 gentlemen we got a another interesting debate coming at you live today thanks for stopping by please hit that thumbs up button if you like these types of debates that'll let us know that you want to see more on evolution versus creationism alright first I want to start off by saying thanks for everybody for being here and we want to make sure that everybody feels welcome that this is a community that we can all come to that's nonpartisan and so just try and keep it friendly in the live chat as much as possible wink wink right so today we're going to be talking about universal common ancestry so Jackson is going to take the position that universal common ancestry is a fact and Smokey's going to be arguing against that so since he'll be taking the affirmative we're going to go with Jackson to open it up I want to thank both of the speakers for spending their time here with us tonight again if you if this is your first time here we want you to feel welcome please hit that subscribe button because we have lots of other discussions coming up that are going to be really cool like we have a lot of cool stuff planned so with that let's get started let us know in the live chat how the audio is and if we can change anything yeah and with that Jackson you want to go ahead and start off all right and I need to a screen share all right can you see it you are good to go alright then I'll start okay hello everyone and thank you for having me on the topic of this debate is universal common ancestry last week I debated this topic with Kevin Anderson from answers and Genesis and for a debate that was supposed to be about universal common ancestry surprisingly little of our discussion was actually about universal common ancestry regardless the arguments I'll present here are similar because the evidence is still there and still needs to be discussed and again just like last week a biogenesis is irrelevant because the last universal common ancestor lived millions of years after philosophy is also relevant because we're talking about genetics and morphology here the first argument concerns the fact that taxonomic ranks are arbitrary creationist reify taxonomic categories like the family because they have arbitrarily decided that a kind is about the same level but this is meaningless families can vary in size from containing one species tricoplaxid herons is the sole member of the entire file in placozoa to containing tens of thousands of species such as the rove beetle family staffel in a day from here I'll take a slightly different approach than I did previously there's natural common descent happen yes and this is easily demonstrable mutations occur in populations every human has over 100 novel mutations by the time there is a goat these mutations can be spread by various means natural and sexual selection genetic drift and gene flow experiments over the years have shown that mutations can appear in a population and then be driven to fixation the Richard linsky E. Coli experiment detailed a bacterial lineage in which a promoter region was duplicated and transposed to a different gene thus not only did it generate a novel phenotype the metabolism of citrate under aerobic conditions it also generated a novel regulatory module in the genome so no genetic information was lost if anything genetic information was gained although creations are very reluctant to define new information in a way that can be quantified but when you give examples like this they'll very quickly say why it doesn't count from what I've heard from other creations it seems they won't accept anything as new information unless a gene popped out of literally nothing of course evolution from common descent doesn't propose that genes appear next in a halo that's creationism Darwin's famed example of natural selection concerned the distribution of finches across the Galapagos islands and their beak sizes that correlated with their food source for example geospesum agnirostris has a large thick beak for cracking tough nuts and seeds whereas G. Conor rostris has a thin conical beak for piercing cacti that these finches are related by natural common descent from mainland ones is even accepted by leading creationist apologists including kenham's arc encounter another example the water strider genus ragavelia experienced a duplication of the gene mother of geisha resulting in the gene geisha that causes the formation of novel propeller fans on the insects legs unlike other closely related members of the same family such as tradula valia ragavelia can move on fast moving water thanks to these propeller fans and researchers showed that the fans still provided a movement boost even when reduced indicating that the fans were adaptively beneficial at all stages of their evolution next the crawfish procambaris phallus underwent a whole genome duplication event in the 1990s resulting in the new marbled crawfish procambaris virginalis though p virginalis is now totally asexual males of p phallus still attempt to mate with the other species with no success per the general biological species concept speciation has occurred in essence we have witnessed every stage of natural evolution on local scales mutation selection and speciation that's the whole game as far as the theoretical underpinnings of natural evolution are concerned so the question is this do we have reason to believe these mechanisms unite all life on earth i would argue yes i chose hummingbird as my start last time which was never refuted but i'll choose a different starting point here how about horses the modern domesticated horse equus equus has a single toe that composes its hoof the myosin meritipis however has one large toe with two highly reduced dangling toes flanking it the oligocene mesohippus has three toes on the front and back feet the eosin epihippus has four toes on the front feet and three toes on on the back and the early eosin hierachetherium has four toes on the front and back feet now either this is a naturally evolving lineage in which the toes gradually reduced over time or the allegedly intelligent designer created successive groups of horses it should be noted that even white aces like todd wood and curt wise accept this entire sequence and the ark encounter shows the transitional genus dinohippus as the representative of the horse kind in their display so if any creationist still tries to reject the horse sequence they're doing so in defiance of their own side's current argument once you get to the base of paroxidactylo though things become difficult for any creationist attempting to draw arbitrary lines the earliest horses rhinos and tapers are nearly identical being differentiated by little more than the shape of their teeth why should all members of equidae be unrelated to rhinos and tapers when their ancestors share such obvious similarities moving outward the primitive finacodontage of the closest relatives of paroxidactyls with the same ankle configuration but having a long heavy tail like earlier mammals you can see there's a problem for creationism here which so far they have resolved by ignoring it the more tax are included the worst things get for creationist line drawing a sister to paroxidactylo is ardeodactylo the even hoof mammals and together they form young gelata ardeodactyls are united by genetics like paroxidactyls as well as morphological characters such as their unique astragalus ankle bone which is also present in the earliest whale ancestors early representatives of the hoof mammals have been identified in the fossil record such as the omnivorous criacus who possess the unique inner ear characteristics of ungulates and genetic shows that ungulates are the sister group of pherae including carnivores the dogs cats bears and seals as well as pangolins forming the clade pheraeungelata this clade is sister to bats and all the aforementioned clades are sister to eelipatifla containing shrews moles and hedgehogs and all mammals sorry and all animals with hair lactal memories and three middle ear bones are more closely related to each other than to anything else you can go through the same process for all of life until everything is connected if they were created separately then there should be some easy divide between the created groups ones which creationists would be most anxious to show however there is none and whenever creationists do try to include more of the data as with the horses all they do is confirm the very common descent they were hoping to deny there is no universal genetic or morphological character that delineates species, genera, families, etc. only a spectrum of overlapping features this is the rule not the exception we can look at any phylogeny and attempt to draw lines of separation but this is totally arbitrary even creationists don't only use the family level as exemplified by gene lightener's mammalian arc kynes paper they can go up to the order level as in scandencia or down to the subfamily level as in bovine, capronae, and antelopinae or even a single species as in bilacinus sinocephalus this shouldn't be the case if the kynes were created separately kynes should be easy to delineate and shouldn't all fall into a nested hierarchy of characters thank you all right thanks so much for that we're gonna kick it over to smoky say you ready uh yeah can you guys hear me yep here you find you need a uh do you need a screen share or anything uh no just uh no i have something i just prepared here all right awesome yeah that's no problem yeah i i i think it kind of aligns what i was thinking was gonna go anyway and thank you jackson appreciate i'm glad we were kind of on the same page for the topic of the debate so we were you know debating the right thing so that's awesome so very cool um so uh yeah uh sincere thanks to my opponent uh thanks jackson appreciate you being here uh congress contender thanks for filling in being here as well and of course thanks to the whole modern day debate community love all you guys um i am certainly happy to be here to exchange our ideas and perspectives on this topic and i do hope and pray it is profitable for all uh to try and break this down to its lowest common denominator we have before us a competition of world views each vying to promote itself is the most reasonable explanation to the nature of our universe and the origin of life each model claims to hold the higher ground for logically sound dissection of the nature of reality yet which is genuinely the most logical plausible and probable the nature of our universe is clear to us in the way that we perceive uniformity of natural laws considering these natural laws should always be included in our consideration of scientific observations and the philosophical hypotheses that flow from them the second law of thermodynamics tells us that everything that we see in the universe goes from a state of minimum entropy to a state of maximum entropy everything in our universe winds down and this is scientifically predicted with the inevitable heat death of our known universe this carries into the very information that codes our genes with genetic entropy as information is copied over time the information will degrade over time we commonly recognize this degradation and information as mutations and this is claimed to be the primary mechanism that powers naturalistic evolution yet the claim seems contradictory on its face and perhaps my opponent can help reconcile this for us naturalistic evolution theory tells us that a degradation of information over time or mutations will manage to increase functionality instead of decrease it when scientific observation tells us that the vast majority of mutations are detrimental or fatal additionally all animals come pre-programmed with error correcting code to mitigate and minimize the number of mutations which means the genes themselves are working against the primary driving force of the naturalistic evolutionary paradigm and seem to very rarely cooperate with anything actually beneficial additionally we know that genomes that get watered down too far with too many mutations or too much speciation will more likely go into a genomic meltdown rather than evolve new gene information to avoid such extinction events we even see this present day with the selective breeding of certain dogs which inevitably leads to watered down genomes with far less informational integrity then its ancestor and will generally be prone to a slew of health defects and a likelihood of extinction not evolutionary survival by adding only more errors on top of the errors passed down from the parents the naturalistic component that has been forced into the scientific realm actually flies in the face of scientific observation in my opinion this does not read to me as science so many claim it to be but a wide body of scientific observations mixed with unjustified religious conjecture that runs contrary to reasonable logical conclusions perhaps my opponent can shed light on this for me tonight how we are supposed to assume error on top of error equals improvement when we have observable observable normative examples to the contrary it is the equal misfortune to both worldviews that we are not able to look at the actual genomes of ancient extinct species so that more refined hypotheses could be constructed and considered but we are stuck with only being able to discern ancient speciation through the observation of the morphology of the organism essentially we have dug up a bunch of dead animals compared their features and composed a phylogenic tree tracing back to common ancestry this actually requires two primary assumptions that i notice number one all life is common ancestry and did not emerge independently and number two common features more likely point to common ancestry yet we have examples of nature that seem to invalidate both of these assumptions that are at the core of the naturalistic evolutionary model there are many biological examples that completely defy the assumption of common ancestry being normative enough to rely upon for sound hypothesis one example is the squid in the octopus studying the genomes of these animals that show no discernible common ancestry with all of other life on earth so much so that some biologists have conjectured that they may have been dropped here by aliens this is quite a claim that seems bizarre considering that the octopus and the human have nearly identical visual hardware this would mean according to the evolutionary model the hyper complex and specific eyeball that we both share managed to independently evolve with near identical function and structure in two different species with no phylogenic relationship biologists have long considered the nightmare of trying to understand how our irreducibly complex visual organ could have evolved but now it needs to have done it at least twice independently in these two species a second prime example to defeat these naturalistic core assumptions is the evolutionary pathway of the ratites or flightless birds a long-standing assumption the evolutionary paradigm was that all the flightless birds such as ostriches emus kiwis reas and cassowaries as well as the extinct moas and elephant birds all descended from a common flightless bird ancestor this was assumed based upon the standard model of classification through morphological traits in the species which is exactly how we discern the ancestry of fossilized specimens yes that yet this was actually proven false once the genes of these animals were finally analyzed apparently all these birds that were assumed to have descended from a single flightless common ancestor actually came from three different and independent lineages one lineage for ostriches one for emus and one for kiwis reas and cassowaries this means that not only did these three independent