 All right, it looks like we are live. Hey everybody, welcome to modern day debate. Hopefully you guys can hear me all good. I'm standing in for James. He was unable to obviously help because we had some technical issues going on here and I was unable to resolve them. So we've got a lion's den battle going on today. It's two versus one. So we have a one minute introductions for each of the people and then we're gonna jump into a 25 minute open discussion. And for the audience, I'm actually gonna be taking some Q and A. So if you guys want, throw out your questions and if we have time or if the guests actually have time, then I'll ask whatever you guys want in the audience. So whoever wants to go first introducing yourselves feel free and I will mute myself. Okay, I guess I can start then. Thanks so much, Matt for hosting and moderating tonight's debate. I love modern day debate. I just wanna put a shout out. Anybody who's not subscribed, please subscribe. It's an amazing debate channel, nonpartisan, very neutral, unbiased way to get opposing views across in a respectful, profitable way. So like I said, if you haven't subscribed, please subscribe. I'm standing for truth. I've got a channel that focuses on evidence for creation and debunking evolution. For example, I also host debates, discussions. In a couple of weeks, we've got Dr. Ken Hovind coming on again to debate the flood. I'm here today to defend, not only to put forth arguments against evolution in universal common ancestry, but also to provide a model for myself. I think there's a ton of evidence for biblical creation. A few ones that come to mind are genetic related and I think these lines of evidence, when utilized, it's just too close for comfort for evolutionists. For example, we know the Bible tells us that it's the history book of the universe and when we start with that as a basic assumption, we can make predictions and retro-addictions. For example, we can look at Adam Neve, we can look at Noah's flood predictions and we can see that empirical scientific evidence does tell us that what we see is low genetic diversity. We see one Y male ancestor, one mitochondrial DNA female ancestor, the fact that most genes come in two versions. It appears that all people are closely related. We're devolving, not evolving. We have evidence of rapid population growth that would point us to Noah's flood, Tower of Babel, for example, and what we see is a few mitochondrial DNA lines. We can make predictions based on this data, this information and I don't believe there's any evidence for evolution whatsoever. So in the discussion portion, we can go over various lines of evidence on both sides and I think it'll be fun, profitable and respectful. So I really look forward to discussing with you gentlemen, Esteban and Joseph. So thanks so much. Joseph? Oh yeah, my name is Joseph Sakavak. I'm a math student at Wichita State University and I came on originally because I thought the topic was gonna be could humans have lived amongst dinosaurs? So a lot of my evidence was gonna be for that, but I can do some, I can debate against anti-evolution, I guess, a little bit. But I guess tonight, my main thing I'll be arguing is that our radiometric dating techniques are accurate and don't allow humans and dinosaurs, at least the non-avian type to have existed together at any point. And then Esteban, did you wanna give your brief introduction? Well, on Twitter, I'm a posteriori unum. I don't do a whole lot. I work full time, but I also study full time. There's not really a whole lot to say about me, but I can definitely bring the fire when it comes to topics such as creationism and God's existence and all of that kind of stuff. Awesome. Okay, I guess, Matt, if you wanted to start the clock. Sounds good. I guess, since it's both of you and we've both had discussions in the past, so to not rehash everything, I think we both, all three of us agree that at least regarding biological evolution, we would all define it as a change in, an allele frequency in populations over time or in generations over time. In generations, yeah. But, and I'm genuinely curious, how does a basic say change in allele frequencies? How does that, how can that be extrapolated to mean that dogs, bananas, whales and pine trees are related through common ancestry? Because I mean, no one's ever seen a pine tree produce a non pine tree or come from a non pine tree. So what would be the scientific evidence backing that type of claim? Go ahead, guys. Let me ask you this. You say like, for example, a dog never came from a non dog. Well, what's your limits on what a dog can become? Because you do acknowledge that things do change, allele frequencies do change in the population over successive generations. And the features, the phenotypical changes do occur. And so like, where do you draw the line? What makes a kind? What limits it from becoming something other than a dog kind? That's the part that, well, it's the phylogeny challenge, first of all, and it's the part that nobody can seem to answer. Like, what is the limit that you suppose there is? You say, there's a limit between a pine tree and a person. Okay, well, why? But when it comes to like, dogs becoming different types of dogs and so on and so forth, where do they stop? Right, and that's a good question. I think the best way to answer it would be the fact that if we actually look at the claim mechanisms for this type of evolution, we're looking at natural selection, we're looking at mutations. Now, it's my point that these are not creative processes. For one, natural selection, I believe, is more of a fine tuning process, right? It keeps the species as strong as they can be. But it seems that this change