knockout experiments, they're realizing that there's, oh wait, turns out there's a difference in what actually gets expressed in terms of in vivo versus in vitro experimentation. Gotcha. And thanks for your question from, let's see, stupid whore energy says, if you spam a genome with a couple million copies of any random DNA sequence, some of them will be functional. For example, if it got dropped in gene regulatory regions, the function response to TEs is a red herring. So I've never heard of this stupid whore energy before, but it's good that she's asking a question. I'm just kidding. She's triggered. Yeah. So like John, but now she's triggered. I'm triggered. J.L. Warren's triggered. Everybody's triggered, but you, right? You've been obviously triggered all night. It's been fun. You ever heard that? You ever heard the saying, it's not me. It's you. Yeah, that's who was literally dropping F-bombs throughout the entire debate until. Do you think I fucking care about a fucking F-bomb? You fucking idiot. That's my point. No, I fucking don't. You can't even call this question. I speak like this all the fucking time, John. I speak like this all the time. I do apologize to SFT. We're going to jump in. I apologize, SFT. Oh, that's okay. This is fun. This is one to remember. Oh, my kids are up. We must move quickly. My son's first word is going to be the F word. I've dropped no F-bombs and you still haven't answered any of my questions. So irregardless. I feel I've answered all the questions. And he said you were triggered too, J.L. I'm triggered. Let me just answer this question real quick. So the retro transposons, even the ALUs, there's a lot of classes of these retro transposons. I find evolutionists oftentimes point to just the ERVs. But let's look, for example, the ALUs, they represent a pervasive and active class of these DNA elements. But guess what? If these weren't all functional, if they really were just all junk, well, then they should be slowly mutating to oblivion. And the fact that we see so many highly conserved regions that are being maintained by selection shows that these really are highly functional because it would be a significant waste of energy and time for the cell to transcribe and worry about all of these gene sequences and DNA elements. So I think the evidence is strong that the vast portions of our genome are functional. It's not just spurious transcription if that's what stupid horror energy is hitting at, but that's all I gotta say. James, Matt, speak on this for just one second. Just a, it's a positive refutation for that. Okay, so when you have something that's in the DNA, when you have a sequence that's in the DNA, to remove that sequence, let's say it's a non-functional sequence of the DNA, to remove that sequence requires energy. Okay, it requires energy to continuously, just like it requires energy to integrate new DNA or make changes, it all requires energy. So if the expenditure of energy to get rid of the non-functional DNA exceeds its ability to keep it at a reproductive level, like to keep its reproductive functioning up, whether that be through speed, through genetic mutation, like a physical mutation, whatever the case may be, it's gotta take the energy away from somewhere else to remove that DNA. So it becomes more efficient to just leave the non-functioning DNA in or more energy efficient to leave the non-functioning DNA in than to remove the non-functioning DNA. Right, so I would just say that, I guess, since it's my question, do I have last words? That's fair, yeah. So that would assume that they really are non-functional because that's more of like a philosophy and an explanation for the data that we see. Now the thing is, is it actually reasonable? And this is what they'd have to prove to us. Is it reasonable for us to believe that all of these so-called ancient viruses and ancient parasites possess the genetic information necessary to promote so many genetic functions and so many biochemical functions and human beings? I don't think it's reasonable, plausible, or probable. There you go, John. Next up, keeping moving. Second best Bob, thanks for your statement said. I'm really way too stupid to understand most of this, but I'm listening anyway, mostly because I love the people up here. Thanks for your kind word, second best Bob. You are loved. And next up, Smokey, Smokey St. Thanks for your super chat said, let's see, denying overwhelming evidence of design when you make a career demanding acceptance of evidence for round earth. Team Skeptic, let's see, how do I clean this up? I disagree with you. They only called you an idiot, but I'm still like, oh gosh. Oh, you can call me an idiot, I don't care. What was the original question? Cause it kind of seemed like a statement more than a question. You bet. They said denying overwhelming evidence of design when you make a career