lineages lose flight but also developed identical features such as absence of keels in the breast bones smaller simpler and fewer wing bones bigger leg bones and non aerodynamic feathers instances just like this are commonly referred to as evolutionary convergence basically this is the tendency for completely unrelated species to develop near identical traits or organs with no traceable common ancestry this is very important because this is not a rare occurrence and if it is not a rare occurrence there is no way we should reasonably be relying upon morphology to assume common ancestry or common descent evolution is supposed to be utilitarian keeping what is useful discarding what isn't but this is just not what is consistent with observation of nature the emergence of traits and evolutionary convergence cannot be explained in any naturalistic paradigm and ultimately defeats the core assumption of the model itself and i yield all right thanks so much for that we'll just open it up to a open discussion and then we'll kick it off to a q and a in about 30 minutes or so maybe 40 minutes if you have any questions for the q and a they've already started coming in you can either send a super chat in which will i'll push to the top of the list or you can tag me at converse contender and i will add it to the list thanks so much okay i guess i'll kick it off since uh okay you equated mutations generally with degradation that's just factually incorrect and i provided two examples in which that's factually incorrect in my opening statement i provided both the example of ragavelia the water strider as well as the example of pro cam boss uh virgin alice the crawfish uh both of um in in ragavelia you have a mutation which is a duplication event of the gene mother of geisha which results in the gene geisha and geisha is responsible for the fans which are on their their limbs that's a mutation or it's a set of mutations a duplication followed by a neo-functionalization of a gene that already existed but it's but it's neo-functionalized so it has a new function so now it's called geisha geisha is like the the japanese fans because it now forms these fans right i think you would agree with me and saying i would assume uh that a new working neo-functionalization is not a loss we might be talking over each other well would you say that's a loss uh please clarify it's a it's a degradation i would say still it's how is that a degraded how is because it's a it's a it's a divergence of the integrity of the original information it's it's but we still have the original yeah the original still works we now have a new thing we have a totally new structure built on because of a gene that previous existed it got duplicated it's neo-functionalized so it's doing something new now and now this is providing an adaptive advantage to these ragavelia these water striders right i can just say water strider these water striders because now they can inhabit a new environment which their close relatives is like stradula velia right cannot so this is an adaptive advantage caused by a duplication and a neo-functionalization how is that a degradation it's well because it's it's it's a divergence of the integrity of the functionality of the original information here's the problem if you have that duplication but it's still functions the original still function of course it does yeah no i'm just saying no you're trying to take it i think too literally because when usually i think when you hear probably an argument creation is talking about the information they're talking about like the actual decrease in the information itself like things are getting clipped off type thing that's not what i'm talking about i'm talking about the entropy of the information itself the the actual expression of the information now in the information theory there is information outside of just the values you're seeing the values you're seeing need to be given a value by a language and that language is information but it's abstract it's not something we can see it's not something we can always discern it's the only thing that represents itself inside the organism so when you have that duplication event that makes it's functional well there's something inside that abstract language that makes it functional otherwise it would be detrimental and cataclysmic so it's what says turn this duplicated gene into something that's actually functional as opposed to detrimental but whether it's functional or detrimental still carries with it the genetic entropy that i'm talking about which is a degradation of the integrity of the original information okay i heard a lot okay so what i'm essentially hearing is you're a lot is you're allowing you're okay it's what it seems to me and correct me if i'm wrong because i don't want to straw many oh it's okay um it seems like what you're saying is you're okay with this happening with the duplication and neo-functionalization of this mother of geisha gene for a new purpose you're you're you're just saying that that's fine oh yeah i don't i don't think i actually have a have a real issue with that that's okay things that happens to well debate over we're done then uh i don't i don't know about that but yeah i i mean no i i can i mean if we're really just saying that this could actually happen and we have scientific observable evidence for it there's no reason for you to not conceive so yeah but but it's not really answering my primary objection to the model and and this i don't i i don't want to turn into this one thing where we have this primary little point here's this one example because here's the thing i hear some naturalists they say plant a seed in the ground it grows naturalism therefore everything can be explained naturalistically and here's the issue i don't really care about about naturalism as a as a total construct whether or not the entire universe is natural god exist whatever but by assertion um you know you indirectly because the well the moment you say no intelligent agency you're really only left with naturalistic process i'm saying what i'm saying is i don't see a reason to invoke intelligent but again i'm not again we're talking about if this is a natural process or this seems to be a set of natural processes now it could very much be that a deity created each genus and then within this genus created a set of species who have neofunctionalized this gene now that could certainly be the case but that would require unnecessary assumptions that require a lot of unnecessary assumptions we why would we need to invoke a designer well it's if the species are related within within this gene right so raga valia is a genus right and this there are i think three species within this genus so we already accept that i mean you accept these these three species within this genus are related right uh you know i haven't looked into it so or do you the argument i'm probably just gonna have to go with you on that i mean we're talking about a species i didn't particularly look into so i mean if you're saying they all have well they could be if you're saying they can be traced back to a common ancestry of a common genome and then they have had mutational changes over time and that's traced i i i mean if you certainly i have no reason to doubt you on that um and again it it's not really answering my point so i mean it's fine i mean i don't really have an issue just disagreeing with that well that's well that's what i'm trying to go i'm trying to go somewhere with this okay sure okay so so there's this three there i believe three species within raga valia or at least there were three that were looked at in this paper they compared the the genomes of these three species within this this genus they also compared this genus raga valia to the the relatives its relatives within the family within the total family validae so it's the sister the closest related species to raga valia is stradula valia so it seems like you've got this these genetic similarities between these species within this genus but these but and the closest relative of this genus of these species is another very similar water strider so do you do you see any reason that they should be separate or would you say that they're both related well i would say that all the all the genera all the species within this family validae are related to each other well yeah see i don't think i have an issue with that you know we end up reaching here's the issue i i kind of see jackson is we okay we reach kind of a critical determinator like like seriously like if someone had let me let me try to make this a little clear like if someone had presented me i think reasonable evidence inside my worldview construct to discern that there was reasonable evidence to believe that dogs and cats had a common ancestor okay i wouldn't necessarily we can do that one if you want well that's fine because i well i wouldn't necessarily fight it because again it's not really answering the primary issue and like i said you know we notice i think probably one of the best example for us in a in a real terrestrial level is the type of evolution where i think and i talked to eric as she kind of said this is really essentially what evolution is anyway like when we selectively breed dogs you know when we selectively breed dogs we can breed out lots of characteristics and those characteristics will care carry with them kind of their own mutations and that'll carry with it into you know the species itself and some of these will kind of drop off and dead end and not be tenable for survival but we can get all we can get all this massive variation you know from this one singular isolated you know genome of the wolf you know so but we also can see that there is the existence of convergent evolution it's just out there and there's lots of examples of it how these things that are not connected you know have similar traits now the evolution is utilitarian it focuses on taking what's what's useful and using it and taking what isn't useful and throwing away either by extinction events or whatever so so i'm trying to understand where you are to the thing about besides what i agree with you okay go i i'm sorry i was talking for a bit i apologize um i think i'll there may be a lag between us well i i also i'm used to filling air so i apologize just just jump in sometimes i'm sorry okay um i mean if there is if there isn't then tell me but um okay so so okay what i'm trying to get at with this is it seems like you're accepting local relatedness and my question because the topic is universal common ancestry is where do we draw the line if i don't remember what the mega classification is for oh yeah no i thought i got in your in your opening you kind of said um what what did you say uh you kind of said where do the creationists draw the line for kind is that i understand you're not you're not a fundamentalist no i'm not right but but it's still yeah but it's still an appropriate question for me because i okay so you're going right so that's so that's yeah that's what that's that's kind of my point is i is i okay i want there's a there has to i think you don't accept universal common ancestry correct i mean that's what you're here across from me yeah um so there has to be a point in the phylogeny of life and what you say there it is i'm cutting it i'm not agreeing beyond this point correct all right um well i think i think perhaps to do that it would require a specificity on me that i don't think okay sure and maintain and and i don't think what can maintain the my i don't think you can maintain a contrary position just as an example like like you saying can you draw a specificity on exactly what in our phylogenic tree would would qualify as a quote unquote kind and i would say i don't think we have enough observable scientific information to really discern that and i would say i don't think you do either i would agree with you on that in the terms yeah and and just as an example i don't think we really have a clear idea of what species are and your your example you had mentioned well i agree with that but probably not for the same reason as well well you had mentioned something really interesting that kind of stood out to me when i was kind of researching some of this you said genetic drift and that's that's an interesting thing because that's essentially species cross breeding is it not no that would be that would be hybridization genetic drift is what occurs in every generation that is the random distribution of alleles simply by simply by organisms uh interbreed or you know maybe within a population gene flow is like when you have populations and they come together genetic drift is just the random fluctuations of different alleles within a population you know like um if it's not if there's not a big selective pressure um like um having wisdom teeth for instance we're at the point now where if you have wisdom teeth you're not going to die you can just get them taken out so whether or not so whether you have the gene or if you're in a developed society in which case you can have them taken out um if there's no selective pressure on the allele for having or not having wisdom teeth it's going to randomly fluctuate it doesn't really matter either way you know because you're you're not going to die if you have it you're not going to die if you don't have it so it's just going to be distributed randomly right so that's an example of genetic drift so that makes sense yeah that that makes that that makes a bit more sense thank you for that um yeah i guess i again i think probably where we're probably going to draw to is that um like uh i don't know if i want to bring up this i don't want to bring this up just yet um there is a stop gap to me there's a place where it seems untenable like like and we know this because we just come across it in science like i gave you the example of the octopus like there's no seemingly explainable way this creature fits into you know the phylogeny of all of the rest of life so actually i looked up a paper i actually looked up a paper while you were saying that okay and may i screen share oh sure yeah um um hold on i'm done i'm not technology savvy so i need a screen share for one second um because and mind all the porn people you know uh is that the right one yep that might be the right one no you got it is it can you see the the colorful yeah you can see the colorful picture on my screen uh yes okay so it's very small but yes i can see it oh crap it um let's see if i can make it larger can you still it's a screen black right no no we can still see it we can still see it yeah that's fine it's it's showing up you can still see it okay yeah so i happen to know when you fantastic okay so i happen to know um that uh when you said that or i find that to be a very peculiar claim and i think i know what you're getting it but no one really takes that claim seriously no one takes the idea seriously that the genes for octopi fell out of space that's like wikram is saying in his group oh yeah no they're just we're a good by the way i'm jackson i'm not saying that's even really feasible it's just the idea that they have no backtracking is so perplexing to the evolutionary oh no yeah it's absolutely ridiculous that's really all i'm saying i agree because nobody agrees well the thing is well let me ask you this let me ask you a question nobody believes that real quick real quick what what is more feasible to you in terms of a hypothesis that the octopus were dropped here by aliens or that they were part of a creation of god of a divine um i mean i think both are equally unlikely but really what i wanted to show you was that yeah but what i wanted to show you was this if you see right in the middle where it says cephalopoda the green space so you see