proceeds primarily by damaging or breaking genes, for example, and as a matter of fact, counter-intuitively, that actually does help survival. So it seems that these mechanisms are powerfully devolutionary. So yes, we're gonna see change. Let's take a dog population, for example, since you mentioned dogs. We're gonna be able to see dogs adapt to warmer climates, colder climates, but we're never gonna see that dog grow wings and fly. I mean, there are animals that can fly, for example, birds, but we're never gonna see that in a dog. There's a limit in the gene pool. We're never gonna see a dog as big as a whale, but yet there's animals as big as a whale, like a whale. So I think the evolutionists is kind of backed into a corner to have to admit, yeah, there is some type of limit because if these mechanisms work chiefly by squandering genetic information for short-term gain, but ultimately it's a net loss of information. It's, these changes are based on losing functional systems, losing information, losing regulation. Sure, there's a trade-off in adaptation scene, but I think it's clear that there is a limit. And I think that limit would be dog. That limit would be bacteria. That limit would be bear, whatever the species is. So I've got a question. Do you think it's impossible for a unicellular organism to become multicellular? Well, I think unicellular organisms can come together and work together as a colony, just like we've seen groups of people come together and work together as a colony, but they've never come together as one single organismal unit. I think that's a far cry from saying that your unicellular organisms gonna turn into a whale over billions of years. Go ahead. How do you explain a paper that made it to nature where they had witnessed the unicellular organism achieve multicellularism and it kept it over successive generations? How do you explain that? Well, I don't think there's much to explain. I'd have to look at the exact paper, but from what I've seen, you know, it's more so working together as colonies. You know, it's not actually evolving into a multicellular organism. Like I said, I think it's a far cry to extrapolate that regardless to say that your bacteria-like organism will turn into a whale over successive generations. I understand that it takes a lot of time, billions and billions of years of changes, natural selection acting upon random variation, but how are you gonna take, other than it being a belief system that bacteria and pine trees are related, how are you gonna take that bacteria-like organism into say a whale or a T-Rex over billions of years? Cause we don't see that. We see the fact that random mutations and natural selection, they seem to be self-limiting. So how are you guys gonna explain that? First of all, when you say that it's a belief system to believe that bacteria and pine trees, I think you said, are related, that's projection because what you have is a belief system. What we have is an evidence-based strong case, strong scientific case for evolution. The burden of proof has already been met, by the way, hundreds of years, not hundreds, but over 100 years ago. Well, see, I believe in science. Of course, science means to know. How do we know? Testing, observations, retesting, demonstrating, and it is empirical science to say bacteria produces bacteria. Let's see Lenski's bacterial experiment, for example. It's the largest-scaled evolutionary experiment to date. They've witnessed and observed thousands and thousands, I think more than 60,000 generations of bacteria. And what have we learned? We've learned that bacteria produce more bacteria. So how long is it gonna take? And if we look at the law of monophily, we're never gonna outgrow our ancestry. And yet after so many generations, we see bacteria, for one, they're more degenerative bacteria, but they're still bacteria. And yet you wanna say that bacteria, dogs, pine trees, and whales are all related, it seems like the evolutionists is doing a lot of imagining. So that's why I say it's a belief system because it takes a strong belief, and I put a capital B on the word belief, to believe that these things are related. I mean, how do you explain Lenski's experiment? How long is it gonna take for us to see something new, novel, and meaningful? Go ahead. A strong belief can come from a strong body of evidence. It doesn't mean that it's also anything to do with faith. But it seems like these incremental changes you're talking about over successive generations, it seems like evolutionists are imagining that all these small scale variations are eventually gonna add up to make something we don't actually observe. And mutations, it seems like there's a lot of imagining going on there too, because you're imagining that mutations make something new and better. Yet we know mutations are the destroyer and not the creator. So how do you explain Lenski's experiment, for example? Let's look at a real time experiment in the lab trying to demonstrate large scale evolution. And all we've seen is bacteria producing bacteria. No one's ever seen a bacteria produce a non-bacteria or come from a non-bacteria. Yet you believe bacteria and pine trees are related. So how is that scientific? Go ahead. I just cited a nature.com article for you where they see multicellularity actually come from unicellular organisms. So I can even send that to you later. That is a very good example of what you would call macroevolution. Also, most of the changes that you propose would completely nullify the hypothesis and theories and present the theory of evolution would be debunked if anything that you suggested got witnessed at any point in time in the lab. Well, no, because you can look at the