demanding acceptance of evidence for round earth. Well, I would argue that that person's definition of evidence is different than my definition of evidence. My definition of evidence requires something solid behind it, not just a, hey, look, I don't understand how this should work. And I think it should work this way. And here's a bunch of papers that I kind of read through without having a true education or understanding about what they're talking about. And I came to these conclusions and that's my evidence. Now I don't mind people can, I'm not an evolutionary biologist. I'm not a microbiologist. Most of this stuff I've learned over the past couple of weeks in preparation for this debate so that I could be educated for myself. I didn't want to come in here blind and just try to bullshit it because I asked for evidence. The majority of my research went into seeking out pieces of evidence and setting those aside. And I do still have a lot of evidence here. We just never got to the parts where we really, I could present anything that, I mean, like SFT was saying, that the chromosome two, that's a huge part. I like speaking on chromosome two more than I like speaking on ERVs because chromosome two really shows a distinct tie to a common ancestor with the gorillas, apes, chimpanzees. And that's why, we could have gone in that I had more evidence to provide for that but I didn't see any evidence come from them that was substantially. Next up, thanks for your, I don't think I read this from Stupid Horror Energy, yes. So she says, let me know if I did read this one. If you spam a genome with a couple million copies of any random DNA sequence. You read that one. You read that one, oh, that's embarrassing. Okay, next up, thanks for your, she has been overloading you, James. It's fair, she's gotten confused. Brian Stevens says, if you want to live in a bubble, block everyone. So for those of you who have been debating, I don't know if you know, but in the live chat, there was a little controversy because I derenched Nathan Thompson, your best friend, she's skeptic. Because, well, we won our mods, we asked him to be friendly and so it's a long story. Nathan started telling everyone that he was gonna block them individually from his own accounts. Hey, SFT, SFT have a question. Do you have a picture of me and a Mankini on your phone? And a Mankini? Yeah. No, I don't believe so. Nathan Thompson does. He keeps a picture of me and my Mankini on his phone. I literally think I'm his best friend on those lonely nights when he's sitting in his car trying to go to sleep. I really think that about 95% of those nights he's talking to me, he whips his phone out, looks at me and he's like, hey, team skeptic, how's it going? Very nice. You guys have a lovely relationship. You never do know. I mean, next up, thanks for your question from StupidHortEnergy strikes again. She says, the amniotic egg and hair creates a nested hierarchy that includes primates and rodents slash rabbits. This fits genetics, it fits the fossil record, et cetera. There's nothing like this in your quote unquote model standing for truth. That's why I pointed to a number of lines of evidence that can differentiate between the nested hierarchical patterns that we see in the biological world. For example, orphan genes, the DNA function, the molecular clocks in the mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome. Getting into the fossil record, yeah, that'd be a whole separate debate, of course, but we see a lot of stasis. We see a lot of incongruencies in the fossil record as well. And I think the fossil record can be explained best by the flood and in a burial by ecosystems, habitats and communities. So that's exactly what we see. See creatures at the bottom and land animals and mammals near the top and birds as well. So it's not an argument against our position, of course. So John, if you had something to add. No, that was a good response. Thanks so much. Probably my favorite super chat of all. We love Steve McCrae, but I can't help but read it from Steve McCrae's manager. Basically, I doubt this is his real manager. He says, my client would like to debate the definitions of restraining order and non-disclosure agreement. Can you make that happen, James? Very provocative. I don't know what's going on with Steve. I know that there's like some sort of controversy and I think it, you know, it's always, Steve will always keep you on your toes. We hope he's doing well and I really mean that. So next, thanks for your question from Antti. Is it, let me know if I mispronounce this. Antti, here Vince Salo, they asked most important question of the night, why are James and team skeptics such sexy beasts? Thank you. Oh my God, because we work. Don't we, James? We work on it. We definitely work. You're paying them to say that. Okay. The only reason I joined him on this