nautilus octopus and laligo though the laligo is the is the squid or a squid you you're pregnant is also a squid um as you can see here on this on this tree they sequence the genomes of these organisms the the ones that are in uh bold right um these ones we have the most data on that see it falls quite clearly within cephalopoda um i i had never heard the claim that we have no idea where the octopus comes from it's it's like been a member of cephalopoda for well over a century i mean well i i'd never heard this this is clearly the octopus is a mollusk a number of mollusks and specifically cephalopoda figures here with no i think we may go ahead now this right here this is this phylogeny is this morphology you're showing me or is this genome coding information this is a current tree no no no i know these are genetics okay yeah genomics okay so this is this is genomics this is not just phylogeny so this is genomics tracking the creature it's so the green one is that this is a 2018 paper okay and the green one is the the green one in the middle yes cephalopoda is the green yeah okay so but yes i think that's that's well that's that's the group containing the octopus right so what was the common ancestor for that group because that's that's the common ancestor of the cephalopod the the nautilus no no no no okay okay you're not understanding all right the squids the i don't i mean if you go back in the fossil and you can see the i'm sorry no i'm just saying the squid's the octopus is all the things do what the cephalopods the cephalopods you're pointing to and saying these things that was my point no one knows where these things came from they have no connection to any of the other like like proportions of life anywhere on earth like like there's no connection anywhere like that's my that was my whole point was was this that those cephalopods i didn't use the technique yeah that's that's no that's totally bogus okay well what is their common ancestor they're they're members of melisca they're in the same group with snails and slugs and polyplaca forans and placa and mono placa forans and oh so they have they're part of the whole part of the total of the large group for that they have genome similarities they have genetic information yeah absolutely they have or is it just phylogenic phylogenic yeah we also have morphological similarity well okay see here's a pilot phylogenic here's a whole part are based on genetic okay but here's where it falls apart for me is because you can't for me because of the existence of convergent evolution you cannot rely upon morphology to do this you have to rely upon the genetics the genomes so if the genome that's what this is built on okay i i get that but then at when i get to the end the determining point and i'm like what is the common ancestor now now you're like oh now it's phylogeny now it's no longer genetics because now we have to go to what it looks like so these aren't separate things these are the same thing do you understand that the phylogeny is based on genetics right no it's genetics is not separate from phylogenic hold on that's just a false statement it's based upon do you understand what phylogen this is phylogenomics reveals deep maluskin relationships what they we'll see what they're Jackson i think you're jumping over here um you have to you're the phylogenetic tree is converged it's based upon evidence of both phylogenetic it's both both morphology similarities and it's also genetic information genomes okay yes exactly yes i agree so now i'm saying whatever argument you're making you cannot rely upon morphology you have whatever argument you have to make to me for it to be actually scientific and not just pure conjecture contrary to the evidence of evolutionary convergence you have to make an argument from the genomes alone i just did page so do you want me to read on the same page for that paper uh for what for which part so you agree so okay so molecular investigations of maluskin phylogenia relied primarily on nuclear ribosomal gene sequences 18s and 28s and subsequent analyses of a combined data set 18s 28s 16s cytochrome steoxidase i histone h3 yielded similar results namely that bivalves are not monophilitic and support values at most you know they're low and so in this one let's see what did they utilize they utilize i'm trying to this is this paper that we were just looking at what are we i'm sorry i i think i'm confused what are we actually answering here okay so the paper that i just showed with the the the molusks in or sorry with this the octopus in the the moluskin group okay this paper compared this is a relationships among major lineages of moluska based on 308 genes okay so they're using genetics to resolve this total phylogeny of moluska which puts octopi and squid in this group i i would need to see the the actual probably genome claim for that because because i don't think i think i'll put it in the side chat for you yeah that would be great yeah because that i then of course then the information i gathered was wrong that that they of course you know are very very isolated and independent species um so they they emerged with their complex very very human like eye organs out of snails is that how that probably well not outer snail snails are a close related group um the that was another thing that i thought was a little interesting um the eyes our eyes are sort of backwards compared to cephalopods there's convergence but it's sort superficial convergence because the eye our eyes are different with our eyes the light has to pass over our optic nerve to hit our photoreceptors which are at the back that's why we have a blind spot you know you do the trick where it's like you move your finger out here and you can't see it so so that's why we we have that we have that blind spot because the light passed so well octopus don't have that though their photoreceptors are sorry their photoreceptors are in front of their optic nerve so the light just comes in hits the optic nerve right and and their their nerve sorry the light comes in hits the photoreceptors they're both incredibly complex and morphologically similar though i mean you would still concede that well sure i'd say that but the the fact that we both share these these similar eyes isn't it's not confusing any researchers into thinking that we are more close that vertebrates are more closely related cephalopods than anything else because group that has a lot of different eye types because eyes are very malleable we actually funny enough we do actually share the same hox genes for eye development that cephalopods do but also that fruit flies do and at lance let's do it's called pack six we all have the same genetic toolkit for making eyes right which is one of the ways that we know uh you know we're part of bilaterians and we're sister to their group okay and what makes you find that significant or uh i do for the sake of shared design i i i'm kind of hoping maybe you could give me an argument of a naturalistic mechanism to kind of explain that you know that type of shared congruency and what do you mean that's um because it just it it does not make sense i don't understand between it's the same gene it's the same gene in different organs and and how would how would they get it with no and with no phylogenetic connection to each other how would they have the same gene what are you talking about we're we both we do have a phylogenetic connection cephalopods are a member of protostomes they're the the protostomes develop their their mouth before their anus which is why they're a protostome we're due to our stones to develop our anus before our mouth but we're both bilaterians we share a set of hox genes both us and squid and fruit flies and elephants we all share a set of hox genes which have been neo functionalized in a bunch of different ways and pack six is one of them that we share goes all the way back to our common ancestor we do have phylogenetic relationship with them right no i agree i i feel like i feel like the the waters keep getting muddied here a little bit because i i i think from your pair here in that way well because i think from your paradigm when you when you are saying common ancestry and you're saying it with this like really definitive type of stance you're saying it with like it's proven and it's proven through morphology and like see because here's the thing if you can point why haven't even used morphology yet no i know because you've all focused on local recent models but like you know that's not ultimately what it comes down to does it it comes down to those those ancient those ancient creatures having a common ancestor all popping up an incredible complex diversity in a relatively short window in the cambrian explosion it's all seven well terrestrial actually popping up all at once um wait how many did you say 70 is that 70 no no no no no it's like 12 phyla terrestrial there were no terrestrial file in the cambrian oh i i don't think that the camp so the cambrian explosion occurred about 540 to 520 million years ago this is all deep ocean right the all the organisms that are involved in the cambrian are deep ocean like trilobites pacaia anomalocaris this is deep water stuff there was like nothing on land at this point except maybe bacteria and some fungi that's about it plants wouldn't colonize the land for another 100 million years arthropods wouldn't colonize the land for like for well over 100 million years tetrapods wouldn't do it for well over 100 like almost 150 million years this is way disconnected from terrestrial life uh okay um so all right so you i actually have a paper here i don't know well you probably wouldn't believe that i'd probably have to track down the actual source for it well i mean it depends biologists know that nearly all animal phyla more than 70 known to exist throughout the earth's history appeared essentially all at once about 540 million years ago phyla are the what are you what is what are you reading uh this is from um uh fuzz rana dr fuzz rana he's a biochemist um oh no yeah no i've talked to him i actually i haven't there's a paper by arwin at all 2011 which is on um i think i probably yeah i probably i saw i saw it in a nature journal as well i actually cross reference this here it is um i'll pull up the reference here i'll tell you uh fuzz rana was not talking about phyla in a nature journal i can almost guarantee that but here is a paper by douglas arwin who was actually a there was a separate there was a separate article i found about it oh here's a paper i just posted on the side it's by douglas arwin it's on the cambrian conundrum early divergence and later ecological success in the early history of animals so this guy is actually a cambrian expert on on on the evolution of life um uh the first let me see if i can find it it's been a while since i read this um okay well here let me see if i can post this this picture for you so you're saying that all the animal phyla appearing a terrestrial animal phyla appearing during the cambrian is a false statement you're saying that yes the tetrapods like our fishy ancestors of coming on land that was like 400 million years ago that was way later uh this the cambrian is 500 million years ago this is way way we're confusing things here now i i think like again we kind of keep talking over each other a little bit here i'm trying let me try to clarify again um okay um so here's a paper on land fish on land is not really is that you're classifying that as part of the cambrian fish on land the no that's that's the bony and that's way thank you so here's a perfect now that's where we that's where we got screwed up okay again i was talking about specifically cambrian okay so i don't care about the fish on land i'm talking about the emergence of really complex skeletal features respiratory systems uh complex organs all these things all emerging from a supposedly universal simple common ancestor into a wide vast plethora of very complex and highly evolved supposedly evolved genomic information so if i may um do you see this chart that i pulled up here i don't i don't see your screen right now uh oh oh oh let me try that again let me see what am i what am i sharing at the moment i i don't i don't see you had something let me stop sharing let me try yeah i was gonna say you stopped it okay can you see this can you see a chart right now in front of you uh yes yes okay so so this chart these are a bunch of file i don't think this is this might be all the phyla um let's see one two three it's a bunch well anyways this is a bunch of the phyla um some of these are not phyla actually um cephalochromia it's not phyla anyways so here we have a set on this side actually there's a and as you can see here on this one uh yes you do have a bunch there was there was a proliferation of organism during the cambrian however they were not from nowhere and they also didn't just appear in the cambrian we do actually have a number of organisms predating uh we have fossils in the ediacaran predating cambrian ones which are sort of like what we would expect if these things are descended from ediacarans and in fact all animals share a common ancestor that was way way pre cambrian they're talking like 300 million years pre cambrian um for example uh you have kimberella in the ediacaran which is actually a a relative of you have the protostome branch so the animals that form their mouth before their anus and it splits it two ways you have the arthropod group the arthropods and their relatives and uh that's kind of a bad way of putting it you have the ectocesoans that's the technical name they shed their skin nematodes arthropods tardigrades and on the other hand you have this group called spiralia these organisms this is octopus um earthworms error worms lots of it's a lot of guys well both of these groups would have been around pre cambrian and a lot of them probably would have been pretty small and probably without skeletons although we do have some with we do have some skeletonized organisms uh kimberella is is probably an early member of spiralia um based on its shell morphology and based on the the trace fossils that it leaves it has a radula like mollusks do so it's similar to them in that regard um we have guys like ealingia which are similar to panarthopods they're they're they actually have the these three um uh these these uh i'm trying to think of a way to put it they're not fins it's kind of like these markings uh the impressions on their side which are very similar to that of of trilobites or that what trilobites would later have but this is ediacaran so they're not from nowhere there were animals around and they were probably pretty different than the ones that were in the cambrian but they were around and we have fossils of them once the cambrian does kick off though there we see stem groups there are lots of stem groups at the base of the cambrian things like um uh stem mollusks and uh and arrow worms and and stem uh arthropods and it's not till later in the cambrian that we actually see the origination of crown arthropoda crown mollusca etc a crown uh chordata things like that okay uh i apologize for speaking so long no no it's fine i kind of wanted to just go ahead and let you let you finish again i don't know here's the thing and now we went back to morphology again like and and i guess probably just to really draw a bit of a line on it the morphological arguments aren't going to work to explain this amount of differentiation in such a short period of time why not because because it doesn't figure models to rely upon mutations and timeframes it doesn't make sense it doesn't fit i mean okay let's let's take another example something 25 million years a pretty long time it is well yeah and i mean i mean there's a