evolutionary tree of life. They've got a frog, they've got a banana, a human and a bacteria, all along the lines, sharing a universal common ancestor. But if we can actually look at a real time example, a lab experiment, what do we see? Bacteria produce bacteria, but you're saying that long ago and far away, a bacteria came from something that, well, a bacteria like organism would be that single common ancestor to all the life we see today. But yet we see, like, I don't know if you guys are confusing, you know, adaptation to environments and evolutionary higher life. I'm gonna go on record here and say that that multicellular evolution, we'll look at it in more detail when we got more time and comment on that, but I don't think, you know, colonization, colonies, these single cell organisms coming together and working together, that's not demonstrating, you know, a single cell organism into a multicellular organism. Even if I granted you that, at the end of the day, we see that adaptation anyways, it's routinely accomplished by loss of information. And the fact is the development of higher life forms that you would have to explain always and necessarily requires a large increase in net information. But if we see a net loss of information, I mean, I don't see how that is scientific because all modern scientific evidence points to the decay and destruction of a once originally perfect design creation. It's the opposite of evolution. Go ahead, guys. It absolutely doesn't go in that direction. Your genetic entropy hypothesis, because I've read in some of the papers that tried to prove that hypothesis that the supposedly deleterious mutating, they occur at a higher rate than beneficial mutations, the rate at which they die more than makes up for those deleterious mutations. So how would you explain that? And the guy who wrote that, I think that he probably wrote it in haste and people just ran with it. Well, so by what metric would you assign any... Well, can you repeat, no, hey, Joseph, sorry, can you repeat what you said earlier? Did you say that deleterious mutations far outweigh that of beneficial mutations or what did you see? You kind of cut off there. I just want you to... Technically deleterious mutations outweigh it by a factor of 10, but they die off much faster than organisms with mutations that are beneficial to them. Right, so natural selection, for example, natural selection is gonna amplify the best beneficial mutations. And like you said, Joseph, it's gonna get rid of the worst, the very worst detrimental and destructive mutations. Like I said, it's gonna keep the species as strong as it can be, but it's those mere neutral deleterious mutations that build up like rust on a car or a single spelling mistake in a book the size of an encyclopedia. How does natural selection, I should ask you what type of natural selection can rid the population of so many overwhelming deleterious low-impact mutations? I mean, they're gonna accumulate. Here's the problem. I don't have a metric to measure. Nope, Joseph, you cut out there, brother, did you want to? Are you looking for a metric? Yes, but first of all, let me tell you this from what you're talking about with genetic entropy, that would mean that we would probably die out long ago unless you provide me a really, really specific number that I can plug in somewhere to say that that's not what actually happens. Well, that's why we see T generation on a large scale. For example, we see entropic degeneration on all levels, we see increased rates in cancer, autism, immunological diseases, autoimmune diseases. I mean, the mutation rate is generally agreed upon and I'll ask if you agree with this as well as to 100 new mutations per person, per generation. Let me explain it really, really simple for the audience because I don't know if a lot of this of what you're saying, you're a big math guy, physics guy. I don't want it to confuse them. So I want to see what you think if I use this kind of an analogy. So if we know that we inherit 100 new mutations per person, per generation. So what we're doing is we're, I'll let you have plenty of time to respond. I just want the audience to understand I think it's important for the argument, but we obviously transmit a small amount of mutations to our children. So for example, you're a math guy, right? First generation, that's 100 additional mutations. How many of those are deleterious? Well, we can get into that after. Now, second generation, 200 additional mutations, third generation, 300 additional mutations. So let's take a room full of people guys, Esteban, Joseph. Now kill off the most mutant people, okay? Natural selection, for example. Now we have a room half full of people who still have approximately 100 more mutations than their parents. So if everybody is multiply mutant, because we know that natural selection acts on the phenotype, not the genotype. So let's say if everybody is multiply mutant and every generation is more mutant than the one before it, all this selection that we're talking about can do. Guys is slow down the degeneration problem by killing off the absolute worst of the luck because no creationist disagrees with natural selection, but it doesn't stop mutations from accumulating in the population over time. So that's why we are destined for extinction. And the fact that we're not extinct yet proves that the genome is young because you were saying, oh, we should have gone extinct based on these mutations. Well, that's the point. We haven't gone extinct because the genome is young. So how do you feel about, I hope the audience kind of gets a good picture on what we mean by genetic entropy. But what it proves is that there is no such thing as genetic