thing. That's fair. I appreciate it. Kent Hoven CPA, I doubt this is the real Kent Hoven's account, said if evolution is true, why do we still have Hovens? Oh, come on. Okay. Next up. Thanks for your one. Let's get that one by ya. Smokey St, thanks for your super chats. Team skeptic. Oh snap, coming at you says team skeptic is an embarrassment to skepticism. Yeah, they all say that. Anybody that disagrees with me says that. But what they don't understand is like, what they think skepticism is, is just going against whatever the, whatever the modern fucking, the current paradigm is, I must go against that to be a skeptic. So like right now, I'm a globe earther, right? How can I be a globe earther and still be a skeptic? Because the earth, the NASA says the earth is round. So I'm not a skeptic because I believe NASA, when they say the earth is round. However, skepticism is about holding a belief until there's evidence to support the belief. I never held a belief on evolution. I probably thought that it was true growing up, but when I got to be an adult and I got to start thinking about it for myself, I've done my own research and looking into it. And from the research that I've done, the scientific papers that I've read, the evidence that I was here to present tonight, it all points towards my skepticism should be on things that go against evolution, not evolution itself. That would just be me being a denialist. And want to do a quick reminder before we read more questions. All of the speakers are linked in the description. So want to be sure everybody knows that. If you want to hear more of these guys, you can hear more by conveniently clicking those links. And Adam Elbillia- So did J.L. warn? Sorry. Wait, I think I've got J.L. Oh yeah, I've got him in there. And J.L. or Adam Elbillia, thanks for your statement said standing for truth, I don't agree with you, but I respect you and your conduct. Evolutionists, I agree with you and I respect you and most of your conduct. John, I don't agree with you if you end your conduct. You know, I always find it funny how atheists get so triggered when you actually call them out for their crap. And then the things that they're doing to you and you call and you give them a response, suddenly it is, you know, it's just horrible behavior. How could anybody ever do this? It's like, oh wow, you can't handle getting what for? You haven't called atheists a matter on anything. Soy boys. You haven't called atheists a matter on anything. Sorry. Okay, next up, thanks for your, let's see, statement from Tiffany Baer says you've got fans out there standing for truth and John says creation for the win. Next up, D6, thanks for your question for the creation side coming on strong. Says you cited a lot of scientific publications in this debate. How many authors agree with your position? Many of them. I'm gonna have to keep my answers short and sweet because it's getting dinner time and the kids are getting, it's been a couple hours. So many of them is my answer. I'm so sorry, bro. We'll try to get, we're gonna move fast. Bartos, Diagos, and if you have to leave and wanna have John answer all your questions, I'm sure the audience would love to hear more of John. I love you, John, come on, okay. Can I make a point though? I don't wanna be, I don't wanna make a rude point about this, but I do wanna make a point. When you cite sources that are like creation sources, to use in a creation argument, it kind of makes it hard to agree with those sources, to find those sources reputable. If you found sources that were against you or had nothing to do with the argument itself and you use those sources, like if you used a normal biologist or someone who believes in evolution, let's say, if you were to use his sources against the argument of evolution, that would hold a little bit more credence, but to use creation-based arguments in a creation versus evolution debate is a bit, you know. Well, do you know how many, well, do you know the ratio of creationist papers versus just secular publications I showed in my opening? Because there are a lot that doesn't mean it's correct. John, do you not think that creation papers are already going to have a bias towards creationism? Yes or no? Do you not think that evolutionary paper, you're gonna have a bias towards evolution? I wouldn't necessarily cite evolutionary papers. I cited the presence of VRVs, that's biology. Who are questioning evolutionary models? Do you understand that people who are evolutionary biologists and molecular biologists are evolutionary models? Sure, the evolutionary, okay. In science, we have a best understanding with the, in science, we have a best understanding. Listen, here's the answer to your fucking question. Have you become a modern flat earth? No, I fucking make fun of idiots like you and them all the time. No, you're a fucking, your creation