different argument over those numbers though too uh jackson and i think you know that i think you know there's there's ranges anywhere from five not really five yeah they're kind of this they're kind of yeah that was actually based that was actually based on a faulty uh on a faulty determination of where the addubanian boundary is but it's been largely resolved in the exact thing is exactly what i'm talking about that that is up to debate now you can take that science changes as it grows no science will make observations and then science will make conjectures based upon those observations and sometimes those conjectures are wrong and this is one of those instances where conjecture science changes exactly so conjectures are being debated right now so if you take a position inside one of the active conjectures that's fine but don't tell me it's something that's been definitively defined for us you know i'm telling you that the best evidence in favor of this is suggesting by the pit by the experts who specialize in this is saying it's upwards of 25 million years old that's your arbitrary position and desire to take it it's fine i would actually i don't think the rocks and the fossils are very arbitrary i would actually even give it to you in fact i would even give it to you even the 25 million years i still don't think you have enough time and even with even with just the evolution of whales you know which whales we have tracked down through quote unquote morphology to be somewhere within the 10 million year time frame of evolution from their land aquatic bear ancestor things of whatever they are but you know this is one of those things that's been shoehorned into the assumption of the evolutionary what would be a good time scale for you then well let me just make my point and then i'll and why answer it well i'll make my point and then you can kind of answer it is that for the for the whales specifically is that they don't they don't breed like bacteria you know you don't have hundreds of generations in a really short period of time to pass on a bunch of mutations and changes very very quickly the the whales are very large creatures they're very difficult to to quote unquote mutate successfully which pretty much all large terrestrial creatures are which is why they have a tendency to die out but the whales supposedly with very very low numbers of offspring takes a very long time to breed and reproduce there is not enough time inside the phylogenic evolutionary time scale to account for whales there just isn't and it's just one of those species why just explained to you that they don't they don't you said they don't reproduce the way that all you see this is one of those things i noticed that seems to shoehorn its way into the evolutionary theory all creatures reproduce and mutate at the same rate seemingly or similar rates so it goes to it and it doesn't take into account these these components that might oh they don't no they don't at all right they don't at all i'm saying so if you're gonna draw the type of specific which is why then you have you would have to otherwise you're not providing evidence it's just conjecture and it's conjectured based upon a lot of morphology and assumption i'm i'm confused are you taking the position that the whales are descended from terrestrial arctic dactyls are i would i would withhold taking a position because i don't think even science can answer that question because it doesn't make sense if your if your answer is it came from the aquatic bears i told you for instance that way that the earliest okay if you're here is well what okay darwin called them bears i don't know you call them whatever you want but but but they they were some sort of aquatic well whatever they were sometimes sort of aquatic they were already dactyls they were aquatic arctic dactyls all right they were to they were terrestrial even hoof mammals and do you know how we know that they were related to both whales and to terrestrial even hoof mammals they have similar similar traits you know how we know apology they have the unique ankle bone i get it bro i already an argument their convergence then what's the argument a convergence exists so not an argument so your argument the argument is that you don't know the argument is you have no clue where these species actually came from but you're assuming naturalistic processes to define speciation when you do not have any do you understand how researchers determine convergence do you understand how researchers determine convergence yeah obviously i don't i don't think you do observation we look at the characteristic if we're looking if we're looking at say i don't know what's an example um we're looking at the prehensile tale of of of uh like was i wrong of paint of pangolin no not pangolins uh of because you kind of i mean you kind of made a statement so i mean in a relative sense you know you said i do i even know how genetic convergence i'm trying to think of so did i get it wrong i mean that's in a very vague sense sure you got it right there good job but if we're looking at say platterine monkeys and you know uh and uh porcupines which both have prehensile tails um they're not the same we can look at their morphology and determine yeah they're similar they're kind of similar in this one feature but they both have all the characteristics which are unique to their groups uh rodents have a unique set of teeth primates have a unique set of teeth they have a unique uh pelocides and wrists and all these other things that would be an example of convergence which is unparalleled and so what i'm asking is if you were to look at the early whales like pacacetus and nohias which have both the involucrum of unique to whales and the ankle bone unique to artiodactyls how would you determine other that it's not part of these groups the time clock doesn't fit i'm giving you prima facie evidence and this is related to whales yeah i know you're giving me more again bro why are you not getting this i don't care about morphology morphology that's not an argument i'm sorry well well i'm sorry for you too because morphology can't be proven as a method of which to determine heredity you just can't do it because you have actually yes you can no you can't well you can actually it's not coherent it's just assumptions it's just your religious naturalism getting forced into science it's not this is not science what we've been discussing here in terms of your assumptions of common ancestry is not science there's no there's no scientific observations for it what you have is the option so what i'm hearing is a lot of what you have is the observation of some speciation events happening naturalistically through adaptation which i argue is a necessary component in the design of all life because without it life would not be able to exist so therefore it needed to be there for the beginning of life this adaptation component which you claim is purely naturalistically manifested now i understand why you want to avoid talking about abiogenesis because it's a complete catastrophe for you because it's not relevant well it's relevant and it's a debate about universal common ancestry well let me tell you yeah exactly universal common ancestry came from probably a single cell or at least our origin of cells or a colony of cells or whatever it was but there was something that struck it off and there was the origin of life and you want to avoid it because you know yeah it's irrelevant to you but you want to avoid it because this debate is about universal common ancestry not abiogenesis common ancestry sir you are trying to avoid a topic you know you will lose even though is that the base of your argument you know how debates work like a topic is defined before you come to the debate okay what is the common ancestor of all life what is the common ancestor of all life would have been some sort of prokaryote there you go so now we're talking about abiogenesis so we're not because abiogenesis occurred before the last universal common ancestor came from well then that's before the last universal common ancestor and is thus not relevant to this debate oh it's not relevant to the debate because it's before it's is it irrelevant to your belief as well is it irrelevant to your belief you know what for the sake of this debate i will just say god snapped his fingers and life started and then from there proliferated now let's go back to wail now now you're a thief let's go back to wail's let's go back to wail's because you skip that one so since we're going back there i want you to explain to me how these features which are unique to these two two groups of organisms who are also genetically related are mere convergence in there in these fossils how is that mere convergence i'm not saying it has to be i'm not saying it certainly is and i'm not saying it certainly isn't i'm saying you can't say it certainly is this is the whole point of what i've been arguing straight from i've never said that i never said that clearly it is i am not 100 percent certain of anything i'm not 100 percent certain evolution is true you can tell you that the evidence indicates that evolution is most likely true that's what i'm trying to get across you play the game with with the knowledge claims now with me no sir you does that make sense you want to yeah you want to play that game fine you know i'm not playing i'm not playing physics you're playing yeah you are trying to play philosophical games and i know you are because now you're trying to trying to turn into a knowledge claim so i'm not actually i'm trying to get you to think about organisms and you have so far not every time i try to get you to think about organisms you jump away i tried getting you to think no i don't i'm about all of your argument you jumped away i tried to think about wail's you jumped away all of your arguments to support your case are irrelevant because they all ultimately rely upon morphology now i told you there can be traits and different independent no they don't all i mean traits and different independent species that are very very similar that have no relation to each other now if that is the case and i agree i agree with you i upon that as your primary mechanism of the classification of all ancient life it's nonsensical lord upon this all one at a time hold on okay if i say what did you say we're out of time no i'm sorry i said can we have like five more minutes no no no you have to yeah i said one at a time oh yeah go ahead oh i'm sorry okay okay so um uh what the point that i was gonna make is that we can construct a phylogeny purely on genetics right that's what i showed you with the the the thing about the squid that was about genes they're talking about 308 genes they were not basing it on morphology bro what did you say you cannot get genes out of fossils when i talked about part six i'm not talking about fossils yeah now we're not it's you're the one that's jumping back with just the genes oh wow man well because you keep asking me about these things i'm sorry you get you keep asking about like the evolution of whale probably 10 times at this point that any of your morphological evidence is irrelevant and yet you keep jumping back let's pretend fossils don't exist let's pretend fossils don't exist okay okay let's pretend fossils don't exist sure i can still with genetics alone demonstrate that we have a pack six gene just like squid do just like fruit flies do and just like elephants do i can do this at every stage i did we we talked about uh the squid that was just with genes that said 308 genes ragavelia is related to stradulavelia that's based on genes and members of the family vela day which is based on genes is is that all okay is it okay to say that ragavelia and stradulavelia are related yes right nothing to do with anything i've been arguing for then let's then let's expand that the vela day is all all members of vela day related are all members of why are we talking about really local speciation still why are we as i just said okay so insecta is this because you can only justify massive speciation by minor speciation would you let me finish is insecta are all members of insecta related to each other well sir i haven't looked into that enough to to really talk into that is in all but they're all genetically related yes that's all insects that's insects and and they're closest relatives i would know the classification of tree or the light because again i didn't look into that but sure okay okay our insects related to uh our so it's ragavelia genetically related are you okay hold on let me backtrack are you saying do i think all insects are commonly related yes no my comments why not because we can show that they're all genetically related you see that they're all genetically similar this is what's the difference we mean what's the difference the difference is your assumption sir the difference is you assuming that that tells you something that it actually so is it an assumption that ragavelia so is is it an assumption that ragavelia is related to stradula velia that these two are members of the family vela day is that an assumption that they have similar features that they have similar information even genetic information sure i'll give that genes yes okay sure wait so are they related by by a common ancestor i that i don't know again i haven't looked into that particular part to go into this with you sir so i'm not sure why do you want to bring this up you said you want to go to the whales what what is what was the thing with the whales well because whales i mean i can still say we have genetics which shows that whales are the closest are nested within arteodactylus so they're within the hoofed mammal group genetically hey you guys and i was actually one of the slides that i had um i don't have to we're gonna go for about another five minutes or so and then we're gonna kick it over to the q and a because we've been running for an hour and five minutes so yeah another five minutes or so and then we're gonna kick it over to q and a okay i'm glad we're having fun yeah i know i i mean maybe maybe we could just move it to like two and a half minutes like closing statements then we kind of make it fair uh yeah if you guys are finished what i what i like to do when i'm modding is just give each each person a yeah closing time so well yeah i mean if because we have been doing it well he was asking me oh yeah well no if you go ahead yeah the whale thing yeah you were asking about the whales yeah you were asking about the whales so even without sorry go ahead no it's fine no go ahead and make your statement it's fine i'll i'll go after you okay i'll just go say even well we didn't even have fossils really of the whale transition until the 90s so whales were still genetically members of arteodactyls the hoof mammals before the 90s this you know the the genetic sequencing came about in like the 70s right late 60s early 70s and so that's when and so once genetic sequencing was done on whales it was determined that they were members of the hoof mammals okay um is that significant to you so so the genetic sequencing says that they have similar genetic information to these creatures okay yeah i i don't even have mammals yes yeah i'm not sure i'm not sure what you want me to do with that again it's just a matter of again shared information there's shared there's shared characteristics and shared genes and shared information across all life i mean we're like what 70 similar to daffodils you know now okay you can you can assume you can assume and it will be an assumption like 50 but yeah whatever uh you can assume that that that's what i've been trying to get you to work out no no okay see again this is what i've been trying to get us to work out because if you know