entropy. And I corrected you on this in the past. You didn't correct me. You might think. I corrected you. I corrected you. Dr. John Sanford spoke in an interview. You haven't been corrected because you're still not correct, but I have said the correction before out loud. Entropy is not a thing that has to do with biology whatsoever. It is a physics term that has to do with a thermodynamic system. A closed thermodynamic system, by the way, which biological life forms are not. So it does not apply. The term does not mean anything to do with biology. And that's what we're talking about. When I use the word entropy, I'm using it in a biological sense in the fact that genomes are devolving, things are going downhill, and the genome is rusting out like a car. I'm not talking about the first and second law of thermodynamics. For example, the second law of thermodynamics, which state the law of increasing entropy, things are winding down. I'm just talking about this accumulation of low impact, near-neutral, delatious mutations. It is a fact. I mean, Joseph, do you agree that we inherit 100? Sometimes some people say even more. New mutations per person. If there's seven billion people on the planet, that's 700 billion new mutations that shut the nation alone. What type of stuff are you talking about in the kids? I was trying to keep this evidence that every one of those mutations is not beneficial to us for one thing, for two. How many are beneficial to us? How many are? It comes down to beneficial to you. So how many of them are beneficial then? That would be- There's a one claiming entropy exists. Why don't you actually give us a metric to explain that you're correct? Well, for one, okay. So if you want to just admit the feed and not give us a type of selection that's going to be able to rid the population of these near-neutral, low-impact, delatious mutations on, I just gave you evidence of entropic degeneration on all levels. I've shown you that adaptive gains are observed, but these are generally reductive. For example, sickle cell anemia, I mean, it's broken. It's ultimately reductive. And I'm sure you would even agree that at the end of the day, beneficial mutations are very much rare. So how are they gonna compensate for the relentless influx of delatious mutations? I mean, how many beneficial mutations? Okay, for one, guys, why don't you give me a beneficial mutation that is not delatious to some extent? Cause I'm not disagreeing with adaptive degeneration, but I want to see how you can counterbalance the net loss of information. What's your best beneficial mutation in life? That's exactly why I cited this paper that I'll send you later, and it's... Is this the multicellular one? Yes, of course. It is probably one of many out there nowadays. So would that be your... So here's the thing, okay? Even if I were to give you guys one or two beneficial... I don't believe they're out there, but let's just say I were to concede and say, okay, maybe there are one or two beneficial mutations that are not delatious to some extent. For one, one or two beneficial mutations are not gonna counterbalance the information loss due to the influx of delatious mutations. And even the ones that are reductive, but still beneficial somehow, they can sell to make the type of compensation that's needed to actually stop the net loss of information. I'm not sure if you guys understand that the problem is net loss versus net gain. You can take 10 steps up. You could take one step up that mountain, but then 10 step backwards, you're never gonna climb that mountain. And that's exactly what we see here. How are you gonna take your fish to fishermen by losing information? You talked about a metric. For one, we know that we inherit 100 new mutations per person, per generation. We look at shifts from heterozygosia to homozygosia. Look at genetic variation. And look at deletions in the genome. I've seen papers where they compare the amount of deletions in the genome. They can certainly look at the information loss that way. That's how they discovered that mammoth populations had an increased genetic load in the past, which probably led to their extinction. How would they have discovered that, Joseph, that these mammoth populations had an increased genetic load? What type of metric do you think they're looking at? A few times. The vast majority of mammoths were had an increased genetic load? Mammoth populations, do you agree that they had a, did you see that paper at all that talked about how they had an increased genetic load, probably somewhat due to inbreeding? And I mean, what type of metric did they look at? This was an evolutionary paper, do you know? Oh, absolutely, I don't know. You're the one who's trying to prove that genetic entropy exists. Well, that's, I mean, there's evidence right now, right there, mammoth populations, you know, the human populations- Yeah, the mammoth- Evolving, entropic, degeneration at all levels. We see it in bacteria. I mean, just yesterday I was Googling reductive evolution in bacteria. It's known that bacteria will actually lose genes for short-term gain. I mean, we could talk about this till we're blue in the face, but the point is no one's ever seen a dog or a non-dog or come from a non-dog yet. You're saying that dogs, bananas, pine trees, and whales are all related through common ancestry, yet we see degenerative adaptation. So just take a couple of minutes and give me your very best evidence for universal common ancestry. I mean, is it pseudo genes, nested hierarchies? I mean, what is it? Go ahead guys. Before we do that, keep in mind you believe in genetic entropy, right? That means that your worldview depends on and the younger earth, but every radiometric