is that is essentially a flat earth. Since it was my question. So here's the thing, I find evolutionists, they don't know how to read a paper and then come to their own conclusion. They've got that pre-existing assumption at play. So for example, all the pedigree-based studies that I presented from Secular Sources, the observed mutation rate, the empirical method takes the mitochondrial DNA ancestor just back 6,000 years. Now when you look at the entire paper, you see the evolutionist questioning it. The authors of the paper, they say, oh, well, this doesn't line up with deep time evolution. Therefore now they go over a number of methods and a number of ways to calibrate the observed rate with the deep time assumption. So as creationists, we don't need to do that. We're looking at these papers and saying, wow, the empirical rate fits perfectly with our predictions and expectations. Why would we now calibrate it with the deep time evolutionary assumption? That makes zero sense. But evolutionists can't get past their bias. We must move to the next one. We've got many questions, guys. I know that you've got a response and I'm so sorry to cut you off, but also because we're over time, we've got just, we had a huge influx of questions. I know that you've got a round in the chamber ready to fire it standing for truth and I understand the desire to fire so many rounds into it. You spent longer explaining that than what I needed to say, but go ahead. I just want to know why none of those papers appear reviewed because they aren't. They are, every single paper I present. No, they're not, because if they're peer reviewed, they get reviewed. They're all peer reviewed. They're all peer reviewed. You can have a one-on-one debate too. Dude, you guys haven't even read them and you're making assumptions? Wow, don't have any level of preconceived notions? Next up. Go back and re-watch the debate and pause when I'm sharing the papers. Bartos team, if you have a really short, because they just let that run for way longer. Team, if you have a short. I'm good, man. Okay. Bartos, Diagras, thanks for your question. Why does God make it so that people in Africa have something against malaria but have to sacrifice other things? Does this does not make sense to me? I think they're talking about, like on a creation view, like why is it that God allows this protection against malaria? I think they're questioning the sickle cell anemia. Sickle cell. And, yeah. But then you have these other deficiencies because of sickle cell. So it's for creationists. It's for you guys. You want that one? Is it up to you? Let me take it. You can take it if you want, brother. It's up to you. I'll be short and sweet. You finished the following up. One component of all this is there's examples that are the exact same logic in, it's not just, oh, it's only people in Africa that have any kind of insert, whatever we're talking about here. Now, obviously in the context of what we've talked about in regards to genetic entropy, which you supposedly who have obviously not read peer-reviewed papers think nobody actually views is happening, J.L. It's not. It's actually happening. No, it's not. Oh, really? I think Fisher's theorem has a genetic interval. Oh, okay. It's a bullshit term. Oh, okay. It is. Well, maybe you should go read some papers from medical research. Would you like me to pull up the info? This year. I have the information right here that refutes it. You realize Dr. John Sanford just spoke at the NIH, right? The National... Dr. Jan Sanford is a fucking plant scientist, okay? Next up. I have the information right here from my screen. Yeah, go look at the technical publications versus how many technical publications you've got. Error catastrophe has never been observed or documented in nature. Listen, just because you run away from genetic entropy, that's your problem. I appreciate everybody's patent, but we must keep going. Genetic entropy is just another bullshit term. We're going to give the last word, we'll give the last word to creation guests and then we'll move to the next one. I've got to give them the last word because I don't want to gang up on them because the super chat was for them. So go ahead, Donnie. I mean, Johnny, and we'll then move on to the next one. Oh, all I gotta say is apparently we have some extremely triggered atheists over here who are going into panic meltdown, even though there's research from medical researchers. You addressed the question for me. I am addressing it. There are plenty of medical researchers that are publishing papers this year talking about this exact subject. So go to nature, cellular, and go do some basic searching and you'll find out that I'm correct. Next. We have two different ones. We have Mitchell, thanks for your statement, says Ponskum to people is a fairy tale. We also have John Rapp, I think this is