 Hey everybody, tonight we're debating what is the most recent common ancestor of monkeys and humans, and we are starting right now. With Aaron's opening statement, thanks so much for being with us, Aaron. The floor is all yours. Looking for the most recent common ancestor of humans and monkeys means that we're looking for the closest known to that evolutionary divergence. The evolution of species is analogous to the evolution of languages. There was never a first guy to speak Italian living amongst Latin speakers in post-Roman Italy. The continuous accumulation of subtle differences in either languages or organisms are both changes in populations over many generations. And there are more genera in the fossil record than exists today, such that all extant species represent only about one percent of everything that has ever lived, and very few animal species alive today existed more than five million years ago. A few of the ape species that did exist back then were nearly people, and if you had a time machine, you would not be able to identify the first human living among them. So finding a predicted fossil does not mean that they found your great times a thousand grandparent, but rather a species type that fits the predictions of evolutionary phylogeny and which should not exist otherwise. We're not looking for direct ancestors, but rather those that are potentially ancestral, being chronologically and morphologically basal. I wouldn't have chosen to name any fossil species as our ancestor necessarily, but that is the question my opponent proposed, so I will accommodate as best I can for educational purposes. Paleontologists never say that this genus or species evolved from that one, allowing that we could always find something even closer potentially, except in the case of Homo erectus. Because that one species was so widespread across Africa, Europe, and Asia for so long before anatomically modern Homo sapiens appeared 300,000 years ago, that it's safe to say that our species and a handful of other human races all evolved from that one. They were so diverse as to render our current notions of race laughably trivial. Denisovans and Neanderthals count as different races from sapiens, but as Darwin himself noted, all modern humans belong to the same race. Homo erectus varied significantly, not just in overall size, but in the much more ape-like shapes of their skulls and the profound differences in the proportionate mass of their brains, from barely larger than a chimps to almost as big as ours, such that anyone looking for an ape man should be satisfied with them, but of course there are many more examples of that. The fact that some living apes can understand English and use symbols on computers to communicate is already a problem from the creationist perspective. There certainly shouldn't be any other species in the fossil record that are even closer to us. And Darwin predicted that we should find what was then described as a missing link, halfway between humans and the other apes known at his time, though even he warned that it would not be a linear chain but a variation in groups. Australopithecus afarensis proved to be a fully bipedal ape whose hands, feet, teeth, pelvis, skull, and other physical details were exactly what Darwin had predicted a century earlier. That species also had an Achilles tendon, enhanced gluteus maximus, and the first appearance of the gluteus minimus muscle, all traits in common with humans but that other apes don't have. Hundreds of individuals have been discovered from that species and from a couple dozen other species relevant to the human family tree, none of which should exist if creationism was true. And my favorite definition of a transitional species is one that is so intermediate that creationists cannot agree and say that it's either 100% on this side or 100% on this other side of whatever imagined division when it is really both. And we've seen that repeated a few times, like when creationists were presented with a skull marked KNMR 1470, representing what is still the oldest and most primitive human species known to this day. Marvin Lubnau and Dwayne Gish both said that skull was fully human, not an ape at all. Then a few years later, A.W. Millert and Dwayne Gish again both said that same skull was just an ape, not a human at all. If you describe primates, hind leg dominant arcontids with proportionately large brains and opposable thumbs, binocular vision and fully enclosed optical orbits, you describe people. Within that clader is a subset called haplarons, drynails primates like us. We don't have wet noses like cats, rats, or lemurs. We also don't have whiskers like them either, which makes us antherpoids, also known as semiiforms, a subgroup of haplarons, also known as monkeys, being primates with only two pectoral mani. If you list every physical characteristic that defines all monkeys having color vision, a dangling penis untethered from the abdomen, and a brain large enough for tool use at least, you describe people. Within that group, there are new world monkeys, platyrhine, whose noses or whose nostrils splay sideways, and old world monkeys, catarion, meaning that our mott nostrils point down. New world monkeys develop strong prehensile tails, and they have an extra set of premolars too, and some of them have curved fingernails like claws. But if you describe all the diagnostic features of old world monkeys, like having flat fingernails and the type of dentition that we have in a tail that is diminished, weak, or entirely absent, you describe people again. Within catarion is an extinct parapherletic group called propliopithecoidia, which precedes both circopithecoidia, the modern new world monkeys, and hominoidia, the apes. A lot of people say that apes are not monkeys, but they technically are exclusively tail-less catarines that are also capable of brachiation and tend toward bipedality, with a broader chest and progressively larger brains, and we have these uniquely distinctive ears. Listing all the distinctive traits or definitive traits of apes describes people again. Within that clade, the taxonomic family hominidae also known as the great apes. Describing all their traits, like the reduced number of body hair follicles, the shapes of each of our teeth, especially our distinctive molars, the presence of fingerprints, and so on, describes people again. In the early 1700s, Carolus Linnaeus, the Christian creationist who invented taxonomy, challenged the scientific community of his time to show a taxonomic characteristic by which to distinguish man from ape, because he said he couldn't tell them apart. He said that people were apes, and that apes were people. And rather than separately created kinds, his taxonomic system revealed a family tree hierarchy of daughter sets descending from ancestral groups, and he couldn't explain that because he thought that new species could only come about as a special creation by God. A century later, Darwin explained the origin of species by means of natural selection. A mechanism most creationists now accept. And understand that evolution is descent with inherent modification. So every new genus or species that ever evolved was just a modified version of whatever its ancestors were, and it always will be. If a human was born without some definitive feature, they would still be human because their ancestors were human. Even if you begin a new clade, you will still belong to every ancestral clade that your family did. You can't grow out of your ancestry. And there was never a point in evolutionary history where one kind changed into another fundamentally different kind. There's no such thing as a kind as such as creationists argue for. That is a strawman that would actually violate the evolutionary laws of biodiversity and monophily. The Bible gives two conflicting descriptions of a kind, one of which implies anything from a taxonomic order to a family level grouping, and that would put us either in the ape kind or the primate kind. The other definition perfectly matches the modern biological species concept that if two individuals can interbreed to produce viable offspring to bring forth after their kind, then they are the same species. However, we know that unique mutations still continually build an isolated population such that after several generations, if you found a lone wanderer in the no man's land between the two groups, you may be able to tell just by looking at it which group it came from. And some folks will say that this is just micro evolution. And it is until there are so many phenotypic or genotypic differences that the two groups can only produce infertile hybrids if they can still produce anything at all. At the point when they can or will no longer bring forth fertile offspring after their kind, then they have become two different genetically isolated species. And this is the most significant event in evolution, which is why the origin species is called macro evolution. Micro and macro are exactly the same thing in every respect except that speciation means that the new variant is no longer restricted by the inhibition of the once dominant gene pool and thus distinctions between divergence groups can accelerate. So if you accept the mechanisms by which new breeds of dogs, cattle, or barnyard fowl come about, then you accept micro evolution. If you also accept that speciation happens as most creation is now realized, they have to, then you also accept macro evolution. Both are directly observed and documented. We know how it happens and we know that it happens and that it is the source of biodiversity. What we have never seen is creation, neither macro nor even micro. There is no scientific model of creationism and intelligent design meets exactly none of the criteria required of a scientific theory. These are not comparable alternatives. The science of evolution versus religious belief in creationism is literally a matter of fact versus fantasy. Even rabbinical scholars admit that the Exodus never happened and even evangelical Christians were trained in genetics admit that there was no Adam and Eve. Instead, as many genomic sequence comparisons have recently confirmed, humans are one of several species of apes. So asking for an ape man is like asking for a mammal man or a half doxened half dog. Asking for the common ancestor between humans and monkeys is like asking for the common ancestor between humans and people because humans are monkeys. As Tim mentioned put it, we're all just monkeys in shoes. So the only way I can interpret this debate topic is what is the most recent common ancestor of humans and all other monkeys? To which I must reply that comparative mitochondrial genomes concakinated with the molecular clock estimates of average significant mutation rates consistently show that platyrhines split from catarines around 35 million years ago. Basil to both of these groups is another paraphernalic fossil group, the parapithecids, exemplified by the genus parapithecis, which lived in North Africa between 40 and 33 million years ago. The right features in the right place at the right time. There are others like eosimius, the dawn monkey, the oldest of all monkeys rather than the most recent, and apidium is another parapithecid candidate generally considered to be closer to old world monkeys and it lived five million years too late to be ancestral to new world monkeys too. And since we're looking for a potential ancestor to both old world and new world monkeys, then we're not looking for a transitional intermediate but a basal form that is as yet undifferentiated, generalized. So I will posit parapithecis as the most recent common ancestor of humans and all other monkeys and I will be very surprised if my opponent can meet the requirement implied by his choice of this debate topic to show another one that is even closer than that. Thank you very much, Aaron. Appreciate it. And I want to let you know, folks, if it's your first time here at Modern Aid Debate, we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion and politics. We hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you're from. And if you haven't yet, hit that subscribe button, folks, for many more juicy debates to come. For example, you can see on the right side of your screen here, thrilled David C. Smalley will be returning to debate Stuart Nettle. That is going to be an epic one this Friday. So with that, we're going to kick it over to Dr. Jackson for his opening as well. And then we're going to have a short open dialogue followed by a longer Q&A, folks. So if you happen to have questions, feel free to fire them into the old live chat. And with that, Dr. Jackson, we're thrilled to have you here. The floor is all yours. Well, I'm not going to try to isolate some other most recent common ancestor because with the creation model, you actually don't have a common ancestor between any kinds of monkeys, great apes and humans, but that they're separate creations. And the idea of Exodus not being real is not really relevant to the topic at hand. The idea that people are really apes, I can certainly go that people are animals, people are primates, because we have the fingernails and the opposable thumbs, which is instead of claws and just paws and things like that, there are so many features and traits and morphologies and physiologies that are the same. And that's okay, because with all the diversity, even with what exists in the living world today, there are bound to be so many gradations of it that I mean, you could even say that we are one with the wolves because we have body hair. And so we're like Aaron said, mammals are a group. Morphologically speaking, with the expression of all our DNA, we're closest to the chimpanzees, but there was bound to be something that was closest to all the animals that aren't people to being like us, not just in their structures, but in their DNA also. I would spread out a little bit from the main topic and saying that micro and macroevolution aren't the same thing. And perhaps it's only by name in evolution circles that it is called the same thing. And creation circles, they're not, and it depends again, somewhat on the differing opinions, but I would go ahead and identify micro