dating technique that we have in the modern day points to an older earth. Well, the thing is we can just look, okay, and we can go into that Joseph, but what is your idea of, well, for one Esteban, because he keeps his argument, his only argument is, oh, we're not talking about the second law of thermodynamics. What do you believe I mean when I say genetic degeneration or genetic entropy Esteban? Like, what do you think I mean by that? Well, I think you're conflating terms and I think you're doing it deliberately to convince an audience that there is a type of mutation that's out there like that, as if 99.9% of all mutations weren't completely neutral and it just adds up and we can't last that long. And using the word entropy is a loaded word because when you hear entropy, you think, okay, degeneration. And I think it's a little bit disingenuous to use that word and that's not my only argument. And as far as like reductive evolution for bacteria, first of all, you're talking about reproduction, asexual reproduction where they copy themselves precisely. And yeah, they do have mutations and it can be reductive, but you were forgetting that there's such a thing as horizontal gene transfer of bacteria. But if bacteria, if horizontal gene transfer is occurring in bacteria, you just have these genes flying around that are from bacteria. You guys still haven't explained the Lensky experiment, which we've seen thousands and thousands and thousands of generations of bacteria, yet all we see is degenerative changes. We still see bacteria producing bacteria. So nobody's ever seen a bacteria produce a non-bacteria or come from a non-bacteria. You guys are, you just spent 30 minutes talking about how you believe bacteria, whales, pine trees. I think your problem, Esteban, is that you assume that mutations have a net neutral effect, but we actually know that that's wrong and you haven't given us any actual reason to, because you talked about how many are neutral. That's a very good point. How much of our genome do you think is functional? Is it 10%, 20%? I think it comes down to that. The fact that life has been on earth for 3.8 billion years would tell you that- What happened to that fact? That's based on assumption. No, it's not an assumption. It's based on evidence. But that would tell you that- What evidence? You can see- Oh, I don't wanna slap it around. Esteban, I don't want you to slap it around. What evidence? Cause you just saw that up there. What evidence? Yeah, what Joseph was talking about, radiometric dating. We could figure these things out. I'm not a geologist, of course, but I have heard the explanations for these things and I think you should read it and I think you would be very well enriched if you read some of these scientific papers that tell you that radiometric dating works and it's not just carbon dating. I know that I'm gonna get 50,000 years in ahead of this. But we have- I wanna see how much- Well first, let's see how much time we have because you know what, I'm gonna say and we'll let the audience decide once again, I don't think genetic entropy has been addressed. Just ignore it. We can talk about radiometric dating. Matt, how much time do we have there, brother? We got two minutes, but I see Joseph had a question as well. He was trying to say something. Okay, we can go the last two minutes on this. I'm gonna say this, Joseph, and I know you're big into this, so you're gonna know what's going on. I'm saying in regards to radiometric dating, age isn't actually measured and you might agree with this. Give us your take on this, Joseph. Rather, certain processes and amounts of materials are actually measured and then the age itself is inferred. What I find amazing is the fact that radiometric ages for rocks of known ages actually turn out to be so amazingly inaccurate. That, to me, is a strong suggestion that one or more, for one, the assumptions that are built in on radiometric dating must be incorrect and I wanna just make one last point with Esteban. He talked about reduction and yes, the best beneficial mutations are reductive. You guys failed to present me a beneficial mutation that's not reductive. I use the example of sickle cell anemia. Yes, that has a significant impact, but it's due to a broken gene, broken protein, and in the long run, it's not taking things forward, so it's reductive, it's a net loss of information. Joseph, what's your rebuttal to my argument on, for one genetic entropy, if you wanna finish off there and radiometric dating, go ahead. The problem that you have with radiometric dating is you're failing to realize that time is actually built into the equation and we don't make very many assumptions at all. We gather information based upon how many daughter elements are present. If we can understand how many daughter elements are present, then we can infer how much has... Are you agreeing that the age is inferred? Absolutely not, because we have... You just said it's inferred based on the daughter elements. Yes, but inferred is something very different here. How much? 10 minutes. Are you saying we... What do you mean 10 minutes? Are you saying, well, we gotta go to two minute closings, right? Oh, I thought it was 25 and then a 10 minute Q&A. Well, what we'll do, it was two minute closing, but that's, Joseph, finish what you were saying on the radiometric dating, and then I guess I could probably just respond in my brief closing, go ahead, brother. I'm saying that you are conflating the word inference with assumption. Is there anything else you wanna add to that? We have actually, I'm not completely... Yes, it's very obvious that we can measure radioactive decay. You would agree with that, right? Yes, I'm saying age isn't actually measured. The certain processes and the assumptions and the amount of materials are measured, then the age is inferred. Which something decays, and we can measure the amount of daughter elements from a radioactive parent element, then why are you saying that we are assuming the age when we have these two obvious facts? Well, I can... Well, if you're done with what you're saying, since that's the end of the discussion portion, I can answer that in my closing, if you'd all answer the question, I don't like these things hanging. It's a very, very simple equation. The amounts of remaining material, we'll call it material, is equal to the initial value times one half to the power of time over the radioactive decay constant. We've measured the radioactive decay constant at many different elements. Therefore, you cannot say that we make assumptions when we have tested these things in the lab. All right, guys, we gotta do the closing. Sorry about that, but... No, that's okay, okay, you know what? I'll start here with my closing. See, the thing is the dating process, which I do understand is that it requires measuring how much daughter element, like Joseph here said, that is actually in a rock sample and then knowing the decay rate. So for example, uranium into lead or into potassium. Now, like I said, it is based on assumptions. For example, the initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known. There's one assumption. The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not actually been altered by processes, say, other than radioactive decay. Because at the end of the day, yes, you know, secularists, they measure the amounts of the radioactive parent and the daughter isotopes. In the present, that's the problem here. We have basic assumptions that are different on the past. So that way, you're making a whole host of unprovable naturalistic assumptions and then extrapolate backwards in time to make what is essentially a guess about an age. So what Joseph here in Esteban are assuming is uniformitarianism, right? The present is the key to the past. Why do we see carbon in diamonds? Why do we see, you know, carbon in dinosaurs? Why do we see soft, stretchy tissue still present? I mean, everything about these dating methods are just wrong. And it's very easy to demonstrate. And I don't think within the 30 minute discussion, I understand that, you know, I appreciate, you know, their great faith and zeal for their science fiction religion of Ponskum to people evolution, but I definitely don't appreciate, you know, their science because at the end of the day, no one's ever seen a dog produce a non dog or come from a non dog, as I've demonstrated here. We see adaptive gains through degenerative means. Genetic entropy, genetic degeneration, it is a fact I've presented more than enough information. I mean, it's just a major problem because we do know that beneficial mutations are very rare and non-neutral mutations, they're consistently deleterious. And I think that that's expected, given typographical errors in attacks. Things are devolving, not evolving. These guys have to prove that things are actually, you know, going up and not down. How much more time do I have, Matt? Right now, that was your two minutes, let's go. Okay, thanks, I appreciate it. So, and then, do they get their closing split up one each or how does that set? I'll give them two, that is fine. Okay, go ahead guys. Go ahead. All right, first of all, I'm going to address that you said, daughter elements are affected by other processes? No, that could be true, but scientists have figured out ways to determine whether something has been affected by things like heat or chemical processes. They take these things into account all the time or else they would be out of the job or left out by the rest of the scientific community. As for your question about why diamonds exist with carbon? That's really, it's not carbon 14. Why would you assume that there would be no carbon? That's just outlandish, but Jesus Christ. Anyways, I'll yield the rest of my time. Oh, all right. That's the problem. Yeah, well, I see standing for truth hasn't evolved at all since last we spoke and so maybe that's a little bit of a point against evolution, but he talked about how sci-fi that we believe in science fiction. Well, you make a lot of strawman arguments like we think about these things like that, that dogs just suddenly become something the size of a whale or how does something come from like a pineapple becomes a thing? Well, nobody says that. Nobody's saying that these things just change. It's not Pokemon. That's not what we mean by evolution. We mean slow, gradual changes and you know that, but you wanna make it stand on ridiculous. Speaking of sounding ridiculous and sci-fi, we're not the ones who believe that the earth was created by a magic spell and that people came out of the earth like a golem and that all the animals just took into existence and that a man raised from the dead and all that silly stuff. And that's the source of your information is from one single book. Whereas the source of our information is just from the world around us. We dig up fossils, we make inferences, which is not the same. It's inductive reasoning. It's not the same as assumption. We study, we look, we compare things. We compare the genomes of different creatures and we could see that certain genes exist and only this group of creatures, there's no possible way that it could just, I'm pretty sure that was close to two minutes. Yeah, but Joseph had given up his time, so I was letting him go over. That's good. That's not fair. Oh, that's all right. We've got 10 minutes then for some Q&A. Standing for truth, you had an ungodly amount of questions. So I guess we'll start with you. That's usually the case. Yeah, the last one that came in, well, I guess we'll just start with one of the first ones, I'll tell you about this. What limits a mammal from getting bigger webbed feet, bigger tails, losing hair and nostrils in a different part of their skull? What limits an animal from doing something like that? Well, like I said before, I think I believe in change. I believe in, so the things that he mentioned was getting bigger, of course. We see big dogs, little dogs. We see big cats, little cats. You're never gonna get a dog or a cat as big as a whale, yet we do know there's animals that exist that are as big as a whale. You're gonna get a dog that can adapt to the cold. You're gonna get a dog that can adapt to the heat, but you're never gonna get a dog to grow wings and fly. Yet we know there's animals that exist that can fly, like birds, for example. So there's limits there. Losing hair, sure. I mean, that's a loss of information. You're not gonna take your fish to fishermen by losing information. And I think some of them had a built-in assumption as well, based on the nostrils in a different part of their skull. Not sure if they're looking to reptile, or what is it, reptile mammal transitions and whale transitions, but I think we clearly see limits. I think the processes of natural selection and mutations, natural selection is a creative process and mutations are destruction and not control. I think that's all we see is limits. Look at Ledzky's experiment. Bacteria produced bacteria. I asked them a few times to explain that and I understand the law, monophilally, we're not gonna outgrow our ancestry and that fits better well in a biblical creation model. God created original created kinds and they've never outgrown their ancestry, but what's the common ancestor between a dog and a pineapple? Was that either a dog or a pineapple? And then what did that come from? That type of evolution just happens in the imagination of those that wanna believe in it. So that's my answer, thanks for that. Updated, the question was extended. It said, no, can the nostril evolve to be in a different place in the animal? Can the nostril evolve to be in a different place? Can the HOX gene shift and let the nostril move from an alligator, the front, to being up higher? Things like that. Right, I mean, if you're looking at a hawk sheen or if you're looking at built-in adaptation, I mean, I'm not sure if, I don't think that's ever been observed from one and science is all about observations. I kinda went a long time on that answer, so I wanna give the boys here a chance to maybe respond to it if they wanted. All right, Joseph, question. When species evolved, what did the first species that were able to have sex mate with if there was no other, like what was the first species to exist or bacteria or something that came along that wasn't asexual, what did it reproduce with? No idea, that's a good question. I don't think we solved that problem even, so it's kind of a, yeah, I don't know, good question. As they pointed out in the question, we did kinda, not we, but unicellular organisms obviously produced asexually, and evolution happens at the population level, so there's no reason to assume that the first sexually active organisms wouldn't be able to be sexually active. I mean, that doesn't really make that much sense. But I mean, we see populations of bacteria, for example, or populations of hamsters, and all we ever see is populations of hamsters adapting and staying as populations of hamsters and bacteria and so forth. So, I mean, how can you say that it's scientific that hamsters and bacteria are related? Because you just said it, populations evolved. We don't see populations evolved, large scale changes either. If you wanted to go into that, we'd have to go into the fossil record which would bring up an entirely different debate, which I am definitely not prepared for because paleontology and genetics are kind of my weak point, if you want my honesty. No, no, I appreciate your honesty. We can maybe go into that topic, and that might be a rabbit trail, you're right. Esteban, I saw you wanted to say something. Well, I was just saying that there's actually, it's not just asexual and sexual. There's actually several stages in between. Now, of course, as usual, I don't know the names of all these stages, but you could look it up. There's different in-betweens. It didn't just go like an asexual organism, didn't just all of a sudden be like, you know what, I'm gonna have sex with another asexual organism and make babies. It didn't happen like that. We don't know precisely how, but we do know that there are many layers in between. I'm gonna make a quick prediction that when I look it up, there's gonna be a lot of imagining, a lot of storytelling, and a lot of guesswork. That's just my prediction, but when it comes to those questions, that's usually what I find. We have examples of these stages in between today. It's not that something that happened in the past, it also exists today. I'll look it up for you if you need. Okay, I appreciate it. All right. Another question then. Why go with the genetic entropy? So standing for truth then. Why go with genetic entropy since Condor Voschov, I'm not sure that somebody's name, I can't even read my own handwriting. Alexey Condorov? Yeah, Condorov said that they'll go extinct in 100 generations. Well, what Condorov said was, why are we not extinct 100 times over? Well, what's funny is that quote because Condorov is an evolutionist. So he's asking base, and he's a population geneticist. That's why I always say population geneticists. Evolutionary population geneticists agree that man is degenerating. And they say things like Condorov said, why are we not extinct 100 times over? That proves that the genome is young and he can't and all other population geneticists, they can't question their basic assumption of ponds come to people evolution because they have to force fit all evidence, all data into that primary assumption. They're not gonna question the theory, but we can look back and say, why are we not extinct 100 times over? That's because the genome is young. We haven't had enough time. That's why when you look at certain deep lineage animals in the fossil record and yet they remain unchanged, you see stasis. But based on what we know about genetics, based on what we know about genome degradation, that can't be possible. So Joseph was talking about the fossil record, but the fossil record itself proves creation. Look at the Silicant. I mean, millions and millions and millions of years ago, evolutionists say it went extinct. And all of a sudden it pops up in the oceans today, just swimming around, never seen in the fossil record past a certain layer. Living fossils, there's a certain tree. Well, lemmy tree, I can't remember the exact name. I think that's what it is. Evolutionists said this is like finding a living dinosaur. And yet there it was just hidden in plain sight. And it's funny because a tree can't run and hide like a living dinosaur could. Say, you know, in the congos with Mochilea medbay and stuff, we were having that debate the other day with RJ Downer. They can go hidden, yet this pine tree or this tree, well, lemmy pine went undetected all this time. And yet there it is, another living fossil. So like I said, I mean, everything points to genetic degeneration and a biblical creation model. So I appreciate the question. All right, another one, sorry. Why would God call it a rainbow when you look from above and it's a circle? Why would he lie? Standing for truth, I guess. Wait a minute, repeat that. Why would God call it a rainbow when from above it's a circle? Why would he lie to them? Oh, I mean, God says that he cannot lie. So I don't, why would he call it a rainbow from above it's a circle? I'm gonna have to pass on that question. Okay, all right, I thought last, well, there's another more questions in here, but how could a common ancestor between a dog and a pineapple be either a dog or a pineapple standing for truth? Well, that's the thing. These guys talk about the law monophily. Of course they say, you know, dogs produce dogs. If dogs didn't produce dogs, that would falsify evolution. But at the end of the day, they're the ones that are saying dogs today came from something, well, came from a population of non-dogs long ago and far away. And yet, for one, they'll appeal to time. Give it enough time, then you might get that non-dog. And that's why I say, you know, it's a science fiction based religion because if I were to tell you that, you know, the frog could turn into a prince quickly from a kiss from a princess, you'd say that's a fairytale. But if I told you that, you know, a frog could turn into a prince slowly, well, then now that's science. Well, no, they're both fairytales. And the belief system that dogs, pineapples, and whales are related is also a belief system. And then I appreciate, you know, the zeal for their science fiction based religion, but it's not based on real observational science. So I appreciate the question. I might address that for like 30 seconds. It's not that much. Yeah, take your time. I'm not saying dogs come from non-dogs. Hey, you're cutting out. I think your connection's bad there, Joseph, if you wanted to fix it up there, you might have to turn up the volume or something. At the beginning. Hello, can you hear me? Yeah, start from the beginning though of what you're saying. I'm saying that we don't say that dog. Okay. Evolution doesn't say that dogs came from non-dogs. It says that they came from a different type of canid. If I remember right, I'm not very good at being pedantic about this stuff because I'm obviously not. Well, did that different type of canid come from a bacteria ultimately, you know, millions and millions of years ago? They came from eukaryotes earlier down the line. Okay, so you're saying because a bacteria-like organism, well, at the end of the day, you just said that you don't believe that a dog came from a non-dog, but obviously a bacteria-like organism is a non-dog. I hope you would at least agree with that. What we're saying is that a canid will not produce a non-canid. That's the point. Right. But anyways, we have other questions to get to, I guess. Actually, we're over by a minute. I was just letting you go. There's a person named Hunter Bailey who said, because this is ending now, if he wants to invite everybody to his channel to come after this one. So just putting that out there. I recommend you, Hunter, to like, you know, post your link through your channel, if you can. And it's really hard to keep up with all these questions, my God. But I think they're over. So I've been writing questions down. I guess standing for truth, I'll let you know what they are later so you can answer them on your channel. How's that sound? That sounds good to me. I think this is a lot of fun. I think James from Modern Day Debate, I think that's a great idea. He had to do these many debates. So I'm sure there's gonna be plenty more of them in the future. Maybe we can even do a different topic in a week or so. Joseph or Esteban, we can do dinosaurs like you were talking about, Joseph. But I had a lot of fun tonight. Thanks so much, guys. All right. Bye, everybody. Make sure to subscribe. And I hope you had a good time. And have a good night. Have a good one.