a response, says creation is a retrofitted fairy tale. Pseudo science. Yeah. Next up, thanks for your question from LilyRO, says the John guy is easily triggered. Yes, James is a nine. Thank you, LilyRO. I always think LilyRO is secretly Earl the postman from Alabama, but I'll take what I can get. So thank you. And John, if you want to respond to that, apparently you're easily triggered. Apparently so when I call people out for being assholes. I know it's triggered. Do you ever notice that maybe you call everyone else an asshole, that you're the asshole, and everybody else is the good person? I'm pretty sure if you go back and stop suffering from amnesia, then maybe you'd recognize that I responded to you being a jerk. Still provided no evidence for anything that you've claimed. We have to move to the next one. What is it? Let's see. My assertion about Team Skeptic is very accurate. The only, the reason we have to keep the answers constrained to the questions, because otherwise I can't blame other people for wanting to respond to direct insults towards them. So huge Rs, thanks for your question, says if these guys are supposed to be Christians, then why would anyone ever want to be one of the bad-witness guys, you too, Nathan Thompson? Next, thanks for your super chat question from Nephilim Friis' Secular Genetics Databases, acknowledged that the quote fusion site, unquote, quotes for polymerase and specifies cell type. The information spans the quote unquote site, LOL in all caps, crickets. I think that, I think, okay, well, Andreas Elda, thanks for your question, says what's intelligent about giraffe laryngeal nerve? I don't know what that one is. Is that the super long one? I don't know. Next question. Next. Crickets. No, go ahead. That's fine. If you want to just get through them, go ahead. Stupid whore energy strikes once again, saying standing for truth, not sure what you're talking about. Chromosome 2 also has satellite sequences. I think I said, actually, I did read that. Illumoon, thanks for your super chat. Illumoon says, evolution is proven, the Bible is not. Hashtag, hail Sagan 666. Yeah, evolution is at this point pretty much dead. They're not making any testable predictions in genetics, for example. The ENCODE researchers, the evolutionary scientists at NIH, they ignore the critics that try and hold on to that junk DNA paradigm. Grower himself said if ENCODE is right, evolution is wrong. And genetic degeneration is real. We accumulate 100 new mutations per person, per generation. And JL here has never provided us with the type of selection that can remove so many deleterious mutations. He only provides insults and insults, Dr. John Sanford. Those are not our unit. Cinergistic epistasis removes that. Oh, did you Google that? What is synergistic epistasis? Go ahead and define it. Cinergistic epistasis facilitates the purging of deleterious mutations in sexual populations. Oh, did you just read that right? OK, no, no, no, no. You're literally reading that, buddy. Hey, this is the two guys. You said they did all the research in the last two. We missed that completely. Oh, no, I talked about synergistic epistasis. No, you threw it out. You said it was dephosphified. Cinergistic epistasis speeds up the degeneration problem. Dan Grower didn't even mention synergistic epistasis when he was trying to refute ENCODE. He actually was thwarted to the junk DNA paradigm so those mutations can be absorbed by the neutral junk. Cinergistic epistasis, nobody uses that argument. Humans are not getting better. Face the facts. Want to quickly remind everybody in case you want to try to poke him and trigger him. Nathan Thompson is still in the chat. Oh, Nathan, I love you, buddy. Do you remember team? You met him in person, team. You guys were like hugging and stuff, and it was everybody was married. Oh, fucking shit. I didn't even know. Hey, James, let's get it right, OK? All that shit that kid, that little kid talked, and then he saw me in Dallas and got scared as fuck for me when we were at the fucking Flat Earth International Conference. And then we went and had that debate. And then after the international conference, he said shit like, next time I see Team Skeptic, I'm just going to twist him up. What the fuck did he do the entire time? He sat in his chair like a quiet little boy. Good job, Nathan. Good job, Natalie. I can't remember. And I said, are you kidding me? You know how fucking stinky he looks? Oh, my God. You know, if I want to hug Nathan Thompson, I'll go to. If I want to hug Nathan Thompson, I'll go to a fucking anthropological museum and hug a fucking skeleton, because that dude looks. When people say, I look like Skeletor, he looks like my skinny fucking little bitch boy. People say, you have an enchanting mosque, Nathan. Don't take that seriously. Flat Earth, thanks for your message. It says message for