evolution as anything you could get by the reshuffling of the genetic deck generation to generation, not creating any new genes, new traits or new genetic information. And so that you could actually, if Darwin's whole posit was never true, you could still get micro evolution just by rearranging the genes through the generations or even gene doubling from things that were already there and not inventing new novel ones. Now macro evolution would be the thing that I would say doesn't happen, the generation of brand new genes, creating new traits. Now the biblical understanding of different groups of living things, the Bible talks about cattle, but it also talks about camels. And it talks about goats and sheep and things like that. But in Genesis, it talks about the definition, like Aaron said, of kinds reproducing after their kinds. And in the New Testament, it even talks about there's a flesh of men and a flesh of fish and a flesh of foul and all of that being groups. The Bible isn't meant to actually give a taxonomic science lesson on these things, but where it does speak of such things, biblical literalist creationists would take it seriously just like you would take any science or math book talks about or any math your science book talks about. Speciation and the idea of species, as Aaron said, I was taught in college that species are anything that are inter fertile with one another. And I'll stick with kinds reproducing after their kinds for a definition of kind with a capital K. And so it's not really hard to decide what is a kind. Now, gene pools getting apart from each other and mutations that aren't being accommodated in one group while they are in another could be something that causes a reproductive barrier. But that doesn't mean that the lack of ability to breed interfertile has created a new species any more than genes turning off, being mutated, albinism, for instance, that's not a new species. Let's see. And we're talking about the way that the different models, different paradigms, different worldviews are going to look at the exact same evidence. Now, the idea that you've got this this billowing amorphous cloud of many different fossil species, I mean, we dig them up, we find them. That's true. But there would have to be an ancestral line. And yeah, maybe we're not going to find, you know, Mr. and Mrs. Chenensis are going to be down there, like in the in the literal biblical creationist model Adam and Eve. But there should be some definite because of the episodic nature in the evolution story, Stephen J. Gold's whole idea of punctuated equilibrium, where you have this stasis for a long period of time. And then in a small breeding group, you'll have rapid evolution, maybe because of environmental change or just because of isolation. And then out of that verse, a new group, that's what the theory would say that that's different from this this whole thing of it just amorphously changes, you should be able to go back and find a turning point, a crotch in the tree where these traits are new and a new form has occurred, or an old form has split into two. And of course, I'm against creationist lampooning the evolution theory by saying that means we came from monkeys. It's very clear that theory doesn't say that it says that monkeys and us both come from the same ancestor, which is why we've got this this topic. If there were cousins to monkeys, we're not their grandkids and and the plethora of evolutionary statements on that is that chimpanzees are really of further evolved modern creatures like humans are. And they're really not that good of a model as to what the most recent common ancestor between us and them would have looked like. Stephen J. Gould even said, if you did see the common ancestor, you'd have really looked at it and say, well, they're not looks like a monkey, because really it would be. If the theory was true, it would look something like both of us. But in a very, I don't want to say primitive, I want to say rudimentary. Perhaps I'll use the word basal like our ended form. And a creationist would see a lot of all these things as either extinct monkeys, or extinct groups of humans. You don't ever hear chromagmon being mentioned anymore, because they're homo sapiens. Heidelberg man is really archaic homo sapiens. And well, the the hobbit fossils on the Isle of Flores, we're just going to leave those there. They're probably not an ancestor or anything, probably just a pygmy tribe like we find in Africa in modern times that went extinct. Let's see, let's see. Lucy, the hands and feet and some of the other structural things and the the gradation of, well, there's no thing you can tell between monkeys and people. People have an S shaped spinal column and monkeys have a C shaped. Of course, there are less clear shot differences between the forem and magnum, the hole in the base of the skull, where the spine connects and the spinal column goes, the cord goes in there. But the zygomatic arch, the the flattened face, the, the, you know, heavy brow, of course, Neanderthals had that. And of course, Neanderthals are really homo sapiens. I mean, by the definition of kind and species, we know that they're an intra braulter. We found a toddler fossil that had both Neander and what we'd consider mainstream gene pool human traits. And obviously, there was interbreeding between Neanderthals. 4% of all modern Europeans have got some Neanderthal DNA in them. And we find that Neanderthal DNA scattered a little bit, you know, in the path of their migration, but that Neanderthals were people too. I was taught that they were the missing link for one of the stepping stones in college, but now they're pretty much accepted. The bigger brain thing, many of the other traits about them, not that brain size actually means intelligence or even brain to body weight ratio actually means more intelligence. It's the wiring of the brain. And, oh, and the idea of monkeys being able to understand our language, dogs and horses understand commands in different human languages. And actually, dogs and horses are actually very intelligent. Well, monkeys are very intelligent. Recent studies have shown that dogs may actually have a higher IQ than a great ape. And it's been touted that great apes have an IQ of equivalent to a three year old human. And my wife who deals with horses a lot says, well, horses, she would go with a 10 year old human horses and dogs are very intelligent creatures. And the difference is it's not that monkeys and animals don't have personalities and ideas and emotions and thoughts. Your dog says, I'm glad to see you. I need to go out. They dream. You see dogs running in their sleep. Horses are very clever. You got to let them know who's boss. But when we did have monkeys, you know, using sign language, and they would ask things like where is my mate? Where's my baby? I'm hungry. I'm sleepy. But they never asked anything like humans ask. In a greater sense, in a spiritual sense, I might say, or an eternal sense, where did I come from? What's the meaning of life? Who made the stars? How did I get here? These are things that don't enter their little monkey minds. And just like there are things way beyond our ability to reason, I don't think we can conceptualize the total empty set or the total infinite set or time. There are things we're not wired for and our wiring isn't sufficient for that. So there are differences between us and the animals. And certainly we can see differences between the species or the kinds because of the reproductive barrier, which can happen within a species for various reasons, like Chihuahua and Great Danes don't breed with each other as mechanical and social reasons that Great Dean might see the Chihuahua as lunch instead of a potential mate, or if it tried, it might kill the Chihuahua. But that's a different matter. But that doesn't mean they're not the same species. And it doesn't mean they're not the same kind. Anything that's inner fertile, which would include wolves and jackals, wolf dogs, and coyotes, they can all interbreed with each other. Let me see now. The main idea that I guess I would like to leave in my 12 minutes is that there should be an ancestral line through which the DNA trail actually traverses from the sprawling genetic bush through a trunk for each of the clades in evolution. And so there should be something. And of course, researchers of evolutionary paleontologists are always looking for that, or as Aaron said, for something as close to that as they can get. It's kind of a holy grail sort of a thing. Now I'm not saying because there's not one that is a candidate that works, like Sal Anthropocidensis or or something, you know, even earlier that's splitting up. I'm not saying that that doesn't mean it's it's that that means it's not there because I can't prove a negative. But I am saying that isolating one has not been successful at this point in most recent common ancestor. You got to think very much, Dr. Jackson, we will jump into open conversation and we'll let you know, folks, our guests are linked in the description not only here but also on our podcast as we are thrilled that modern day debate has a podcast and we include our guest links in the description box there as well for each podcast episode. We encourage you, you can check out our guest links. And with that we're going to go into a short open dialogue and then we're going to go into Q&A as mentioned folks. So should be really interactive tonight. And with that, thanks so much, Aaron and Dr. Jackson, the floor is all yours. Well, thank you. I've got a number of questions now. First one, I don't really expect an answer for this one. I mean, I have to wonder why Dr. Jackson suggested this debate topic if he never intended to pursue this debate. As for the rest of it, there's an awful lot we could discuss here. And one of the things about macro evolution is I have citations from a whole lot of different sources to explain what macro evolution is. Absolutely all of them, all of them without exception, say that they are that that micro evolution is variation within a species and that macro evolution is variation between species at or above the species level. And there are several academic institutions that specify that the emergence of new species or speciation qualifies as macro evolution. Now, would you accept that from any academic source? Oh, sure, I'll accept the definition. I'm not saying that macro evolution actually happens. It's part of the evolutionary theory. As far as me not pursuing the topic, the topic was more like a challenge. And of course, I think it's clear to anyone who knows anything about all of this. And by the way, Aaron, I'm glad to see that you are well versed in the creation model and what creationists actually believe because ordinarily, I don't find evolution believers who actually take the time to learn what do creationists believe and even your literacy about the idea of kinds in the Bible. Well, I really appreciate that because it's not normally something people talk about knowledgeably with us. But macro evolution, I wouldn't say it actually happens. We can't observe that we don't see that happening. But what we do see is micro, we can't prove what? We can prove that macro evolution happens. Okay, go ahead. That's easy enough. I mean, most creationists like Ken Ham, even Kent Hovind, accept that speciation happens, that it is directly observed. Well, just because they believe it doesn't mean it's true. It doesn't have anything to do with what you believe. It has to do with what's documented, what we can demonstrate. So I can present to you a number of studies for genetic studies. Okay. Well, I don't have a way of showing you the study right now. That's okay. But just describe it. Okay. So in a genomic comparison of dogs, for example, would you accept that all domestic dogs are descended from wolves and that they are biologically related to different species of dogs, like the South American bush dog and the Asian raccoon dog and the African painted dog, even though these could not interbreed? Now, I wouldn't accept that all dogs are descended from wolves any more than you would accept that humans are descended from monkeys. I did actually say that humans are monkeys, both by definition and derivation. I realize this is a controversial thing, but I can prove that too. I've even gotten lots of quotations from paleoanthropologists who express that, yes, we are a subset of monkeys. Well, you can't have new world monkeys and old world monkeys both descend from a common ancestor that wasn't a monkey itself. And likewise, where most people put old world monkeys and modern old world monkeys in a separate category than the apes, they don't realize that there's a third group that they both descend from, that is basal to both of them, and that's propliopithecoidia, which I brought up before. Yes, yes. And that's exactly why I would answer the question you gave me with, no, I don't accept that dogs are descended from wolves. Wolves and dogs are both modern creatures like monkeys and people. I did specify domestic dogs. Would you accept that domestic dogs are derived from Asiatic wolves? Would you accept that? No, because I would say that they're all the same thing. Don't forget, they're interferes today. Being all the same thing mean that domestic dogs were not derived from Asiatic wolves? Well, it's like you said, our mammals derived from mammals. The Asiatic dog would have just been an older dog in the past. It would just be like Neanderthals are a human from the past. So I wouldn't say any more than a modern evolution to say that people came from chimps, I wouldn't say that dogs came from wolves. That dogs are really a breed of wolf. And wolves are a breed of dog. So yes, you would say that domestic dogs were derived from wolves? No, no. But you just said that's what that means. No, I'm saying they're all like that bush thing you're talking about with the family tree. They're all in the same bush. I wouldn't say that necessarily wolves are down here and they're on the trunk and they're the most recent common ancestor of dogs and modern wolves. But there's obviously something in the dog kind. There's a dog creature that's back there, maybe several. And that would explain the infertility between some dog groups. It doesn't mean there was just one dog kind or one dog species that was infertile. There may have been several like that. So I'm trying to get to a simple yes or no, just to let you, let us, I mean, you're giving conflicting answers. No, no, I'm not. I'm saying that I'm not saying that. I'll explain why you are giving, I'll explain why you are giving this, why you are giving contradictory answers. Well, I said that wolves, I answered no, that I don't believe that modern. You said both yes and no. Wolves, they would be descended from the same thing in microevolution, but not in that. Okay, so you, but you gave both a yes and a no and you contradicted yourself. I asked if you thought that domestic dogs were derived from wolves and you said no and then said that domestic dogs were a breed of wolf, which means yes. So your previous answers would have been yes. Okay, now my main point though is, okay, let's put it this way instead then I see what you're saying that the original back in the day before we had all the domestic different 200 breeds of dogs and we had, you know, domestic dogs and wild dogs and coyotes and dingoes and all of that, that there was a dog sort of a population on this earth and that all of these things we see today are breeds of that. By creation model, they would all be a breed of that and the same actual kind or species. If you had a creation model, then maybe you would say that, but you don't. Okay, so going back to Jennifer, we do have a model. You absolutely don't. You absolutely don't, but that would be the topic of a whole nother debate, which I would love to pursue. You clearly don't have one. Just to get back to debate the model idea, but just to okay, so on on breeds and species and speciation and everything. So if we go back 15, 20,000 years ago, we don't have doxons, we don't have blood hounds, we don't have basset hounds, we don't have hounds. All of those were derived from other dogs, right? So you get a hound, you get your first basal domestic dog and from that you breed like terriers and hounds and some other distinct groups and within hounds, you get blood hounds and basset hounds and then you get doxons. You follow me there? You accept that so far? Well, sure, but are you saying that's macro? No. Oh, good. Okay, so if I say it's micro, then you'll accept it. Got it. I figure out how this works. I mean, it's micro. It's a reshuffling of the genes that are already there. Yes. Okay, well, that is a nonsense, but we'll just skip it. Wait a minute, wait a minute. Now you said I said it was nonsense. Yeah, it's a reshuffling of the genes because genes are never reshuffled. That's not how anything works. But we'll just ignore that for the moment. But that is how every generation works by the... That's how no generation ever worked, but we're going to skip over that for the moment. So 15,000, 20,000 years ago, there are people living amongst wolves, but they do not have any domestic dogs. Would you accept that they derived the ancestor of all of the terriers and hounds and all of the subsequent breeds? These all initially came from strains of Asiatic wolves. Would you accept that? No, wait a minute. Let's go back to what you said about me that I'm wrong, that every generation doesn't mix and match their chromosomes within a breeding population. Are you saying I'm wrong about that? You said that genes are shuffled. Yeah, that's absolutely wrong. But we're not talking about that right now. Are you saying then that genes don't mix and match with each generation? We're not talking about recombination. You said that all of these subspecies level classifications are a reshuffling of genes. Is it the word shuffling that you're saying that you're taking opposition to? I'm just trying to make it simple. Okay, so what actually happens is that we have constant accumulation of mutations. Like for example, in humans, we have an average of 128 mutations per zygote. And that's just the ones you start with. That's before you start accruing more. Now, these are not the ones necessarily that are inherited by your ancestors. But every small population, because this relates to something else that you said, smaller populations tend to evolve faster than larger ones. And the reason is that the larger the breeding population, the larger the gene pool, the more inhibition. So when you do these recombinations, new variants tends to be minimized or restricted. It's inhibited. But in small isolated populations, they do evolve faster, which is part of what Gould was talking about, which you referenced earlier. But what I want to try to get to is back to 15, 20,000 years ago, we don't have hounds, we don't have terriers, but would you accept that somebody derived the ancestor of all domestic dog breeds from wolves? That's a yes or no question. Okay, maybe I need to get your definition of what a wolf is because wolves live today, right? And would that have been a wolf 15,000 years ago? Well, then if you're going to call modern great apes, and you're going to call the most recent common ancestor or even their deep evolutionary ancestors the same exact thing, we really need to have two different words for two different creatures. We're not talking about species level classifications now. If we're talking about ape, that is a superfamily classification, and I've given the criteria to describe that. And most of the species of ape that we know of in the fossil record are all extinct now. Most of them. There's very few left. But with wolves, I'm sorry, what morphologically, we're primates just like them. We are still primates. Yeah, we never stop being primates. Well, let's get back to the wolf question. What is it that you actually mean by this? Okay. Every classification to define what a wolf is would apply to the wolves we have in the wild now as it would to the wolves that we had 20,000 years ago. How about thousands of years, not millions of years? So it would be the same species. You can derive blood hounds and you can derive basset hounds from blood hounds, and you can derive doxons from basset hounds. I mean, you can see the linear progression there, all of which can still exist because we're talking about something that is only in a couple of thousand years, right? You accept that? Well, would this ancient wolf have been a dog then? What is a dog that we have to give? Well, that's what I'm trying to say. Do you need to have two different words for this dog and wolf? Let me explain. I said domestic dogs. Yeah, sure. But isn't it a dog or is it a wolf? I mean, they are introvertal today. That depends on what your definition of dog. If we're talking about domestic dogs, that is different than the parent category of canaday. So any member of canaday would be technically a dog, and that would include even foxes. Yeah. Would you accept that foxes are dogs? If they're introvertal, I've read they're trying to do that, but I haven't heard that they've done it. Like I said, there can be reproductive isolation by two gene pools that have actually become so different through all kinds of different things. Now, horses are able to handle having different numbers of chromosomes, but if there are fusions and splitings and too many transposons and translocations, it just could be accommodated in one breeding pool group of the same kind or species and not in the other. And then they would become genetically isolated even though they're the same thing. They're not a new species. So I'm saying the dogs today are introvertal with the wolves. And so they are the same thing. It's calling them wolf and dog and saying the dogs came from wolves. Is there a reason to Is there is there any kind of value in referring to one dog as a doxund and another dog as a great Pyrenees? The same value as referring to some human as a blonde than another person as a brunette is sure. There's a certainly a much, much greater difference between a doxund and a great Pyrenees than there is between any two people that you can find on the planet today. There's going to be a much bigger genetic difference. Dogs are much more genetically diverse than us. Dogs are much more genetically diverse than people are. But you accept that bloodhounds and that doxunds could be derived from something like a bloodhound. A bloodhound can be derived from something like, I'm sorry, from a basset hound. A basset hound can be derived from something like a bloodhound. And the bloodhound is derived from like the progenitor of all hounds which is separate from the progenitor of all terriers and like mastiffs and that sort of thing. You accept that all of those can coexist and they can be derived from wolves, right? You accept that just yes. They do coexist, but again, you're calling modern wolves and ancient wolves the exact same thing. And they're not. Because modern wolves and ancient wolves are the exact same thing, they're still the same species. Every species last a successful species. Well, then our dogs the same thing as wolves since you're saying they came from. So you are accepting simple. Yeah, I asked you a question. Our dogs and wolves the same thing. They are both canids. Yes, sure. And so our modern wolves, timber wolves, gray wolves, red wolves, and then tigers and dogs are the same thing because they're both carnivores. No, elephants and dogs are the same thing because they're both mammals. What elephants and dogs are the same thing because they're both mammals. What are you saying? You mean that? I'm making fun of the position you just said. I'm showing you how. Just hear the response from Aaron. What? I know that you were starting a response and then Dr. Jackson, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but just to be sure that we heard the response from Aaron, I promise we'll come right back to you. Obviously, Dr. Jackson. I think he's heard my response. I'm still waiting for that answer because I have another question as a follow up. I just have to get I'm asking a yes or no question have been for the last 15 minutes. I just can't. My problem isn't that I cannot get a yes or no if my problem is that I got both. I need to get one. The problem is that you've changed your definition of whether wolves and ancient wolves are the same thing and dogs change the same thing. A species will generally last for maybe five million years. Wolves as a species, we're still in that five million range. They have not ceased to exist. Now you can derive from wolves domestic dogs and you accept, please just say yes if you accept that we derive domestic dogs from wolves. Not today's wolves. What? Not today's wolves. Today's wolves, yesterday's wolves, last Thursday's wolves. What difference does it make? Well, the same thing is why the, which I have already said, I apologize for creationists that go around saying that evolutionists believe that we descended from chimpanzees. We, you know, that is not what the evolutionists are saying. And I understand that they're saying that we came from the same thing. And I was saying that modern living wolves and modern living dogs came from the same thing because they're what did they come today? What did they both come from? Some ancestral form within the same breeding kind that was inner fertile today. Okay. So we're going to use an undefined term that doesn't work, but what I'm trying to get to use that doesn't work. You kind because you don't know what kind means literally. I don't know what kind. Reproductively. No, you don't understand. The word kind implies a special conflict from the Bible, right? I think I understand. Yeah, we're talking about the word kind is a biblical word. So we're going to have to use the biblical definition. It's a special creation by God. So that however many canids or carnivores or mammals or whatever, there are some, you would accept that there's some version of modern taxonomy that it stems from these created kinds, whatever the created kind are. And then each of the created kinds would be on Noah's Ark. So we have to establish if there is such a thing as a created kind because, spoiler, there ain't. If there was such a thing, then we would have all of these created kinds on Noah's Ark and we would know from them what we derive. So yes or no, please, do you accept that all domestic dog breeds were derived from what we currently recognize genetically and morphologically as Asiatic wolves? Not the way you're asking it. Wolves and dogs are the same. How do I have to ask the question to get that question answered with a yes or no? Well, it's not a yes or no question. It certainly is. It can't be a maybe. It can't be a number. It can't be a location. The only way to answer this is with a yes or with a no. I'm asking the question. That's not true. Do you accept yes or no? Wolves and dogs come from on on much longer ago, wolf dog like creature, a candidate, some kind of chain. So you reject all of the genetic studies that show that domestic dog breeds, all of them were derived from four lineages, genetic lineages from Asiatic wolves. You just reject all of that science. I would reject that. I'd reject the terminology because wolves exist today. Is there a way that I can phrase this where you will admit that the thing that I'm asking is true? Well, you said that dogs are a breed of wolves. So apparently, clearly, there's a way that I can use all the wrong words in here that'll get you to answer that question with a yes. No. Okay. Well, would you say that that the creature you're talking about, when you mention ancient wolves and that there weren't any ancient wolves 15, 20,000 years ago? We're not talking millions. We're only talking about which which kind of wolf are we talking about in the past? Well, not the dire wolf, not the gray wolf, but tell me the one we are not the red wolf. We're talking about Asiatic wolves. The Asiatic wolf. Okay. Would you say to me that if an Asiatic wolf went through a little time portal and came here that it could breed with a German shepherd successfully and with a modern tumor wolf successfully? In that case, chemically, probably yes. Now, I say chemically because there's an issue on speciation. It's not just whether they can, but whether they will. Oh, yeah. I'm just saying viable. I mean, the liger. You could take artificial insemination? Absolutely. Yes, it could. Now, if I can get to the follow up question, I just want to make sure I got a yes that you accept that all domestic dog breeds were bred from wolves. You accept that. Yes, that's a yes. It's again, you're using that word wolf again, as though modern wolves are the same thing as the. Because modern wolves are the same thing. Well, our dogs. They were not a different species only 10, 15,000 years ago. They were the same species they are now. If we had a wolf transported through a TARDIS from 15 or 20,000 years ago, yes, absolutely. It could breed with Asiatic wolves today because they're the same species. As long as we're admitting they're the same species, then yeah. Right. Asiatic wolves from 15,000 years ago. They were not even the creation model. So do you accept just to be sure that they people want to hear you both? And so just to be sure that we're not talking over each other. Am I doing that? I apologize if that's me doing that. I apologize. It was me too. Kind of mutual overlap. I don't know what's one of us. I know that I have a tendency to do that and I apologize. So I'm hoping that I can get a yes out of this. 15,000, 20,000 years ago, there are no domestic dogs. They have Asiatic wolves. People bred from that what became the derivation that led to the, it was the ancestor of all domestic dog breeds. Do you accept that? Please say yes. I'm not sure. It sounds like the other shoe that's going to drop is some kind of a semantic thing. And I'm looking for a genetic thing. Someone in the comments just accused me of dogging you. Okay. I like that one too. Or maybe shepherding. You know, both could work, but I mean, dogging is a better, a better plan. Let me, let me lighten it up a little bit and say, my wife recently said to me, can we have a dog? I said, well, you're going to have a dog. I'm not taking on a new project, but this dog is a sprudel, which is a springer spaniel poodle. Now I'm going to say this is a dog. And I'm going to say that it came from wild dogs or what you might call an ancient wolf. I would just call it an older dog, a breed of dog that all these other breeds with the genetic diversity capable in dogs actually have been artificially selected to you would agree that's artificial selection. I would say, yes, it's artificial selection, all of the, but it is like all of the, and it caused them to come from the same gene pool. So my sprudel, panda, the sprudel actually does come from a family, the same family that wolves come from. But I wouldn't say that that panda came from a wolf directly and maybe doesn't even have the genetic a panda lost in the breeding that we couldn't breed back to wolves from panda. Did I hear you right? Did you say panda? Well, that's it has black spots on its eyes. So we called it panda. Okay. There's two, there's two animals that we call panda. One of them is just a bear and actually not a panda. The giant panda is not a panda. They're giant. I'm sorry, but this is the name we gave the dog. I could have called it rocket. Okay. That's the dog's name. I'm sorry. Okay. It's the dog's name. Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry. It's a sprudel. All right. So you do accept that 15,000 years ago, well, I would also like to say that if we put your sprudel in a time machine and went back 15 or 20,000, the Asiatic wolves would not recognize that as a viable mate. They would simply eat it. Yes. But I don't mean to disparage your pooch. Yeah. You accept that 15,000, 20,000 years ago, whenever it was that there were no Yorkies, there were no shitsoos, there were none of these breeds. We know what year some of these breeds were derived and by what people, what breeders. So we know that way back when there were no terriers, there were no hounds, so forth. They were all derived from Asiatic wolves. What we would recognize yesterday and today as Asiatic wolves. You get that? You accept that yes answer, right? Well, I don't know enough about Asiatic wolves. I do know what a wolf lives in Asia. A wolf that lives in Asia? It's not a red wolf. It's not a timber wolf. It's not a gray wolf. Yeah. It's not an Arctic wolf. It's an Asiatic wolf. So all of the wolves, a wolf species I just mentioned, these are all North American wolves. Yeah. Now, are they in her fertile? Obviously, that seems to be the question, which is why I'd love to get to the follow-up. Chemically, yes, they are all in the fertile. The red wolf is in such dire straits that at this point, it'll breed with anything. Yeah. Well, that's what happens when you have a compromised population. Suddenly, coyotes decide that, hey, maybe domestic dogs aren't so ugly after all, since I haven't seen another coyote in 10 months when other populations get derived. So is that a yes, then, that you accept that domestic dogs were derived from Asiatic wolves? You accept that. Except they're in the same kind. Except that kind doesn't mean anything because kind is, kind does mean something. Kind is a special creation by God. So if you're telling me that God created Asiatic wolves, then did God also create gray wolves? Where are we going with this? Well, which kind of wolf was there a wolf on Noah's Ark? You gave a definition of species as reproductively viable and that's all I'm really saying when I say time. Okay, then that's why I would love to see if I could get you past the simple yes or no question. Everybody knows the answer. Everybody knows the answer is yes, but you won't say yes. Well, that's because like I said, I'm worried about the semantics on this. What semantics? Well, the calling of a modern wolf and a modern dog, I mean, is it the dog from the same family as the wolf and do you accept that there is genetic evidence that all domestic dog breeds were derived from Asiatic wolves? That you start with an Asiatic wolf and that they then derive certain traits to breed out all of these other subsequent species or, excuse me, subsequent breeds of dogs. Do you accept that? Well, I don't really know enough about the Asiatic wolf being the only gene pool that was tapped for domestic Asiatic wolves. Well, they didn't have access to North American wolves. Do you understand that? These are people living in Asia. They've never seen a North American wolf. One thing I do want to quick jump in and mention is we might, if you have a couple of pithy responses on this topic, otherwise, what we should probably do is if there's any last issue in particular related to the topic more broadly before we go to Q&A, that you were kind of like, man, I really want us this. Now's a great time to ask it. Otherwise, we should go to Q&A. I'm just going to try to make this as easy as possible. Are domestic dog breeds all of them biologically related to each other? Sure. Okay, they're not none of them was God didn't make doxons and then make basset hounds there. He didn't create special creations of dogs. They're just all dogs are related to each other. They all evolved through artificial selection from other dogs, right? Okay, now you asked two questions. You said, did God create doxons and schnauzers or something? No, separate creations because they're the same kind in her fertile. Right. So you're saying that they didn't God ask me if I believe they evolved, which through artificial selection. Yes. Oh, yeah. That's natural selection, artificial selection, and that's not macro evolution. We can't get there if we can't get past step. We can't make this step two if we can't get past step one. So your answer then is, yes, all domestic dogs are biologically related to each other. I'm going to ask the secondary question. Are all domestic dog breeds biologically related to wolves, not separate magical creations by God, but biologically related? Oh, I don't believe there are separate creation from wolves. No, very good. So they are biologically related. There was there was some genetic relationship there. Sure. Okay, good. Now, what about the Asian? Are you going back to the Asian? Well, because I don't know enough about the Asian group itself. You don't need to answer your question. You don't need to. Okay. What about the African pated dog? Yeah, what about it? Is it biologically related to all other domestic to all domestic dogs? It's a wild dog. Is it inter fertile? No. It could be then, but it would have you'd have to do some genetic test to see. We've done that. So African pated dogs are not genetically inter fertile. They have grown too far apart. Okay, as I was talking about genetic isolation. Okay, so you accept then that pated dogs which cannot inter breed with wolves or domestic dogs, or bush dogs, or raccoon dogs, or foxes, or the South American main wolf. They can't breed with any of those. All of these things have grown too far genetically distinct. They are all now different species. Do you accept that they are biologically related? I'll give you a chance to respond, Dr. Jackson. No, we do have to go to the Q&A in order for us to stay close to the format that I promised you guys. Well, there were two questions there and no, I don't think there are different species, even though they're reproductively isolated now genetically. Okay, so the fact that they can no longer inter breed has nothing to do with the definition you earlier accepted whether they can still bring forth after their own kind. So you're now contradicting yourself to change your story. No, no, the loss of the ability to reproduce doesn't mean that a new species has more. I'm sorry, I had like, I had no less than a dozen questions for you and we're still on the first one. Well, this is very, very frustrating. Well, if I have to do a second one. I'm not even going to after this much trouble with the first one, with it being a yes or no question, I'm not even going to bother. We'll take audience questions, please. We will jump into the Q&A. I am loading up those questions right now, but I do want to remind you folks, our guests are linked in the description. We highly encourage you. You can check out their links that's both here and at the podcast as we put our guest links in the description box for both. I am having one embarrassing problem. I'm like, I've got a list here in the Creator Studio of all the questions that have come in. And let me just see if I can get this to open on Firefox, because it's not opening on Chrome, which is unusual. So bear with me folks. But do want to mention a couple of, well, what we might do is out of curiosity while I try to get this little glitch fixed. Aaron, if you have a second question, or maybe Dr. Jackson, if you had one that you especially wanted to ask. Give him a shot at asking me. I'll show him how to answer easily. Well, are macro and micro evolution the same? There are the exact same collection of processes and methods and mechanisms. There is only one difference. According to every academic institution that teaches evolution, all of them unanimously state that the difference is that speciation is macro evolution, all of them. And if you want the citations, I'd be happy to provide those in the link below. No, that's okay. If any of you have any other questions, you can. In the meantime, I will let you know, folks, this Q&A will be longer than usual. So if you have questions, feel free to let them rip. And we're going to go for about an hour for the Q&A. And also, folks, someone did remind me in the live chat, hit that like button if you've enjoyed this debate, folks. If you're enjoying it, as we have plenty more to go for about another hour almost, and so I'm going to encourage you. I've got a handful of other points I want to throw out. If you don't mind. Go ahead. Chromagnon or Chromagnon was always understood to be homo sapiens. It was never thought to be a different species ever. Neanderthals. Neanderthals, I remember when I was a little kid and creationists in my family thought that Neanderthals were supposed to be our ancestors, and I had to correct them as a small child that nobody ever taught that because they didn't. That Neanderthals were never thought to be our ancestors, not even when they were first discovered. They already knew about Homo erectus quite early on, and that was clearly ancestral to both homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis. Only clearly if you already go on the premise of the Armenian evolution actually having. What other option is there? What? What option is there? What other explanation can there be for the existence of Neanderthals, Denisovans, and other human species including Homo erectus and all the variants thereof? Well, I would like to be saying what other explanation is there for Australian Aborigines and Tasmanian Aborigines. I mean, these are breeding groups of people. Some are extinct and some are at stand. Except that they're not breeding groups of people. Aren't the Tasmanians inter-burl and inter-breeding? We are talking about a much higher classification now. We're talking about an actual race as was understood in the 19th century, the old definition of race, which doesn't apply to any group of people living today. So we're talking about genetically distinct where they can identify the genome of a Neanderthal, the genome of a Denisovan, the genome of Homo sapiens as being distinctly different. Different races? What? Different races? Different races. And every person that's alive today, as Darwin himself said, all belong to the same race. I mean, there's a lot of people that want to divide into some unknown number of races. And one of the things that Darwin commented on was that nobody could agree on how many different races there were. If there were different races, then we should be able to tell how many different ones they were, but nobody could. And nobody could come up with a definition for that. Everybody inter-breed with everybody else. Everyone blended together, as Darwin put it. Neanderthals aren't a separate race. Neanderthals are genetically distinct. It's not like any group of people living today. Same thing with Denisovans. You can't just get a portion of the genome of any person alive today and on that portion of a genome identify what ethnicity there are and say that they belong to this genetic race. No, the actual definition of genetic, or I say the actual, the original definition of genetic race, as it was in Darwin's day, only applies to Neanderthals, and Denisovans, and erectines, and so forth. Well, let's talk about how much more we now know about race and genetics. For instance, it was like in the early 2000s that we discovered that there could be more genetic diversity. Say, Aaron, between you and I, then there could be between me and someone of African descent or Asian descent. Therefore, the whole construct of race is just an illusion made up by people who don't like the way other people look. The genetic doesn't rally. It's not scientific. It's not evolutionarily scientific. It is evolutionary scientific or scientific. There's four subgroups of chimpanzees that are still alive today. I know that you are talking about people, and now I am talking about chimpanzees as a comparison to what you just said, in order to put that into perspective. There are four genetic races of chimpanzees that are all for more genetically diverse than all of humanity today. So all of humanity today are not very genetically diverse at all. However, Neanderthals and Denisodens, and so on, I wish I could remember all the other names because there's all these other groups, and we now have their genome for a lot of these other groups, including even remnants that we believe are from erectus, although it's impossible to say for sure. These are all genetically distinct. Unlike anybody today, you, me, people from Africa, from Japan, we're all going to be more alike genetically than the two different groups of chimpanzees. They are more distinct than all of humanity are. Are you saying that's a race that's different from you and me? They're genetically distinct, so there are four races of chimpanzees and one race of humans. There's one race of humans, and as long as they're interfertile, like Neanderthals and all the other extant humans at the time, then that's still one race. Different races can also be interfertile. Race could be a subspecies classification, meaning that it would be like crossbreeding a doxened with a bloodhound. You would get a hybrid, a fertile hybrid, but you'd still be able to tell that it was a mix of two different things. What would be the purpose of labeling Neanderthals a different race from the rest of the human race? The purpose is the one I just explained a half a dozen times. That they are genetically different from extant. Genetically distinct, like comparing the Pyrenees with the doxened, that kind of genetic distinction. You do a DNA test, you just have the blood of the thing, and now you know what breed it came from. But you can't really do that with people. You need to have a full genome. You can't just get a portion of it, but in Neanderthals and Deneasiths, you can just get a portion of it and it's enough to tell. Well, you can certainly establish that people of German descent and Irish descent have a distinct genetic trail. No, you really can't. You can't? Well, how come they do this DNA ancestry thing and that Dr. Gates? Because they're looking for genetic markers. They're looking for genetic markers within one genome. So they're in a collection of genetic markers that will identify your ethnicity at various points in the world by maxing the markers in a, what is the, what is the term? Well, you just said there's just one human race and I agree. That's right. There is one human race, one genome, and that you can get different genetic markers arising in different parts of the world. However, with Neanderthals, here's a different genome and Deneasithans another different genomes and erectus another different genome. So they are different races. There's blur the distinction by saying that these things they could interbreed, but they're still a different race by race. I mean, don't forget the title of Darwin's book, you know, on the origin of the species by means of natural selection of favored races. And what races did he mention in that book? Races of cabbages. Yeah, okay. Races of muscles. Well, I'm not saying that I agree with Darwin. He was talking about, he was talking in 19th century language about subspecies. They didn't use the word subspecies, then they used the word race. Then what I'm saying is Neanderthals are people too. Yes. And so are Homo erectus. Now you might look at any of them and think that they were monkeys, but they're still people. I wouldn't think on the Neanderthal was a monkey because you don't know what a monkey is. I would look at you and say that you're a monkey and I would say the same thing about me. Well, that's semantics again. Obviously, I'm not in neither of you. You're obviously what? You're obviously not a monkey. I'm obviously a monkey by definition and derivation. Only in the evolutionary context. Sure, I can see where you would say that, but you can tell the difference for the same reason that I am a mammal. Can you tell the difference between a human and a mammal? Of course, depends on which mammal you're talking about. Well, yeah. There you go. So if you can't tell the difference between a human and a mammal, you can't tell the difference between a human and animal. You can't tell the difference between a human and a vertebrate. You can't tell the difference between a human and a primate. And you can't tell the difference between a human and a monkey. Well, you can if they can't reproduce together. This reminds me of a hypothetical argument that you might have with with the Night Industries 2000 from the old Knight Rider show where Kit says that he's not a car because he's smarter than a car. And you can tell the difference between him and a car, but he's still a General Motors Pontiac Trans-Am. He's still inarguably a car, no matter what his vanity says. And Ecclesiastes 3, 18 to 21, the Bible says that it is only your vanity that gets you to refuse to admit that you're an animal. Does it actually say it that way? Yep. No, it doesn't say it that way. There's a number of... Ecclesiastes 3 says, who knows whether the soul of the beast goes up or down or the soul of a man goes up and down. It doesn't say it's your vanity that says you're an animal. Keep reading. Should we? Yep, they're going to be receded. I really don't want to pull out a Bible during the science. They don't see that they... You brought it up. Yeah, that men have not seen that they themselves are beasts. Oh, yes, we have animal bodies. And that's why a veterinarian has to have as much training as a medical doctor, because our bodies pump blood and do all these things. They're evil. So what kind of animal army? We're a primate. What kind of primate are we? We're haplorine, because we have dry noses. What kind of haplorine? Monkeys. What kind of monkeys? Old world monkeys. What kind of old world monkeys? Apes. What kind of apes? Great apes. So on. Well, obviously within the evolutionary paradigm that would be the classification and definition, but it wouldn't be. And there isn't a creationist model. There's no observations. There's no mechanism. There's nothing you can point to and say, this is the creationist knowledge on the subject because there's no such thing. There is no alternate explanation for these. Well, you actually don't know as much about us as I thought you did. Well, in all my experience of debating with creationists, this is a consistency that I have noticed. I have always turned out to know more about both sides of this argument than you all know about your own alone. Yeah, I do know better about this than you did. Wow. The only positive that makes you want to say that a creation model doesn't exist is that there's a premise, a proviso in the creation model that there actually is a God. I realize that. And evolutionists, I can cite many Christian evolutionists. Sure, there are a lot of evolutionists. I don't have a problem with that. There's a God. Obviously, I mean... The problem with creationism is the reality denial involved because creationism is a form of religious extremism that requires that you deny the evidence, whether it's the creation of the earth, whether it's the genetics that show the relationships of all these things, whether it's taxonomy, you will deny evidence, whether it's fossils, et cetera. All you can do is say none of these things matter. Well, that's actually, I don't think I've said that any of these things don't matter yet. You've said that several times. You just haven't phrased it that way. Oh, okay. Well, I guess it was unidentifiable. The belief that there is a God and that God did create, then is the premise. And actually, don't you think that God's a matter of faith, that the belief that God created is not the principle? I do think that Dr. Jackson was partway through his answer. No, I'm sorry. That was my fault. Well, don't you think that it does take some matter of trust and faith that the evolutionary positives, well, exist in his reality as well? No. I'm an epistivist. I reject faith as the most dishonest position it is possible to hold. Any belief that requires- I don't mean spiritual faith at all. Any belief that requires faith should be rejected for that reason. Don't you trust any of the authorities in the- Oh, I trust based on evidence, not based on faith. Trust in the interpretation. But trust is not synonymous with faith. You need a prefix and a suffix to turn trust into faith. Is a complete trust that is not based on evidence. My trust is not complete and it is based on evidence. It's dependent on evidence. And if I find that the evidence is insufficient, I will instantly lose that belief. I'll go that evidence can be interpreted, evidence and proof of two different things. You don't want to have this conversation with me. I've explored this much further than you ever will. So let's just change the subject. Dude, we have questions of yet. What we're gonna have to do folks is for the Q and A, I have posted a Google doc at the top of the chat. So we're going to have to rely on Scouts Honor here folks. If you sent a super chat in, I can't access it. There's a glitch in the YouTube creator studio where normally I can just click show all and it'll show me all the questions that have come in. Right now there is a glitch. I can't get it to work. However, if you happen to have put a super chat in already, please add your super chat question that you put in earlier to this Google doc that I have pinned to the top of the chat and you can put your name there with it. I'm so sorry that we have to do it this way folks. But like I said, for some reason there seems to be some sort of glitch tonight where I have no idea why I cannot open it from the creator studio like usual. Yeah, I wanna come on a comment that somebody in your comment section said that I think that only certain people alive today are monkeys and subhuman. I never said anything like that. I said that all humans are monkeys, myself included. So that person is misrepresenting me deliberately. You got it. And I see people are starting to type in those questions. Sorry folks about that. But I thank you so much for all of you who are cooperating. I sincerely appreciate it. And that Google doc, anybody can edit it. And again, this is Scout's honor. So we're just trusting you that you actually did put in the question earlier is we really do folks, we wanna honor those people who have given those. Oh, thanks so much. Somebody even put a screen shot in. I am so thankful. Roger, I think that was Roger Pollock that put it in. Bubblegum Gunn said, the founder of the DNA Helix admitted race is real. I don't know that doesn't seem relevant to me, but if you wanna respond, you can. Yeah, the problem is you've got race realists who want to exaggerate this beyond what it needs to be. I'll agree with that. And so they wanna plead for superiority. And Darwin argued that superiority was determined by environmental conditions and that there were variables on, you may be superior in one thing, but not superior in another. And he thought that Darwin also said that purity led to congenital defects. Roger, this one coming in from, Daniel seems to appreciate it, says, Aaron, are you still working at Dinosaur Adventureland? Well, oh boy, he's teasing you. Next step, Aaron's face. Luke, Steven, thanks for your question. Let's see. Said Dr. Jackson, if God did create everything, why did he do it such that it appears to almost all educated individuals and scientists as though it all evolved, seems quite deceptive of God, does it not? Yeah, I just noticed that Nephilim Free just lied about me. He said that I lied about what Darwin said. I can provide citations to show what Darwin said. So this is a reason I don't talk to Nephilim Free because all he can do is lie. Well, we'll get to your guys's, your never ending feud, I promise, but go back to this question, this one was, as I mentioned, Dr. Jackson, he said, if God did create everything, why is it the case that almost all educated individuals and scientists see it as evolved, seems quite deceptive of God to have made it look evolved? Well, just because of consensus of most educated scientists is certainly not all. If we went with consensus, then we might say that there was a time when we knew that the sun went around the earth and so consensus isn't a reliable indicator of absolute truth. And as far as why did God make everything so that looks evolved? Again, that's that interpretation of the data. We're all looking at the exact same data in all the fields of science. We're looking at the same evidence. We're just interpreting it differently because of two different paradigms. I don't know. Yeah, I gotta contest that. We definitely are not looking at the same data because the fact that humans are apes by definition, the fact that we have the molecular phylogeny of living primates all indicates exactly where we're located in the ape tree. This is data that the creationist is actively looking away from. We're not looking at the same data. There is no data that implies creation. There never was any. Now you can try to interpret in weird ways, but you're going to have to ignore the data in order to make that interpretation. Well, you just made my point. There was not a time when we thought that the Earth was flat. I didn't say flat. I said geocentrism. Yeah, when we thought that the sun went around the Earth. Yeah. Maybe. Maybe I'll give you that one, but then science determined that that's not the case. Science determined that the Earth is actually spinning and creating a perspective. And then the church prohibited that teaching because they insisted that the Earth not be moved because that's what scripture says. Oh, sorry, I wasn't wishing the church. And I'm not right now. You said my definition. We do have a lot of questions. Forgive me, guys. I'm so sorry, but we might have to keep it somewhat pithy in terms of the responses. I do want to mention, folks, you can submit new questions via the standard way, super chat on the chat. And I can get those because now I know that I have to copy and paste them as they come in. So that still works. And in the meantime, if you put one in earlier, I'm looking those up right now. This one coming in. And you've got a troll in the comments who thinks because he has one quote out of context that he doesn't understand what Darwin was talking about or why, that I haven't read the rest of the book that also contradicts that out of context quotation. Why do we allow Nephilim for you in here? I have a feeling I had a feeling that the troll in chat you were referring to is Nephilim for you. But this one comes in from Rodent, no last name, says, for Aaron, please set aside time to have another chat with Gutsick Gibbon. YouTube's favorite daughter. Yeah, who is Gutsick Gibbon going to have a chat with? They said, Aaron, we want to see you have another chat with Gutsick Gibbon. Yeah, I'd be delighted. Next up, this one says, Dr. Jackson, seriously? Were you being, let's see, all, let's see. And then this one, that one I just didn't even understand. Some of your questions, folks, a small percent to be fair. Sometimes I don't understand. But this one coming in from, I don't know, said, Aaron, first time seeing you. And I just want to thank you for being so well-versed and prepared. Best debater I've seen in a while and way more patient. And in terms of, I think they're saying like you're a very patient debater as well. And so you had a fan out there. Next up, coming in from Luke Stephens. Stevens, thanks for your question, says, Dr. Jackson, what evidence would conclusively prove to you that creationism was false? In other words, is your theory falsifiable? Well, the same thing would be true from the person's other comment. All these majority of educated scientists see that the entire universe and all of the evidence says that evolution is true, ignoring the fact that this is interpretation of the data and the evidence that is saying that. So the same thing is here. Asking that kind of question and throwing it out, which I've heard so many times, it goes both ways. What would it take to say that evolution isn't true? What would it take to say that creation isn't true? So much of the data is easily accommodated by really any paradigm that somebody subscribes to. And we need to admit that nobody is objective. We all are. I am objective. And one of the things that would disprove evolution, one thing that would disprove evolution is not something that's possible even in science because we're all human. I admit that. One thing that would disprove evolution, as I've often brought up in the past, is pegasus. You find a hexapod mammal where a mammal suddenly has dinosaur feathers. That goes against evolution. Evolution cannot account for that. That would effectively disprove evolution. That animal could not have evolved. That would have to have come about by some other means. What Dr. Jackson is doing is Ken Ham's provision of saying that no evidence will ever change his mind, but that's not my position. I will change my mind. I don't have a choice. If you show me that the evidence is against me or that the evidence is not even sufficiently for me, I will obliquely change my mind. I don't have a choice in the matter. I also want to throw in one other thing. That given that 700 scientists, maybe 700 scientists with acceptable academic credentials out of 480,000 US earth and life scientists, only that many give credence to creation. So that means 0.14% of earth and life scientists give credence to creation. So why he says it's not a consensus, that it's not absolutely everybody. It is greater than 98.44%. And I think that's pure in most cases. So that is a consensus. And there is not, and this is important. There is not any evidence that indicates creationism. There not only is there no evidence, there is not one argument, never has been that is both true and indicative of their position, not one ever. Consensus doesn't make truth. We voted Pluto out of the solar system and it really Pluto doesn't care. The truth doesn't care about our opinions or which beliefs we have or interpretations of any of this. And as far as evidence, I mean, there is genetic evidence. There are interpretations of the exact same data that do support the creation model. All right, that will be another debate. I challenge you, there is no, no, zero, no evidence of creation. Not only is there no evidence of creation, not even a valid argument, all you have, everything you have for creationism is frauds, falsehoods and fallacies. There's nothing else. There's literally no truth to it at all. You cannot even address the evidence for evolution or against creationism. None. Folks, I wanna let you know a couple of things about the questions. One, thank you so much for your questions. Thanks to your patients and putting them into the Google doc. I do have to mention whether it be for either side, if it's like the super chat of like, oh, Aaron is dodging or oh, Dr. Jackson is dodging. It doesn't really add value to our Q and A when you just make assertions like that. So I'm not reading those super chats. Even though it's a super chat, it's just it waters down the value of the Q and A when it's just these empty assertions and like claiming people are dishonest or whatever. Standing for true things to your question says, human chromosomes have revealed large linkage blocks with little to no scrambling. If deep time evolution were true, the genome would be far more scrambled due to recombination and gene conversion. The genome looks young. How does Aaron explain this data? It doesn't look young and it wouldn't be scrambled. That makes no sense. Why would you assume that? What is scrambled even mean? But that just, that makes no sense in anything. Well, they do genetic phylogenies. I've got lists of genetic phylogenies. It's kind of my hobby. There's no such thing as scrambled DNA. It's a nonsense question. This one coming in from standing for truth as well says, why do you call yourself standing for truth when you don't have any truth behind your belief perspective at all? If you're stooping for lies, call yourself stooping for lies. We're gonna jump to there. Next question from standing for truth says, how does Aaron explain the mitochondrial DNA component of humans that is both fast and low in genetic variation? parentheses roughly 20 to 25 DNA differences separating any two people. There would be far more diversity and DNA differences if deep time evolution were true. All I can say about this, I'd have to look it up because I don't know off the top of my head, but everything we've ever done for that standing for truth has said or raw mad or any of these clowns is when I get an actual scientist in an interview to say, hey, this is what this creationist Yahoo said, they start laughing at the ignorance of the claim that the creation is made. So I'll be happy to take a snippet of that, bring it to actual scientists who work with genetics and then we'll find out what their examination of that is because I have no idea what he's even referencing. But I'm betting that the past is the key to the present and that creation is always saying stupid shit that never turns out to be true is gonna be consistent again. I'm gonna bet that it's gonna happen again. Always? Always. This one coming up. Not one argument ever that was both true and indicative of your position. Would you like to hear one? Oh, you don't have one, but please present one. Well, the genographic project found in the early 2000s that all the human race, every member of the human race today alive comes from one of four gene pools. And I thought about that and how does that finding actually fit with the creation model? I was thinking genetically, should all people be one of four gene pools? And not 20, not just two, but one of four. And yes, I'm gonna go to not Ecclesiastes, but Genesis and Noah's Ark and the literal interpretation of that biblical account and say that on Noah's Ark, which of course we would all be related to the three breeding couples that were on Noah's Ark and there were actually four gene pools on the Ark. All humans do come from one of four gene pools and there were four gene pools on the Ark. There was the Noah family, which included Mr. Noah and Mrs. Noah and the three boys. But it also included their three wives, which presumably could have been from three different families and excluding in breeding and stuff like that, which would make for now. I did not just prove Noah's Ark, but how much data actually fits the model that well for evolution, this happens to actually do what you said nothing ever does, Aaron. And that is that it picks the data, the data actually fits the creation model in this case. Except that it doesn't. Evangelical Christian Francis Collins is the director of the National Institutes of Health. He's from my town, Stanton, Virginia. Yeah, and he says that there cannot have been a population of only two people that Adam and Eve do not fit the evidence and that there cannot have been a population of less than 10,000 people that genetically that is impossible. You're quoting somebody and I'm quoting data. Yes, I'm quoting the director of the Human Genome Project. So you have faith in him. I think that counts his data. That's not the only Christian geneticist I could cite. There are a couple others that I have. I'm not counting votes. I talked about empirical evidence. I'm talking about professional geneticists who say that you are wrong. It's true. Don't you agree that's true? We have professional geneticists who are Christian and who say that you are wrong on this. They cite the data to back up why you were wrong on this. Well, I just cited the one thing you said I couldn't do. You made a claim that hasn't been substantiated, which I bet you won't be able to substantiate because I've seen some of your presentations. I doubt you can substantiate anything, honestly. You're saying that Spencer Wells of the Genographic Project. Present your data. Hold on, we do have another thing. I've already given you. Fact-ticket Spencer Wells with National Geographic conducted the Genographic study and found, and it's now in textbooks. It's in Kenneth Miller's edition of his biology textbook that all humans come from one of four gene pools. That's established. Yeah, it may have come from four gene pools. It may have, but... Well, it did, that's data. I could ask Kenneth Miller about this because I've done a few interviews with him and he also cites Francis Collins and that two of them are in agreement with along with someone like Chris... I know they're both believing... That there was never less than 10,000 people. So the four genomes cannot have been the fictional character for the guy who never existed on the boat that never happened to the flood that never happened and the three wives. That's not your four gene pools. You might be able to... If it happened, there'd be four gene pools in the human race today. They wouldn't have four gene pools for the reason I just explained, but let's get a geneticist to explain it in a little bit more detail. All geneticists would just fact check and agree with me that all humans come from one... Geneticists will just fact check and agree with you. So Francis Collins will just fact check and contradict what he himself previously said because I can get Francis Collins to comment on this. Oh no, I'm not talking about Noah's Ark. I'm just talking about the bare data, which I keep saying the evidence is interpreted differently by the two paradigms. You're not interpreting evidence at all. Sure, you are. Everybody does. Everybody interprets evidence and nobody is objective. You interpret all evidence through the evolutionary paradigm as I interpret all evidence through the creationary paradigm. It's impossible. You don't interpret evidence at all, you ignore it. I'm not ignoring the four gene pools, but you are. I'm not ignoring the four gene pools. I said that they can't constitute a population of less than 10,000 people. That's already been verified. And if we're talking about four different gene pools, we're not talking about one collective family from the Middle East. We have many questions. They didn't import one bride from the Orient and another bride from South America than another bride from South Africa. They didn't do that. We don't know what the person is. We're not gonna be able to get four gene pools. We must jump to that. We must jump to the next one. Cold Loyalty says, Hi, Aaron, big fan, but my question is why don't you just say thank you when anyone says, quote, but dogs just create dogs, unquote. They just admitted that you never outgrow your parent clade. Yeah, well, I'm trying to get to a point there, which I couldn't get to, because he was looking for the gotcha. Yeah, there was a gotcha there. The devil is in the details. I'm trying to show details. He says he interprets the data. He does not. He doesn't even wanna look at the data. Next up, this question coming in from, appreciate it. Roger Pollock says, Aaron, always a pleasure to see you again. How can we see the development of the brain as evidence of evolution from the stem to limbic to neocortex PFC? The simplest answer is that there's a way to divide it into the fish brain, the amphibian brain, the reptile brain also known as the r-cortex, and the mammalian brain, which is the gray matter that goes over that. It just depends on which study that divides it that way. Of course, most of them are looking at other things rather than the evolution of the brain. So you're not gonna find that depiction in most places, but there are some I have found some that explain that this part of the brain exists in fish. This part of the brain became an additional part that was only available in like proto tetrapods and so forth. This is the reptilian cortex. I think everybody knows about that. And then the gray matter, which is not something that we share with diapses like birds will have little to no gray matter in their brains. They just have like super well-tuned brains. You got it in. Roger Pollock says, oh, we got that one. And then this one comes from... I'd like to make a short comment on brain development if I might. In 2006, Vande Pavo found that the Fox P2 gene in humans versus in monkeys actually produces an enzyme that's only two amino acids different. And yet that we have such a bigger brain and we have the speech centers and all of that. And he suggested we don't really understand it all yet. And I think that's part of the wonder of science to say, so we're not really on top of brain development. There's so much more with regulatory genes that we probably need to discover and how brain development is different because the DNA isn't that different but the brain development comes out. There's probably more of these regulatory genes going on. You got it. Thanks very much. Azean, this question is though they say, quote, those four gene pools are Homo sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans and Homo erectus. Denisovans. Thank you. And they say, which one of Noah's kids were which? Well, since all of those gene pools exist today and any of those groups that don't exist today we'd be descendants of them. I'm not sure that you can say those four things and I don't think that Spencer Wells would say that those four gene pools are like the Denisovans and the Homo Agans or whatever the list he gave Neanderthals. Yeah, just to clarify, just to be certain. I mean, I want to be clear on this. There was no global flood of Noah's Ark. We know that for certain. That's one thing we can prove. There's no doubt about that. There's no possibility of it. It's not just that it couldn't happen but we know that it didn't happen even if it could have. That, of course, is another debate. Next up, C. Brown, appreciate it says, is unicellular creatures, are unicellular creatures really the true definition of evolution versus dog evolution? That question didn't make any sense to me. Gotcha. And then Bubblegum Gun says, Christians, please stop trying to co-opt our word. I don't know if they're, when they use plural I don't know if they're referring to people in the chat or if they mean you, Dr. Jackson, if you want to respond, you can. Co-opt our word. Again, I'm not sure what they mean. Was it capitalized word like Bible? I think that's what they meant, but he's also sometimes it's hard to tell if he's being for real or he's a troll. Next up, sorry. Skye Splann, thank you said, can Dr. Jackson name a single scientific discovery made via faith? Think they mean like via religious belief or I'm not sure if they mean faith in the more literal sense. Well, there was Matthew Fontaine Morrie, the father of oceanography that when he was reading the Bible and it mentioned the paths of the deep, he reasoned there must be paths in the deep. The Gulf Stream was already known, but Morrie then proceeded to follow that line of inquiry and mapped most of the ocean currents. So that would be one hint that was a springboard to scientific inquiry that was logical. And Isaac Newton said all of science is really just thinking God's thoughts after him. Got you on this one coming in from a knot. I think it's lemitries 2020 says just want to say Aaron is the man I watch modern day debate when you or Matt Dillahunty are on. Thanks for joining this debate. Now there's Van out there and bubblegum gun strikes again saying Dr. Jackson interbreeding doesn't mean common ancestor. It's clear multiple gods created different. I think it's one of those race things again. I don't know what their deal is. They said, Aaron, if you want evidence, I challenge you to take a Ouija board to a haunted place and test your luck. Aaron, what are your thoughts? Really, have you really? Yep, I was a Neopagan spiritualist at one point. I was an occultist. I did all that. Wow, I didn't know that. Next up, Chris Gammon, thanks for your question and good to see you after a long time, Chris. I hope you're well. So thanks for being on modern day debate again, Aaron. Love to hear you talk. And Dr. Jackson, what other topic do the bulk of scientists believe in which you have determined is false? Is it only evolution? Well, there are a lot of things in science that everyone agrees are false. The Flajiston theory, and I already mentioned geocentrism just by the observations of Tico Brahe followed up by the analysis of that by his apprentice, Johannes Kepler, after his death. There are many things in the past that have been proven false, which everyone is very content and happy to leave that in the past as a part of science history and learn by our mistakes sort of thing. I don't disagree with science. I was having a conversation with Kenneth Miller one time, just me and him. And he said, well, you creationists reject all of science. I said, no, I don't. I'm a science teacher. I've taught college science. I've taught, I'm teaching high school science now and I've been teaching for 42 years science. And so I'm not against science. And technically I don't think that evolution qualifies as a scientific theory. It qualifies as a paradigm through which you interpret data. But I reject the evolutionary positive. And I guess I'm trying to think of any other things that are more roundly accepted that I disagree with, but I can't at the moment, because this is the field that I tend to do for the bringing together of evangelicals and science for them. It's kind of what we call an apologetic, not in saying I'm sorry, but an apologetic into speaking to an issue. So evolution in the Darwinian sense, not in the micro sense, I would disagree. Yeah, I'm gonna just come out and say that I can prove evolution even to your satisfaction or I could if you were open to change your mind, which I don't think you are. But if you were able to engage me, if you were able to actually answer questions, simple yes or no questions and with a yes or no, then I could do that. I could absolutely show you that evolution is science and that evolution is a fact, easy to do. Well, I wouldn't have to answer any questions for you to not interpret the data. I wouldn't have to answer any questions for you to say something. Yeah, because it's a Socratic Interactive in order to teach you something, I would have to engage what you already know, what you already accept, get you to understand the basics before we move on to the next level. Things like when tonight, when you said that macro evolution is whatever you said it was that it wasn't what I said it was, I can prove that it is what I said it was, period, unambiguously. And I would like to do that, like I think it would be better to do that in a written format because we're talking about showing written documentation and such, that would be the only way to do it. But here you are saying that the foundation of modern biology is not a science when literally less than 1% of all the world's earth you're calling it the foundation. What? You're calling it the foundation, it's the reigning paradigm, that's true. Yeah, it's certainly, yeah, and a consensus of more than 99%. Yes, consensus. That's not coming in. Yeah, and here you are calling it not even a science because but you're stating things that are factually false, verifiably false that we can prove. You've said false things about me that I'm not able to think or analyze or. I never said that you were not able to. I did say you were not able to. What was that? We must move. Oh, okay, we must move. I hate to do it to you guys. It's just that we have a lot of questions. Joe Schwartz says, I'm not a creationist, but curious, Aron, what motivates you to debate creationists? Forgive me if you've answered this already in past debates or Q and A's. Yeah, there's a lot of motivations for me. Primary is that I consider lies to be in the same category as violence. And I think that's especially so when you're talking about a sequestered classroom full of students and somebody goes in there deliberately intending to deceive them, to mislead them with factually false information in order to control what they believe. The first moderated debate I had with a creationist, he admitted in writing in the course of the debate that he knows that there are transitional species in the fossil record, but that he wants to teach students that there are none because he said it was important that they believe there are none. So he's admitting that he wants to lie to students in order to control their beliefs. And I've seen that over and over again with all the times that I've ever confronted the Texas Board of Education or what have you, lots of different, 20% of our Texas teachers are openly lying to students directly contradicting what the textbook says. And I think that that is an affront, that that's immoral. So I wanna do something about that. And then secondarily, I was also motivated because it's part of this ridiculous culture war that a lot of Christians were pretending that we're having so that they wanna take over, that this was 25 years ago for me, but they were wanting to take over the US government. And there's all these people bragging about how they've already positioned certain judges and senators and all of this as part of what was originally revealed to be the wedge strategy, where they seat all these evangelical Christians in seats of government at every level from the state and federal, and that they would eventually have a case like Kitzmiller versus Dover, which they expected to go a different way in which they were gonna try to overturn the government and replace our representative democracy or Democratic Republic with a government that enforces Levitical law. Because at that time, when I got involved in the activism, the people that I was arguing with were reconstructionists from the Calcedon Institute. We must continue. Thank you very much. I need to take exception with one thing. A politics aside, Aaron just said that I deliberately deceived my students in my classroom because he lumped me in with a group of people that, granted he may have met people like that, but Aaron, surgingly, you don't think that I actually don't believe that I'm right about this. I know from past experience that when- With me? When I present the data, when I present the data to you, that you will turn around and flee, as they always do, because your belief matters more to you than whatever the truth is. And that's the primary difference between our perspectives. So you don't think I actually believe what I'm teaching is true? Oh, no, I think that we use a different definition of the word believe. Well, you said that I'm deliberately deceiving people. When I say that I believe something, what I know is not true. When I say that I believe something, it means that this is what I think is truest or closest to the truth. And that's how I feel. For my experience, creationists say believe in a different context. They mean as believe as an act of will, as in make believe. I mean, I can give you all the data to show that you were wrong about any number of things that you said tonight, but you will not accept any of those scientific sources. Think that I consider myself to be correct about the paradigm, about the interpretation of the evidence. I can show that you're wrong, but you won't admit it. It doesn't matter what sources I show it from. On the definition of macroevolution, for example, I've got at least a dozen academic sources. You will turn down all of them because you don't wanna believe it. And that's it. You'll just ignore everything. So you are saying I know that I'm wrong and I'm deliberately deceiving my students? Yeah, it's make believe, literally. Okay, I just wanted to make sure that's what you thought of me. Yeah, that's what religion is all about. Assuming things that are not true and convincing yourself of things that are not true. Foolish. Thanks for your questions at Arron. Can you explain why citing scientific studies isn't an appeal to authority? Thanks. Kay, thank you for all you do. The fallacy would be if it was an appeal to false authority, but in this case we're talking about definitions and what is the definitive authority? Who makes up what microevolution and macroevolution mean? It's not creationists that invented that word that was evolutionary biologists that invented that word. Creationists have then tried to misdefine it, to misrepresent it. I can show what the original definition was and is and they will still argue that I'm wrong because they don't wanna believe it. And it's not an appeal to authority. It's not because somebody said so. If we're talking about the definition of a term that was invented by evolutionary scientists, this is what they're saying. This is what they said it means. And then you can't tell me that it means something else because you don't have a citation that says that it means that. This is what the people who use that word say that it means. This question coming in from Sky Splawn said, can Dr. Jackson name a single scientific discovery? Oh, we got that one already. Stupid whore energy has made her appearance. She says, H. habilis has some traits identical to modern humans. H. erectus, even more traits and the pattern continues until modern humans. Why is this not convincing for you, Dr. Jackson? Well, there's a lot of things that make that suspicious. For instance, Homo habilis and Homo erectus have been dated by potassium argon dating as being contemporaries. They're not a stepping stone in the sequence. And this was Fred Spora University College London. I think it was 2008 that made these and he said it was like discovering that your grandmother and your great-grandmother were really sisters. If that kind of story is put together with that kind of sequence, and we find that these were contemporaries that were non-sequence contemporaries, and yet in the story they're listed as sequential, that would be something that should raise suspicions and the Homo erectus and the polymorphisms, the sexual dimorphism in there that's way more indicative of great apes or other animals where the females are so much smaller. They hadn't really looked at that very carefully, a group of 30 skulls until Fred Spora brought forth the data that they were actually contemporary. So the way I would look at that is the whole thing needs to be resorted before I think you can take it too seriously because the new data has thrown a wrench in the works and kind of scattered the old story that went with it. The interpretation of the data is gonna have to change because additional data came in. I hope. And as I said in my presentation, my opening argument, Darwin himself said that it wouldn't be a continuous change, that it would be a variation. So while Homo root offenses, Homo habilis, there's some gray area there, they immediately follow Kenyanthropus platiops, they immediately precede Homo erectus, but they also cohabitate. So if you have root offenses, habilis and erectus and a couple of others living at the same time. So this is because there's biodiversity, that's what evolution is, it's not a chain. You got it, this one coming in from Tyler Kate says, Dr. Jackson, Ken, you please explain what? Besides the consensus of disciples and believers proves creationism. I don't remember if you ever brought up the consensus of disciples and believers, did I miss? No, I don't expect in a majority evolution believing audience or format or forum for anybody to take the consensus of creationists. And as Aaron pointed out, we're a minority group in the scientific community, we're there, we exist, we are here and we count, but only as folks and consensus doesn't, I don't really call upon the consensus of creationists unless I'm in a group of creationists and saying, well, the consensus among us, and that's the only group where it would matter. So I'm not sure what they're asking. I wouldn't call on the appeal to authority by quoting Ken Ham to somebody unless it was another creationist. I hope I answered that question. I don't think I actually did say that consensus makes truth. You got it. And Apocalypse Here says, I agree with pretty much everything Aaron said, and I'm not a creationist, but I'm not sure he's right on quote unquote faith. I think they mean like the word faith. They said, if we're going with pistis, the Greek word, which I've studied for 10 years, then trust is a clear part of faith and not just some kind of blind faith. Okay, so I wrote an article called Faith Defined that's on my Patheos blog, wherein I referred to a couple of scholars who are fluent in Cognac Greek just to make sure that I had some scholarship behind me, which I didn't really need, but I wanted to make sure I had it anyway. And then I show all the context and I show citations from numerous religious believers to verify that I am using the correct and the accurate definition of faith the way most theologians actually use it. Got you, Anne. Luke Stevens, thanks for your question said. Dr. Jackson, we know evolution is falsifiable, but is creationism falsifiable? And if so, how? Evolution, I don't see as falsifiable either. It can accommodate almost any kind of- Pegasus. Well, we don't actually have Pegasus fossils. But if we did, that would be a way of falsifying it. Well, it would also be a bad thing for the creation model too. Why? It would show that that animal was magically created. That's something that Zeus created himself out of clouds. I know, I saw the cartoon. I actually don't believe in cartoon magic and it's not a part of my own paradigm. We do have fossils of giant reptiles that could fly, not horses that had wings. That's a myth, whereas we have evidence for what people maybe could have called dragons in today's vernacular. More to the question they said, how is creationism falsifiable? Oh, yeah. I think creation, the creation paradigm can accommodate things just as well as the evolution paradigm could. This is just exactly the same thing as the question, what would it take to convince you creation is not true? It's the same thing as what would convince you to say that evolution is not true. What kind of fossil find, what kind of, in both camps, we've seen evidence and data come in that have been accommodated, even though it looks like it's the exactly opposite of what the paradigm predicts. So I just don't think either of them are falsifiable. Except that I did already give one of several different ways that evolution could be falsified. Yeah, that's one of several ways. You do not present any way because it is not possible to falsify. Well, it took, in point of fact, creationism has already been falsified. We know that the Exodus didn't happen. We know that Adam and Eve never happened. We know the Tower of Babel never happened. We know that Noah's flood never happened. We've disproved all that stuff, but nothing will ever get a believer to change their mind. There was a worldwide flood on Mars. How come it couldn't happen here? But it sounds like you guys both agree that creation is falsifiable. No, it isn't. And neither is evolution. Evolution is, creationism isn't because evolution is not a religious belief, creationism is. Boy, that's a categorical labeling, isn't it? I wonder if we'll give you the authority for that one. Next up, this question comes in from Ozzie and says, you got that one. Mr. Morpheus says, Dr. Jackson, why would you misrepresent, let's see, okay. They say the three major gene pools are primary, secondary, and tertiary. And so they say you're wrong. I would have to see the study they're talking about because I don't know what they're talking about. Yeah, I'm talking about the genographic study and that's agreed on by all geneticists. Gotcha. And Zach Ranigan says, Dr. Jackson, why would you not give a simple yes or no for the wolf question? Well, because the definitions, there was a shell gene going on there and as Aran admitted later, there was a gotcha thing going on and I didn't, it's not so much I'm avoiding the gotcha as much as I wanna keep it clear what we are really talking about and are we really trying to logically do things or are we only trying to say, well, by definition, this is true or everybody knows or I'm appealing to an authority sort of a thing. And I wanted to try and stick to just what we really were talking about and not play games with definitions like the word dog and word wolf. You got this one coming in from cold loyalty says, hey Aran, which debate was more for us? Let's see. I'm sorry, you cut out a moment. Oh, just kind of a confusing question. Raw neckedness, I would say folks, whether it be for Aran or Dr. Jackson, things that are like backhanded compliments, it's just like seriously guys, the people with those kinds of super chats bring down the value of the stream because they wanna be snargy and it's just cringe. Raw neckedness says, didn't experiments with, I think it's Fox P2 or FOX P2 in mice show that mice become more vocalized and is implicated in being the gene that led to human speech? If I remember correctly, and I'm barely remembering this, I believe that Fox P2 was also found in Neanderthals. And they have a physical characteristic also in the lower part of the throat that implies that they could also speak. So Fox P2 does tend to lead in a number of different animals to more vocal communication, but is also indicative of the possibility or the probability rather that Neanderthals could speak? Well, and Fox P2 is also existent in mice. And I know Pablo was thinking of doing some, what we, in those days would have been the CRISPR equivalent and genetically engineering some mice with a human Fox P2 gene to see what would happen with them. And I humorously thought maybe pinky in the brain, that mouse with the giant brain who wanted to take over the world every night. What would that actually do? There's probably more to it than just the very slight difference in the Fox P2. But that's in, I think in all mammals, the Fox P2 gene, but it's just a little bit of a different variety. So there's more going on than just that gene and the minor variations with speech centers and things like that. Anatomically, yeah, there's been so much evidence that Neanderthals could speak. The hypoblossal canal, the hypoblossal nerve and all of that. I wanted to make an important distinction also in the reason that chimpanzees cannot speak is that the shape of their mouth, when you try to make a whistle, you have to form your lips in just the right shape to make that whistle. And if you can't make that shape, you can't make that whistle. And the roof of a chimpanzee's mouth, for example, doesn't have quite the arch that we do. They would just get that tiny little bit of a gap that enables us to make a range of sounds that they cannot make. And the position, you know how we would choke on food more readily than they do because of the position of the larynx is a little lower. It's exactly the same as with human children are born with their larynx in the same position as chimpanzees and then it grows as they grow until they have the same configuration we do and can then make sounds. Well, and I'm gonna do something that's not a backhanded compliment. I seek in debates to find the common ground and make sure that that is known as well. And yeah, monkeys, I think I already said this, they have all kinds of thoughts just like us, emotions and ideas and they just can't vocalize those, but they can sign them to us because they're intelligent creatures as well. Got you this one coming in. Well, thank you for that. Do appreciate this question as well. C. Brown says, this is from the question on unicellular organisms earlier. They said, I meant to say, wouldn't unicellular creatures that evolved into humans be a better example of macroevolution versus calling dogs evolving from wolves, macroevolution? Because you don't have unicellular creatures suddenly turning into people. That's magic, that's not evolution. So I did a series called the systematic classification of life in which I showed at least 70 named clades that are intermediate between these unicellular creatures and people. So there's a whole lot of distinctions of things that have, there are a whole lot of precursors. There's a long distance between A and Z. You don't jump straight from A to Z. Oh, but evolution did it gradually by the theory, right? There are a lot of intermediate steps. To call this macroevolution is to ignore what the word macroevolution means, which is, as I said, the biggest distinction with all evolution, whether you have microevolution, you're still able to and still will interbreed within a population. But when you breach that, when you become genetically distinct so that you no longer interbreed with the other group, you're no longer inhibited by the parent gene pool and now the variance can increase. And that's the only taxonomic category that actually has a definition at all. So all of the other one, you know, kingdom phylum and order and all of that, those are just signposts that people made up. So it really does come down to just micro and macro. New species, that's macro. This one from Big Dang, Bruce Wayne says, I just tuned in. Can you summarize your opponent's position in two sentences from each of you, if you want to? I'm not even gonna do that. Me, I don't see why either. I think it's very clear what our positions are and it might take more than two sentences. This is somebody that's just trying to pick a fight. Next up, Apocalypse here says, for Aaron, I'll be interacting with your blog post soon. I have love listening to your debates, but I just think that you're totally wrong on that faith stuff. You got a critic out there, Aaron. Well, read the citations. I'll change your mind. Juicy, and then this one, let's see. Folks, let me know if I happened to have missed your question. We just had a brand new one come in. Apocalypse here says, oh, we actually got that one. So let me know, folks, if I've missed your questions in the meantime, I do wanna let you know about several things in particular, folks. The word on the streets is that if you like the stream, it boosts us in the YouTube algorithm. So if you want more debates like this one, hit that like button, is it? Somebody in chat was telling me tonight, they're like, seriously, it really does help. And so if you want more people to see this debate, please do like that like button. As we are excited about this debate, it's been a true pleasure to have our guests. They're linked in the description. If you wanna hear more from Aaron or Dr. Jackson, if you wanna read more from them, whatever it might be, you can hear or read more from them by clicking on those links. And that includes if you're listening via podcast as we include our guest links at the podcast description box as well. But Eric Sinclair says, Aaron, what happened with you? And I don't know if it's, Aaron, let me know. If it's drama and we can just skip it. If it's something good to know. It sounds like it. They don't even have to put in the other name. Okay, so we'll skip that one cause I don't wanna stir the pot on anything. We, next we'll jump into the next question, which I think we are all caught up on questions. Let me know folks if I missed anything. I'm looking at the doc. I see a new one that I definitely read. Oh, they said, well, I think that they just added to their last question. So it's like a, we're gonna go, but I wanna say thank you folks for all of your questions. And if I missed yours, let me know via email for real. I can actually just send you back via Venmo or PayPal as we really do wanna read every question that you send in in honor of those super chats. But I wanna say a huge thank you to our guests, Aaron and Dr. Jackson. It's been a huge pleasure to have you guys. We really do appreciate you spending your time with us tonight. Thank you much. Thank you. I will be right back folks with updates on other juicy debates coming up in the future such as the one you see here on the right side of your screen this Friday on whether or not God exists. It's gonna be a great one. So stick around, I'll tell you about other ones coming up soon in just a moment. Be right back.