we can test phylogenies in real time right uh in what way you know we don't have to just assume that it's so you can actually and this was a study that was done like decades ago where you take virus take like something very shortly like viruses or bacteria and you separate them you induce mutations in them then you separate them again oh yeah and then you can run you can make so you know we know what their what their um what their phylogeny is of this family because they they induce mutations in it and then they ran the sequences they took sequences from each of the family or the each of the little clusters and ran them through five different programs and all five programs return the exact same the correct topology of this phylogeny so we don't have to assume that this is true we can literally directly test that genetic similarities imply relatedness yeah again those those particular types of considerations i would give you but when you're trying to stretch it into assumptions that don't even match your own paradigm your own time so then then what you're doing is you're basically saying i don't need to reconcile this issue i simply need to be able to to basically assume that we just have naturalistic process that i haven't yet discovered yet and see this is this is what i said in my opening is that is that it i'm not positing that at all well you you have to i think natural selection is sufficient to drive the evolution of wales well well you say that to me i don't see that from the evidence now now you can say it's sufficient for your view and your timeline but given the the estimation of the 10 million dollars first of all it wales are incredible bizarre creatures in the sense that they were supposedly from the evolutionary paradigm they were sea creatures then land creatures then sea creatures again you know that that's a heck of a lot of life is weird yeah that's a bizarre same with sea turtles same with ichthyosaur same you know they're they're weird tetrapods are freaking weird man but they are again we have we have the like the entire or we have a large sequence of fossils as well as the genetic data indicating that they're already adactals so we have this congruence of of data both morphology and genetics indicating the common conclusion okay i feel like you're saying something that has to be untrue i feel like you're saying something it kind of i feel it has to be untrue here's the deal here's the deal you're saying we have we see that there's some shared information between a whale and what would you say a modern bovine of some kind sure yeah a cow uh yeah cows um giraffes that's all already okay so so there's shared dna okay great all life is shared dna that's fine that's part of our paradigm too okay so that's fine so an issue for me okay the issue is inside the model itself why the whales because of the time frame time frame that you have for all the mutations you need to go from the pacosidus to the modern whale in 10 million years that that's the fact all order that i can show for the number of steps within this transition doesn't matter it by by morphology no it does not matter no it doesn't because it doesn't fit your time scale so for your phylogenetic tree so so you saying i came to this conclusion that's not really how evidence works is it i think it is if you have contradictory if we have if you say if if your evidence other parts of your evidence your evidence is garbage except here's the thing it doesn't we have the genetic dating okay they're already adactals and we have the fossil evidence indicated they're already adactals the only thing you're saying is the only thing the only thing you're saying is that the time scale is off now i don't think the times no i don't think the time scale is super weird there are lots of organisms undergo transitions however we however we whales still have their already adactal genes they have the genes for smelling but they don't use them because they live underwater they have when they sleep they have to like turn off part of their brain this is if these were designed this is a screwed up design they have the genes for teeth they try to form teeth during development they try to do the things that already adactals do but they can't because they they're they're these processes have been truncated in whales well some some of the processes the baleen whales don't have teeth but the the odontocetes do like dolphins and sperm whales um i don't know what you're talking about about whales not not being able to smell things or not needing to smell things underwater that's the most statement i've ever heard even sharks they have the broken they have the pseudogenes for smelling they have the broken pseudogenes for already adactal men's genes but they're broken they they don't need them okay so so so you're saying if you're a baleen whale and you're filtering i'm sorry go ahead no no that's fine so just so i understand the argument you're they have similar features of these other things that to them you believe are non-functional or or non-necessary it's not just that that they have the genes of their closest relatives and you accept this on local scales but i'm trying to get you to say okay yes these similarities imply relatedness not just on local scales i'm not i don't know if you're answering my question what's the question so so they have they have the which is which is what they have the genome information for those olfactory organs or they they actually physically have the olfactory organs they're just not used do you follow i mean they have yeah they have a blow hole but it's not functioning and smelling anymore it's functioning in right so so yeah so it's it's it's not that information is there it's just not used type thing so now here was my original argument which i was drawing to say that they have a common ancestor you're basically saying the bovine and the whale have a common ancestor back to like pachythus or something similar right is that kind of the argument okay okay so that's the idea because i mean the the whale ancestor would have been more like pachythus but yes they do share a common ancestor yes so so maybe something before pachythus yeah yeah it would have been but yes they do share a common ancestor yes we don't know but we don't know what exactly it looked like i mean there are there's like hyopsidists and there are a couple other little fossils of like early artydactyls but what it exactly looked like i don't know so is it some tiny is it just as possible that it had come from a completely different phylogenetic tree than you speculate well the genes would have to reflect that and the genes don't reflect that or we would have or you know having fossil evidence of some i don't even know how fossil evidence would work in that case well i guess my point we'd have to have a genetic evidence of that right and exactly and i guess that's what my point ultimately boils down to and you kind of nailed it they're right right for me is that we need the genetic evidence so without the genetic evidence to the ancestor we can't know that they had that common ancestor let alone the same common ancestor at all if you can't pinpoint that they did have this common ancestor then you are operating on assumptions you're just you just don't want to i don't understand your argument because i'm saying we have you said if we didn't have the genetic data how would we know they had a common ancestor but we have the genetic data that's how we know they had a i mean even you know and we also i mean yeah i don't really understand that argument because you're saying if we didn't have the genetic data let me put it this way we have it all all the actual evidence that i think that or certainly that i've seen that i think you have is is certainly fitable inside my model just as much as it is yours and and see all you're doing is assuming that all mechanisms that you don't even know about yet are actually mechanisms of naturalism or naturalistically done without any type of driving force or intelligence whatsoever now that's fine but i but all your evidence still fits my worldview of the same thing and see now you disregard abiogenesis as being essential to the conversation maybe even your belief i don't know i don't really know where you stand on it to me it's essential not irrelevant because i already i already conceded to you on abiogenesis i already conceded you on that point god doesn't matter abiogenesis so so okay so is this again we just maybe i said fine okay so we end the debate that god created abiogenesis but all after i but abiogenesis everything came from some sort of naturalistic mechanism to basically turn into uh all common life all speciation came from if you want to say that god created if you want to that if you want to say everything was natural after abiogenesis because this topic was never about abiogenesis then absolutely i'm we've agreed to my position so fine of course all right gents you guys whatever let's you want to make that fun it was natural from luke onward all right so um you guys thanks so much for that welcome to accepting universal common ancestry yeah i guess yeah i guess so all right let me give you guys uh one minute of peace to kind of the way i would give you common ancestry and i think james tour would as well i if you would actually concede god i would give you common ancestry across the board and i probably wouldn't even have to fight it too hard because the fact of the matter is that even inside that model in my mind there would be stop gaps of information that we don't know and those stop gaps now i get to give to god because god is now the base of the source of the information so you actually strengthen my case more than you do yours but that's fine i'm actually happy with this we exchanged a lot the reason that i don't debate abogenesis the reason i don't ever think i don't debate abogenesis is i'm not a biochem person i i'm an organ i'm about to get my degree in organismal biology so uh but i i don't know like anything about biochemistry i took one organic chem class i hated it sorry professor if you're watching um i i don't know it's not my field and i'm not gonna try to argue all right thanks so much for that i'm going to give you guys one minute a piece to give your closing thoughts um on this i kind of just did all right well then we can if you want to just skip past yours uh jackson do you have anything to add before we go on to q and a common ancestry wins let's do q and a sure okay all right thanks so much for that we do have a lot of questions um um let's skip to the first one thanks so much for your super chat gurmania five dollars thanks says honest question if evolution was false how does that prove or show evidence for an all-knowing all-powerful all-loving god who drowned the whole world uh yeah i don't think we were really going into kind of like that evolution is false just differences and opinions on it and she wants to go into that you know i'm going to answer that final part about noah's flood like i did the other night that everyone seemed to ignore you know noah was those preacher of righteousness warning everyone for 120 years gotta give a warning set off a cut event they didn't decide to listen they didn't decide to get on the arc so they died and their children died with them their blood is on their hands not gods it's not god's fault stop being a sick all right thanks so much for that next we have a six pound super chat uh from rib he said to call him rib and you would know who it was smoky saint i know rib is all right uh says smoky why do you use insults as a form of response to arguments idiot homo santa disgust uh disgusting are all just examples why not address the problem oh sure no i do address the points and i also address the character of the people that are delivering them i don't think i've been mean to you tonight have i jackson i think this was a pretty pleasant conversation no i was i was i almost interjected because i was like he you didn't say anything you know you didn't call me any name or i actually find conversation i thought we had a pretty darn good conversation yeah rib the problem is yeah absolutely you are a horrible person and you you have garbage character so you ended up getting called out for it so that that's that's what you're talking about so if you didn't understand that earlier wound all right thanks so much for that burn we'll move on to brian stevens yeah now this is a fine conversation brian stevens uh as a patron he has a question for smoky says um give the give the chance would smoky explain to dr mary switz switzer why her religious views are incongruent with her acceptance of evolution as the best science i i i don't think i i don't think i'm familiar with who that is so i apologize if you want to come to one of my um live streams and pitch that we can maybe have a conversation and dissect that a little bit because i don't i don't really know i think i know enough about her to give you an answer to that question all right question from el ron dear one says is my lo arguing for against the concept of white fragility in next week's debate oh i'm sorry i i answered that in the live chat i think that he's arguing against the concept of white fragility uh all right another 10 pound super chat from none other than rib smoky you say things such as that's such a dumb argument then go on to insult the person directly if your opponent is making a dumb argument surely it would be easy to debunk no rib how triggered are you can you grow up you're literally just sending money to try to talk about how ridiculous you are come on bro like seriously we had a good chat tonight you're coming and talk about why i'm being mean in chat like like do you realize how ridiculous you look all right thanks for that response we'll move on kit hoven cpa says did smoky attend prestigious patriot university no i don't know what that is all right can we like not read insults well if somebody is that a thing what is that what is that is that an insult what is is it possible to like insults well if you don't mind the insults i'm fine yeah that's that's like uh it's it's fine i mean well if somebody pays for it we typically read it but yeah no i mean i got a picture show i don't see these guys are intellectual degenerates anyway it's no big issue go ahead yeah and most of them aren't insults uh so but um yeah we typically read if somebody pays for one even if if it's poor again i don't mind yeah i didn't think smoky would care that's why i was like i'll go ahead all right james downward had a question for both what evidence would convince you to change your mind on universal common ancestry i'd put the question okay no that's that's it what what evidence would call us you guys and change your mind i think i kind of said it in um in the uh in my opening is that like it's kind of a detriment to both sides that we're not able to get you know gene information out of fossils you know if we could somehow figure out the technology for that um and that was able to give us some sort of definitive information one way or another to really validate common ancestry yeah i'd be on board dang that was something that i forgot to mention i actually wrote it i was taking notes while you were talking uh are you familiar with paleogenomics uh you know i touched on that earlier today i read a little article i don't know how close attention i was paying to it but if you want there are there are very recent and by recent i mean within the past i think it's less than like 500 000 years that um we can actually get some like fragments of DNA from fossils uh this has been done with neanderthals has been done with denisovans but also with other animals like uh we have genes from mammoths i'm looking for that's how we know yeah yeah elifas actually the indian elephant is the sister to mammoths uh we have that for a couple of other i think some horses and a few other very recently extinct organisms but that's about it right no it's yeah no i'm really interested in the ones when we can pull back like to like back to cambrian times like because that really it's the cambrian level type of events you know that i actually did two videos on the cambrian if uh cambrian explosion part one and two if you want to watch those are on my channel yeah i'll consider that yeah jackson did you did you give the amir response is uh either irreducible complexity as darwin once said or um the other one would be uh i know smoky's not a creationist but in the bare monological kinds if like every group of organisms that was created separately had its own genetic code maybe maybe not necessarily something operate on dna something else operate on rna something else was on a totally different genetic code if every organism every created group were like that that would be very strong evidence all right against evolution thanks so much for that we'll move on our next super chats from gur mania smoky i understand you don't accept evolution do you have an argument for creationist in you know you understand wrongly and that wasn't the debate like again to me like evolution is really just a component of like selective breeding but at a certain point we have a stop gap that naturalism can't seem to explain it just kind of starts to assume so that's where i start to have an issue with believing that we can just assume naturalist mechanisms across the board all right thanks so much for that response five dollar super chat from coco puffer says coccyx vestigial or no discuss uh essential necessary your guts will fall out you will actually crap out your own guts if you don't have it so it's both um it is a vestigial structure yes but it is also necessary because it is a reduced form of what previously existed and that has been the definition or having a reduced function does not necessarily necessitate functionlessness in this case it doesn't but because it is highly reduced from being a tail then yes it is still vestigial it doesn't make it that is me you should take it out please don't remove your hoxics all right thanks so much for those responses next we had a question from luka mendogna says to smoky what is the clausius theorem and tell us the unity of measure of entropy i think he maybe he meant unit of measure of entropy uh yeah that i don't think i'm specifically familiar with um i'll i'll go to google later for you all right thanks for that we'll move on to el ron der one says converse are you uh also preparing okay so he was i think that's a question for me um so we'll move to james downard says converse question for smoky do all al us in our genome contain the same or differing information and what would a changed info look like well yeah i i think that's that's going a little more specific off of my generalized point at the beginning which was about the degradation of the information or alteration from its integrity of its original form and if that happens to carry with it functionality it's because the functionality is carried with it inside the informational language that makes it functional so that was kind of what i was saying i'm not sure exactly what he's saying the what is acl uh i'm sorry he said uh do all al use al use their their primary specific uh transposons okay all right yeah i think that's about as best of an answer i can probably give based upon my current knowledge and again guys you know science isn't my typical you know area of of debate but i'm trying to learn and focus on you know like gathering all this information so of course some of this more specific stuff i'm still learning on this my area of focus and study has been a lot more theology history culture sociology stuff like that all right thanks so much for that we have a question i'm sorry i'm going to skip ahead to some of the later super chats and then we'll come back to some of the questions uh tioga five dollar super chat thanks so much for that says the reason we can turn a chicken into a dinosaur with crisper is because the chicken retains its old genes natural selection doesn't delete genes so this is a more of a comment but unless you guys want to say something about that that's not technically true actually natural selection can cause the or i mean mutations can cause the deletion of genes and those genes can be deleted or broken if they don't confer severe enough detriment to the organism that just wipes it out so that's not technically true they contain vestige chickens contain vestiges of their dinosaur ancestors but that doesn't mean natural selection doesn't always weed out certain genes this is whole process of canonization and different organisms especially they become parasites all right thanks so much for that ten dollars super chat from none other than jungle jargon somebody we've known for quite a long time on youtube says hey jj why does jackson wheat think billions of bits of programming without mistakes are from making mistakes which didn't have to be selected for in very limited time and space relatively speaking did he ask why because that yeah he says why does jackson i wouldn't say why do mutations happen and why does natural selection occur because only so many organisms can exist in an environment and compete for the limited resources and mutations happen i don't okay all right thanks so much for that response we'll move on we have a super chat from 499 from dana mc white says can we have a debate that explains law to converse contender the other day we were we were arguing the other day in a chat um about law listen if you see me in a chat and i'm arguing uh point that nobody else in the room believes is the case it's typically because i come into a room and i hear echoes and it's just in my nature to kind of like throw a stick in but in somebody's like spokes of their wheel when they're like cruising sorry about that um it's just my nature to be uh a um to break up the echoes in a chamber sorry all right now we'll move on to our next question from gurmania five dollars thanks so much i have no faith in scientists but i have faith in a book written over a thousand of years by ancient sheep herders makes sense do you have any response to that i i do not believe in the conjecture of religious sophists who are sitting in their position saying that this is what we have to believe now if you are one of those people who likes to believe only what you are told to believe continue to do so but i've looked at the evidence and i've digested my reality with the most sensical a logical probable definition that i possibly can't so your your conjecture is basically just arbitrary and you're probably basing your beliefs based upon consensus which i think is just ridiculous so all right thanks so much for that response next we have a five dollar super chat from mitchell i've seen mitchell in a while question for jackson is your facial hair a random evolutionary change to attract the opposite sex or is it a trait via intelligent design to reproduce what do you say it's both cool i'm sorry i'm sorry you're fading you i couldn't hear you because you're you you're robotic clean yep my stream yeah my internet is talking i said maybe it's both okay got you thanks so much for that response our next question yeah we could we could hear you on that one our next question super chat is from danimik white again 499 thanks so much for the contribution says james running around with all his sock accounts for steve mcclazy all right thanks so much for that this probably the case but can't confirm or deny all right rib is back with five pounds or quid however they say smoky you can't help but dodge dip duck dive and dodge can dodge ball reference love it rib you know what you empty assertions useless you have to make actual arguments i think after three debates you would have figured that out by now i guess you just don't have any all right thanks so much for that response our next ten dollar super chat thanks matthew steele very generous says jackson would you please educate smoky on what the bare minimum of evidence it would take to disprove the theory of evolution as the only working explanation for biology on earth it's a tough question well i mean as a as i said on my thing um if irreducible complexity were true that'd be pretty good evidence against evolution if every created group had its own um non overlapping set of genetic material that'd be really good evidence uh we just don't have that just a quick can i have a quick follow-up just piggyback real quick um what what do you think would be viable evidence for irreducible complexity or like do you think that there's something that you've seen that kind of defeats a irreducible complexity so and all the instances of irreducible complexity that i'm aware of it's it's always some feature which where we can either see uh well it's typically something soft something like a cellular component or an organ and so it's not going to have a fossil record but we are going to find genetic evidence for evolving in its close relatives um the flagellum is one of the favorite is michael b he's an example in darwin's bike box but the flagellum are the genes that make up the flagellum are homologues of each other it seems like it's a series of duplication events and all the proteins that are involved in the the flagellum um we're are present elsewhere in the cell doing other things but it seems like they were co-opted from their jobs for a new job the blood clotting system there are many variants of the blood clotting system uh we can see that there are proteins in other organisms that don't have blood clotting systems but uh but they have this the proteins that we have co-opted uh the i i did a whole video on the i we could do we could do what i guess what i would say is we could do a whole debate on everything you just said but that's totally cool i i want to just let you answer the question if if there were no genes if like there were no set of genes that were common regulating the evolution of eyes for instance i just as my example if if every organism had like every species had like a different gene for the eye i think that'd be that'd be pretty darn difficult to explain all right thanks so much for that response we have another five dollar super chat from just a walking fish says please explain the following terms with smoky going first allele phylogeny sorry locus selection pressures and the textbook definition of evolution oh boy well um try to work backwards from there i think uh let's see the textbook definition of evolution is the changes of alleles in a population over time alleles i believe is the actual genetic information that actually changes over time what were the other ones uh locus selection pressures uh locus uh locus well sort of intersections the points of the genome specific points of the genome i believe and what was the other one uh phylogeny insects phylogeny that's yeah that's just a classification tree of common ancestor and selection pressures that would be the things that are i i believe pressured upon natural selection to cause changes in the environment that would cause changes on the species i believe all right jackson you want to add to that or we can move on you did pretty well you did pretty well on them um the only one that i would i mean i i say you got most of them you did pretty well uh you got the definition of evolution right uh that that's great um uh the only one i would change is allele alleles are the versions of the genes like if you have you have a gene for eye color but there are different gene there are different alleles you could have blue eyes or green eyes around us but other than that right good very good all right i appreciate thanks so much for that accurate response marcus aurelius comes from the past i must have a future to the future with a question for smoky would he agree that we don't need absolute proof to make an inductive argument to the best explanation as per the scientific method i believe that would be abductive but go ahead yeah i'm not sure if he's using terms there correctly um it's kind of a hard question to answer actually um i think what i would do is i would want to rely upon the best argument method available with the available information and draw inference from that so the the idea is that i'm looking for the best arguments based upon available data but i'm not looking for arguments that are specifically leaning one way or the other i'm basically looking for agnostic arguments and trying to discern information through that because i do want to believe what's true and i always have so you know that's that's certainly part of my methodology all right thanks so much for that response we'll move on to our next question from bob don't super chat from michael for jackson how did the first living sales acquire the information to reproduce at random without undergoing the ultimate inbreeding problem you already said god well there oh yeah i mean for what the guy said god but also they wouldn't be inbreeding because they were prokaryotes so there's no sexual reproduction going on therefore no inbreeding but yeah you're right i already said god so there you go there we go all right so it's solved on both prop both accounts both problems we had a good debate tonight man it was awesome all right thanks so much for that michael now we move on to another ten dollar super chat from matthew steel a debater from just the other night i believe he was on he said smoky sir can you provide a basic definition and usage of a working scientific theory thank you sir i mean bro sir well is he just like wanting to quiz me like like on all these terms like isn't maybe the one that sent me all those different terms for me to define what is this matthew like are you trying to flex something because you're sitting in chat in front of google and i've already admitted that this isn't really a typical field that i do a whole bunch of study into and you're weren't trying to leverage something against me because you're a petty person well great dude i apparently need to need to have google in front of me next time like you and just sit inside chat and grill you with questions all right thanks so much for that response we have a five dollar super chat from sunflower says at johannes colsky i may have pronounced that wrong yeah i know your question okay has been humiliated beyond belief he was wrong about p53 and then he invoked the msv from ct scans to illustrate x-ray radio activity what are we talking about i don't know did you if you wanted anybody want to respond to any of that it's fun did any of that come up tonight um i don't know i figured it was maybe some type of inside thing that i didn't have no clue do you mention anything about that i i i haven't mentioned people p53 is a papyrus which has to do with something from textual criticism but i haven't mentioned that in like oh i was thinking he was referring to the to the gene p53 oh is filled with the tumor suppressor gene but no i think papyrus 53 we didn't talk about any yeah that so okay well yeah he must have been talking about the gene because he he goes on to talk about i don't know we didn't talk about any of that so all right we'll move forward we have another super chat from none other than the same person sunflower thank you so much for ten dollars very generous says jackson the concept of screwed up designs doesn't make sense if you consider these animals simply an evolutionary stepping stone or necessary byproduct when moving toward the end goal humans what i don't i don't know if i even understand what the question was he says yeah he says jackson the i mean i didn't use i didn't use the he says the concept i didn't use the argument from bad design okay got you sorry go ahead no he was just saying the concept of screwed up designs doesn't make sense if you consider these animals simply an evolutionary stepping stone or necessary byproduct when moving toward the end goal humans i think he's saying like hey the um i think you said something i think you said something earlier either about vestigial organs or maybe it was wisdom teeth or something like that where you were trying to say like hey well we didn't need these and well i mean i well yeah i mean we talked about we talked about some things like the the um whale pseudo genes for for uh smelling but um i was using more of that or i was using that more to show that there are these genetic commonalities between whales and and um uh arctic dactyls there are some sort of interesting philosophic problems with the bad design argument uh which is why i didn't use it all right um but i don't really understand the question i also i don't know all right thanks so much for that um let's see i'm checking the live chat because uh matthew still says i didn't ask the question that smoky is whining about and he didn't answer a very simple question so maybe uh we'll try maybe we'll try and uh may i'll try and yeah i want to read it again i'll try to take a crack at it what was it something about can i name an evolutionary theory that exists or something or so it's yeah uh it's uh no no no it was um can you provide a basic definition and usage of a working scientific theory uh sure i suppose the theory of gravity we know that gravity operates and based upon mass so relative to the amount of mass gravity will be affected i guess that's that's one operational testable provable theory sure okay and if that wasn't it please let us know well he he's already spent $20 so hey we appreciate that i mean not that i'm getting any of it but hey it supports the channel all right mitchell another five dollar super chat this guy's a big spender says jw at jet ski and an atv require a spark plug to operate if not by common design what intelligence created the elements for that spark plug to exist i don't think any of the things we talked about were human objects and everything we talked about undergoes reproduction unlike refrigerators microwaves cars skateboards so moot analogy all right thanks so much for that response bruce wane five ca's whatever that is with a super sticker that has somebody pumping iron and it says keep it up thanks so much bruce for that we will keep it up mark reid five a's whatever an a is says smoky we are pointing out ad hominems our logical fallacies are you using it to deflect from addressing arguments okay it's only an ad hominem if i use it to defeat the argument if one of my arguments is you are a low character trash and i've demonstrated through pointing out things about your character and your failures as a person it's no longer an ad hominem simply a conclusion of an observation so it's you're you're just mistaking terms because you want to be triggered all right thanks so much for that our next super chat is from citrified a sorabia ten dollars thank you so much citrified a sorabia is always in the chat says at jackson if if you accept conversion theory sorry if if that threw me off there if you accept conversion theory are you saying there's something else besides evolution guiding the process in which if we rewind the tape some things are bound to happen the same why not id i guess intelligent design so that's kind of several issues all wrapped together um i don't think i want for you to focus on because i think there was one part of that that was really important which is the idea that i'm sorry read it one more time converse how can you tell if you accept conversion theory if you accept the conversion theory are you saying there's something else besides evolution guiding the process in which if we rewind the tape some things are bound to happen the same why not intelligent design and i think the ideas i understood it in evolutionary theory as it stood for a long time if we won't back the clock to the beginning of so that's really two questions together right but if we i think i think i just do what he's saying if we won't back the clock to the origin of life then if and then we let it run forward again then it would manifest something completely different it wouldn't evolve the same but the idea of the convergent evolution means that it probably would have been should have like it's almost essential you know what i mean not really um so some things can converge convergent evolution happens a lot of times because you get different organisms but they're going at the same problem um if for instance and uh you know you have wings developing because you know these organisms have to fly um a lot of there are a bunch of different organisms that look like ants because maybe organism or something is eating bugs will maybe leave you alone if you're if you look like an ant because they'll think there are lots of you um uh you know prehensile tails are useful for living in trees um so that's that's that's the selective pressure driving them having an extra limb to help balance you in the tree um does that mean so convergent happens obviously but does that mean life uh if we replayed the tape of life to use gould's analogy when things turn out the same i would say heck no if you read wonderful life um maybe some things wouldn't or some things have tendencies to kind of go down the same paths and i was actually i just finished neil shubin's new book he talks about how mutations in salamander hands kind of end up there's kind of a set of bones that are more likely to fuse than others and this happens a lot in these salamanders so yeah sure so maybe some things would happen over and over again but you also have to remember mutations are largely random but this is also dependent on the environment these are mutations in particular environments and environments are dependent on wind patterns and climatic changes and they're dependent on how the continents collide into each other and you know whether volcanoes are produced or rift valleys so there's loads and loads of contingencies that are going into this so i would say no i would still say convergent evolution happens does that mean everything is constrained no all right thanks so much for that response so we'll move on to our next super chat george bond five a's whatever the a is question for jackson how do you verify co-option i'm sorry i missed my internet was cutting out again sure did you george bond i heard jackson yes he says question for jackson how do you verify co-option so uh if you when you look at these organisms and they have the same gene they're homologous genes a lot of times co-option occurs because you have a you have a duplication so you have the gene but it's been duplicated but it has also uh assumptions and these mutations are slightly affecting how it operates i mentioned the case of geisha earlier geisha is a duplicate of this gene mother of geisha they have enough homology we can confirm this gene originated from this other gene because geisha is only in this one group but mother of geisha is in this whole group and so that's how you can you can be relatively assured that this is part of this subset but co-option occurs because it's developing mutations and you have selective pressures on this organism and so it's doing the mutations are causing it to do something slightly different than it was originally and if that is favorable in that environment natural selection can favor it to do that more or do that better all right thanks so much general co-option occurs thank you so much sunflower again two-dollar super chat says that was in reference to wells having smell genes i guess his last question which was the concept of screwed-up design doesn't make sense if you consider these animals simply an evolutionary stepping stone to necessary byproduct when moving toward an in-goal humans maybe that was maybe but wheels are not part of our lineage so moot point i guess well they technically are i mean they kind of whales aren't no like all the way back at a certain point we had a common ancestor we had a common ancestor who was part of it but that would have presumably had functioning genes as the other aridactyls related to whales are still you know they operate in where they sell gene-breaking but whales lost that along their lineage not in our common ancestor so i don't they're not well but i i think that was kind of what i was drawing out of the the assumption and that but it's okay no no let's let's move on i'm sorry i i actually have another stream i'm supposed to do here soon anyway so all right thanks so much for that we'll move back to corag night wolves question question for smoky if the diversity of life on earth is not well explained by evolution and biology and chemistry what would be the alternative and what would be the evidence um we'll see and i i think everyone kind of seems to just keep mischaracterizing me it's i mean can't read it one more time i can pretty much only respond to one part of that question he says uh if the diversity of life on earth is not well explained by evolution and biology and chemistry what would be the alternative and what would be the evidence well no i think diversity is kind of explain i mean certainly speciation to a certain level i think is explained by evolution as it's called evolution which is the changes of those alleles in a population over time as there are certain pressures placed upon a population it's basically like being forced to selectively breed you know i just don't think i have sufficient scientific evidence to believe that that that there's a naturalistic mechanism behind all of that you know and you know for me i have to look at it in a very practical approach that some of this is just conjecture it's good conjecture it's scientific conjecture but at the end of the day it is still that um and our our gaps in the knowledge to me don't attribute us to be able to just assume naturalistic mechanisms by by automatically all right thanks so much for that tioga is right hit the like button if you're a good person and for amen hit the like button and for people who aren't good people feel free to hit the dislike button all right sunflower another two-dollar super chat says i said stepping stone or necessary byproduct i guess this is kicking it back to the well's smell genes so so is it used okay so is it used i guess the idea is is it used in its process of evolution or is it just completely defunct is i mean they were at one point i mean they were used at one point but they are pseudo genes now they become pseudogenized such that they still have the mammal receptors thardidactyl receptors but they're broken do we know that was that was just that and a quick question maybe you know what jackson just real quick do you know they have no function at all anymore whatsoever or that just their function has changed as far as i'm aware they're uh at the very least highly reduced or and in some cases they're not functioning at all okay i might have to look into that more okay not familiar with the exact pseudo genes i'm sure there's literature on it no yeah it's actually compelled me enough to go look into it for sure yeah all right thanks for the response sure yeah another five-dollar super chat from area 85 restorations sounds like a cool car restoration shop probably not but says can creationism make novel accurate testable predictions of future data if not then nothing you said tonight amounts to anything evolution can by the way well there are creationist models that end up doing the same thing and using a lot of the same data and also creating predictable scientific models so i mean i i don't really i don't think that's a completely um aware statement to be making i don't have any off the top of my head but if you would like to come to one of my live streams i can probably pull up some references for you all right thanks so much for that we're gonna try and practice brevity and we will try and get to the rest pretty quickly all right a question from k no says can smoky provide anything that is better explained by supernatural than natural in a way that makes verifiable predictions and can be falsified it's kind of the same question really yeah it's kind of the same question yeah it's the idea is that you guys might be making unrealistic demands while thinking that your position is probably better than it is and generally this comes with a lack of appreciation of what you're asserting and what your presuppositions are that you're using that you don't feel you have to justify so that's probably one of those things better unpacked and dealt with in an actual live stream session all right thanks so much james danard says a necessary chronology clarification question for both when was the first life on earth and what was it oh gosh what was it the first uh the first kind of very basic life was what uh one billion years after the beginning of earth or something jackson maybe you can help me with that i'm not i'm not a hundred percent um it is estimated based or the earliest fossils come from about i think 3.77 billion years old billion years and the earth is estimated to be about 4.6 billion years old so it's like sulfur yeah you know something like that what is that what they were yeah yeah mythanogenic arcayans and and and uh the stromatolite uh bacteria and so that's that's really yeah yeah that's maybe like uh 600 or so million years after the earth uh first formed and maybe 200 or so million years after the start of life somewhere around there all right thanks so much for that let me move over to this little icon here all right um market surrealist joins us again took docks vehicle back to the future and says question for smoky just like micro evolution and macro evolution differ at scale does he believe that enough inches won't make a yard uh yeah no i i think well yeah that's not a good comparison or analogy for me because again you you're just kind of assuming that these types of things could converge and like and that's that's fine if we had sufficient evidence for it i don't think we do and it's one of those things where if you're making a claim to me that all life all of the genome information of all the diversity of all the species that we see is simply a product of error on top of error on top of error over time then to me that is an extraordinary claim and i don't think that the scientific community has been capable of providing sufficient evidence for that claim and the local isolated type of speciation we see and on top of that morphology from ancient fossils to me is not sufficient evidence to make that claim all right thanks so much for that response um next question from jane's downard says question for smoky if it doesn't come up converse what is his position on the members of the horse evolution sequence are they related or not yeah i don't think i have an issue believing that the horses are related and i don't see a reason why i should um yeah i mean yeah that's on issue for me i mean i would i would tend to expect like and this is from my kind of model worldview maybe to to fit it a little bit like to me i don't have an issue believing that there was some sort of hoofed progenitor you know to to these these horses you know that maybe we don't even know what it is that possibly even had a couple other species come from it i don't have an issue with that the idea is that to me i see a massive amount of evolutionary complex diversity and specificity over a relatively short period of time and that to me leads me to believe that when i see these shared components like just like example the pedactyl limb which can be used for a hoof a hand a foot a wing you know a fin anything else you know this specific type of component carried across all the creatures while some would argue well this is you know obviously something of common ancestry because they're out they all look similar but to me the same data is just as much digestible as common design because each one of these things while looking the same have been redesigned for a very different purpose and that to me screams out intelligence function and intention so and the things i've seen through the abiogenesis models as well as well help confirm that for me so it's just it's just the idea of digesting kind of the collection of evidence all together to see what's the most plausible that's all all right thanks so much for that our next question from dunning kruger says a question for both what if any false fudger position we already kind of went through that right um yeah i think we kind of we kind of did that i mean i'd i'd give another one like i mean i'd give a general one for a falsification of the existence of god would probably be uh sufficient evidence for or even sufficient philosophical reasoning for the eternality of the universe you know that would be one of those big ones um and i even know there's quite a few scientific minded christians who would probably say the exact same thing all right thanks so much for that k no said ask if humans and octopi eyes were designed why octopi have eyes designed better than we do having optical nerves connected inside the eyeball and having blind spot is worse anyone uh beuler was i'm not sure i think that was for smoky i think so i think that was for smoky okay i'm sorry read it one more time i'm sorry yeah sure it says if humans if human and octopi eyes were designed why octopi have eyes designed better than we do having optical nerves connected inside the eyeball and having blind spot is worse well no i mean they have designs that are specifically essential utility for them and that's what tells me you know that they're designed like our eyes would burn out if we didn't have it behind you know the octopus do not deal with direct sunlight like we do so there's clearly yes i do well no they well you had said so yourself they have a difference in terms of their structure to how they actually filter or it's just a sunlight it's just a difference but i mean it's not like the optical nerve is protecting our photo receptors it's just the the light passes over it their structure their specific structure is orientated specifically for their environment yet it still carries the similar design it's like saying okay it wouldn't be able to ever be specific we have the same designs as fish no but okay but the point is and this is what there's our vertebrates over was that this is what was kind of danced over that i was trying to talk about of course they have those similar functions they have those similar you know as you had said they were very morphologically similar but they didn't function the same way and i say superficially yes right and i said they're superficially the same and i said yeah i that's get it i that's fine that's great because it's in a different environment clearly it's an underwater environment they're dealing with the reception of light completely different than we do so so it's going to be a different well what would be expected well so we're fish a design paradigm well well here's the thing fish we have the same i type as fish and yet they are also underwater experiencing light well they're not so i don't think that that's well the fishermen i yeah the well again that's another they're in our group we're both vertebrates and so i i don't well that's not really understanding the position on them again that was back to my whole point they're not even really related to the squid or the octopus or the cephalopods yet again that same equipment with a completely different design function that's that was part of my argument i was trying to make all right thanks so much for that we'll move on to our next question from me how do we have 200 over 200 people watching the entire time and like 80 likes let's go guys let's go all right they just hate me that's all right all right awesome okay uh james downert again got a lot of questions says converse what works have you relied on for your understanding of eye origins i'm guessing that's for you smogay uh understanding of eye or well at the understanding i have so far is that we have no understanding of i mean we have a conjecture we have a hypothesis i believe i saw some paper in nature magazine something about a nub in uh in some sort of you know primordial creature that turned into a ball socket that may have turned into something more complex but there's all these areas of assumptions in between and up to that point and really it's just conjecture to me you know to me the best evidence of this organ is that it is irreducibly complex just like our series of of systems in our body you know all of them are incredibly complex incredibly essential and all codependent so which one evolved first well they couldn't have they all had to evolve together simultaneously and that's one of those things when you look at them you're right uh when you look at them together as a as a complex system not just individually but actually you know redundants upon each other that to me is one of those design component things that makes sense to me because i don't see how evolution you know evolves all those things separately to ultimately end up working together and i don't know any workable natural except it didn't explain that it didn't all right and we don't think that well okay if you actually look at the literature you're i agree with you when you say they all evolve together you are correct they did they didn't evolve separately they were it was a concert of these things together you're absolutely correct all right all right thanks so much for that we are almost up to a hundred likes now thank you um but if you haven't if you didn't like it we don't really have enough dislikes either so all right so to move on to our next question semial sorry we just had somebody uh how many of these questions are we doing so many questions there yo there are a ton of questions tonight if we want to let's just be let's just be brief we'll run through them real quick and we'll get through like 10 i mean they keep coming all right seems like keep coming well okay can we cut it off in like 10 minutes is that is that sure we'll do that all right yeah so we'll try to do them before that if we just answer them real quick okay all right so samuel pal says converse who is smoky sains own patron saint uh i don't have one all right thanks so much marcus raleigh says question for smoky would he agree that we don't need absolute proof to make an inductive argument okay so we've already asked that question absolutely for an inductive army yeah we're good uh for smoky describe well nope i think we've already meant to that one too let's see all right kay no says if life is designed and human is special why not make a protostome it would make it obvious that humans are not a result of evolution but creation it was not obvious that were a result of that at all we can't even decide ultimately in the biological community whether we came from neanderthals or neanderthals came from us i mean neither we share a common ancestor well well we have a genome well by the way jackson i think that's one of those things that's on the table of debate i'm familiar with the literature in this regard i spoke with eric on this debate topic maybe you should discuss that with her because she agrees with me we're not descended from the and if we don't know then we should not be making the type of assumptions we are about the evidence is largely in favor of us not being descended from them and then not being sent from us but i shouldn't come on sister that's your pure assumption i'm sorry all right thanks so much for that i encourage you to look at the literature there's there's literature on both sides which literature would you want me to look at i've i've seen stuff on both sides what do you want do a survey do a survey of the literature oh and take consensus yeah sure why not see what they see what the evidence is in favor of one see what the evidence is in favor of the other i judge things based on arguments not consensus that's what i just said i just said see what the evidence is for one side and see what the evidence is for the other side i did and i just i just elaborated that anyway let's move on we're wasting time let's move on you have looked at the literature on both sides all right both and there's good arguments on both sides you get to choose arbitrarily which one do you want don't tell me which one i have to choose that's not on you okay i'm sorry let's go all right thanks so much for that a one dollar super chat from none other than Brenda with the literature all right thanks so much for that Brenda thanks for your super chat we will move on to our next question dave gar statement for smoky that he will like i made mystique mesquite tea yesterday by soaking my chunks overnight not sure what that means oh it's outstanding he probably put his mesquite chips inside the water to soak him overnight because i told him to do that for his uh for his brisket he was making i heard that awesome bro iron chariot's here thanks so much says as smoky has he been to the ark park or or dino adventure land yet you know what i was only in kentucky briefly for a very very unpleasant stay and i had thought about it but no i did not i did not go see the park i personally don't think it's how man i'm gonna get in so much trouble for saying this i don't think that the art park is doing the witness of christianity a lot of great firsts these days all right thanks so much for that iron chariot here says again enormous dits has proven that human growth hormone proves evolution are you aware which which one pretty sure there are different growth human growth hormones all right thanks so much i mean i wouldn't disagree necessarily i'm just saying more specific i guess brenda uh okay thanks much that brenda had a one dollar super chat it did not send the question but brenda if you just tag me i will ask your question no problem it was most likely something hateful if it's the same brenda i'm thinking of all right we'll see they'd be patiently waiting for that all right amy newman thanks so much for your question for smoky on the subject of how animals came about how did god create each separate animal and their differences is this process repeatable within science uh that particular process wouldn't be and neither would it be on the naturalistic side it's one of the things that we have to deal with in terms of inductive or abductive reasoning and we just need to operate off of reasonable models that make the most sense that's really the only thing any of us can do and this is why we do these debates to challenge each other and see those types of probabilities and reasons all right thanks so much for that brenda tagged modern day debate with her question let me just find it here uh i just seen it come in all right there it is by what criteria do you use to distinguish design from non-design um that's a weird question um yeah i mean the the specificity and complexity running contrary to the laws of entropy and the tendency of things to not fall into order but to go into disorder leads me to believe that there is a sign of some type of intelligence so when i come across something very complex and specific that operates like it's been you know attuned coded and you know manifested by intelligence yeah i'm gonna draw that conclusion that's just reasonable to me all right thank you for that our next question from we only have a couple more left alex gordon says question for smoky smoky you had a really productive and interesting debate with jackson tonight why did skyler and t-jump get such a seething such a seething smoky while jackson got a charmer um well because they're very dishonest people and they're very dishonest debaters and it's sad that most of their followers can't notice it you know skyler has a tendency to finish people's answers for them because he only has the intellectual capacity to handle straw men and then he gets to q and a and he doesn't even allow you to answer your own questions he has to jump it at the end and finish answering them for you so he's just a very rude volatile petty nonsensical little man and t-jump just says things that make no sense at all like that the universe can emerge from basically what i mean i know he said life could emerge with no universe at all once you're willing to say such ridiculous stupid things like that yeah you're gonna basically get classified as a clown in my book all right so thanks so much for those burns yeah it's kind of wacky we had a two dollar a or two a's come in from general e shady sorry i'm just not getting to that creation in quotations ma holy book says evolution equals evidence yeah that i don't even know what to do with that that's just yeah the hillbilly hick that wasn't even a statement next at least so yeah that yeah try good try to be the clever that's great lovely all right we have like three more questions oh my god you said two like two ago like really i said a few more all right general balzek says i had to dislike because i found out okay so that was just a comment about okay was it offensive go and read it no no it's just he says i had to dislike because i found out about the prerequisites for liking so but yeah being a good person all right michael says was gal leo included in the consensus of his time i don't know was he he wasn't there are lots of myths about about that whole event definitely definitely what last question iron charity or ask ask moki why does he get so upset and rude with people once they go against the echo chamber echo chamber circle jerk on your channel we've already been over this one yeah i i don't know these guys are just so you know you guys are so triggered and i don't understand you know i do open mics every week i i have it where you guys can come in challenge me ask questions even be the vitriolic nonsensical clowns that you want to be you can come and do any of it and i will put you in your place but instead you want to come in and make noise inside chat and i have no respect for people like that people need to be able to stand behind what they say and defend their points if you can't do it you're just nonsensical noise and i can disregard you for the irrelevant garbage you are awesome fair enough we're at the end of the debate thank you so much for everybody that was in the chat for coming out everybody that's going to watch this afterwards thank you for hitting that like button because i know you're going to new subscribers hit that subscribe button and we will be coming up with some great material in the next few weeks it keeps getting better as time goes on i also want to thank the contenders jackson and smoky was a very calm and collected conversation i think a lot of people probably learned a lot tonight and thank you diana rosewater for subscribing just now and with that i just want to lastly say if there's anything that you want to see on the channel or you want to be a debater on the channel please send me an email at converse contender at gmail.com because james in his doctorate program right now he's being so overwhelmed with emails so please send those over to me and uh everybody uh make sure and send uh james uh uh some flowers or something on uh on twitter to uh thank him for all he does all right thanks so much for everybody being here and uh as usual keep sifting the reasonable from the unreasonable