Nathan Thompson, for real. This is a real super chat that coincidentally or not, came in right now and Flat Earth said message. And this is by right now, it comes up right now on the list. So this was said like probably 20 minutes ago. It said, Nathan, you're a coward and you need help. Sorry, Nathan, I have to read it. OK, next up, NADCubic, thanks for your question. Statement says, disproving evolution is not a positive claim for creation. Team, please school them about positive evidence. Positive evidence requires positive claim. I mean, positive claims require positive evidence. You've got to have something to back what you're saying up, other than I don't think that your model is possible. The model of evolution is extremely like, has so many variables that apply to it. You've got sexual selection, natural selection, artificial selection. You have all these different pressures that are going to influence each individual little jump from step to step on the DNA process. And eventually, those little jumps will result in such a difference that two species can't be matched. And how do you explain codon syntax shift? There's the storyboard again. How do you explain codon syntax frameshift? OK, you've asked a question between a pro-keem or a jailer. Then we have to move on to the next thing. That's a deflection. You still haven't done it. That's a direct question that's being asked by researchers, buddy. No, you still haven't provided evidence for your creator. Next up, that's a deflection. I've given you plenty. We haven't tested for it. No, you haven't. Which you guys dodged. Next up, John Rapp says, why did God make old earth and fossils no sense? Take it for you, John. OK, that question has a built-in assumption. Why did God make an old earth and fossils? Fossils require rap and burial, but we can save that for another day. Next up, Shreedad, thanks for your super chat. Stay at a stupid whore energy. Get on a live stream and debate standing for truth if you're so confident. Justin Johnson, thanks for your question. Said message for John, how old is the earth? And how do you know, John? I don't actually have the exact time stamp. I don't think anybody does, especially given the fact that the evolutionary model ranges. They change it by hundreds of millions of years. So I'm not really sure why. That's a direct question, since the other side can't even come close within 100 million years. John Rapp, thanks for your comment toward stupid whore energy. He says, you rule. Good on you, mate. Thumbs up. And n-flat earth says, sorry, creationism. But evolution wins. OK, so anyway. I mean, I guess that's, like, probably what they would have sounded like if they said so, but thank you for all of your questions, folks. We do have to go because we're over time. I'm so sorry about that. We have not gotten to all questions, but want to say thanks so much everybody for being here. And all of our guests are linked in the description, folks. So if you want to hear more of this your first time being exposed to them, hey, you can hear more at those links below. Thank you, all four of you gentlemen, for being here with us today. Thank you, James. It was a blast. I wanted to remember it. I'm glad we had a big audience. That was fun. It's been a show kickoff on my channel in a couple of minutes. I have to let you know, folks, this is something I mentioned yesterday. So if you're hanging out with us, I have a groundbreaking announcement. If you were with us yesterday, I had mentioned that we are going to have basically a huge political debate coming up. That debate has been confirmed by Destiny this morning. Destiny and Bosch will be taking on Alsup and Eric Stryker on the topic of race and police brutality. That's this coming Tuesday. So that one should be a monster one. We've got a lot of other one. Like this week is honestly off the charts with epic debates. We're going to have Erika co-modding on Wednesday. That should be fun and just many more. So with that, I want to say thanks so much for all of your support, folks. Seriously, I can't give enough credit to the speakers. They're the lifeblood of the channel. This channel doesn't exist. If we don't have epic speakers like we had today, we really appreciate them. And also thank you for our mods, for always wiping out any hate speech. That's really our only strict rule with no warnings. And also thanks for all else you do mods. And just the audience, just for hanging out here, we really appreciate you guys. You make this channel possible and make it fun. So with that, one last goodbyes. Thanks so much to our guests, though. Standing for Drew, standing for Drew with John, team and JL. Thanks for being here, guys. All right, thank you. Thank you. I enjoyed it. With that, take care, folks. Have a great rest of your weekend and keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable.