 Hey everybody tonight we're debating creation versus evolution and we're starting right now with Dr. Thompson's opening statement Thanks so much for being with us. Dr. Thompson the floor is all yours Great. Thank you James. So let me share my screen here I Am really happy to be here. I'm actually a big fan of modern day debates and and It's a lot of fun So let me just get started a little bit about me to introduce myself. So I'm Chris Thompson I'm an assistant professor of neuroscience at Virginia Tech might be wondering why someone like this is Presenting on evolution. Well, my background is that I have Bachelors of science at the University of Illinois at Champaign Urbana in ecology ethology and evolution Where I focus mostly on ethology, which is animal behavior hence my interest in neuroscience as well as the evolution side of things So I got some background, but I am not a trained evolutionary biologist. I'm a neuroscientist That said evolution figures very prominently into neuroscience and we'll touch on that hopefully several times in this debate So I study just a briefly about what I study I study how hormones shape the development and plasticity of neural circuits I do this in a wide range of species work with birds mammals and currently I work with frogs So shown here what we're looking at is the more metamorphosis of tadpoles into frogs Which is dependent upon thyroid hormone? It turns out thyroid hormone shapes the neuro development of all vertebrates And that's because all vertebrates share a common ancestor So we can use the tadpoles an excellent model for understanding how thyroid hormone works in the brain because of that fact So the views that I expressed tonight are my own they do not reflect the views of Virginia Tech Now this issue actually about creation evolution This isn't an issue about science actually who will be talking about scientific topics, but it's not about science This is an issue that is theological So this is a theological debate between one worldview that requires a literal interpretation of the Bible and a worldview that does not The majority of people all over the world Do not start with the first principle that every single word in the Bible must be a hundred percent factual and true And in fact there are many religious people that see the Bible as allegory and metaphorical Most accept that the evolution is an accurate working model of the history of life on earth and that we are continuing to develop it So what are the big differences between evolution and creationism as I see it? Well evolution what we the big idea is that we have common descent with modification animals Are and other organisms are related to each other Descended from a common ancestor and that there's been modification that's occurred We have a mechanism to explain that change through time now a simple explanation is that natural selection on heritable traits Is that mechanism? It's something that Darwin developed that was his big idea a hundred and fifty years ago but we've expanded upon that idea and we now know that it's actually a lot more complex and A lot more powerful in the ways that he didn't even under understood or appreciate in his time The other thing about evolution that's critical is that the earth is 4.6 billion years old This is an important point in this philosophical debate. We believe in an old earth We also have an understanding that biogeography where animals are located Across the world and overall geology the organization of This is explained by natural mechanisms So in the creation aside, they believe that there are kinds whatever they wanted to find that as It tends to vary depending upon that whatever argument they need to make at that time They believe that they're especially created whatever that means de novo all at once Now as far as a mechanism goes I don't I don't see a testable reasonable mechanism that they have to offer beyond magic There's just things are wished into existence and that's it There's no actual mechanism and this is an important point because intelligent design implies that there was Design happening and that there was things that were put together. What is that mechanism? What how did that occur in physical space on earth? They believe that the earth is six to ten thousand years old This is another very important point because it's going to be a huge difference in explaining How things look across the earth such as explanations of biogeography and geology on the creation aside They typically believe that that is all organized by Noah's flood which occurred somewhere around 4,000 years ago So we have all kinds of lines of evidence to support evolution. I can go through this list. This is just a subset Arne is Specialist in and other aspects of this my specialty is a little bit more on the ass ideas of comparative morphology So I've studied all kinds of different animals and I've looked at how they have similar features that those shared features actually imply and strongly Can only be explained by a fact that they have a shared heritage I'm happy to talk about that. We talked about the evolution of the brain something that seems extraordinarily complex Some people might assume that it's designed in some way and in fact There's lots of reasons to think that it's not So precious of course they need to explain that there's fossil evidence. They need to explain that What how how do we have comparative morphology? How do we explain these similarities that seem to follow an inested hierarchy that falls into phylogenetic trees? Same goes for genetics genetics You compare genes between say chimpanzees and humans or humans to mice or humans to frogs You can see a nested hierarchy that occurs Same with biogeography. Why are there marsupials in Australia and not elsewhere except for just a handful? As well as the age of the earth again This is a very critical point that I think that they have to address. So that's my opening. I Think I might be just under six minutes And I'm happy to turn that over to our You got it. Thank you very much. Well, kick it over to my turn now That's right, absolutely. Thanks very much iron the floor is all yours All right So when careless Linnaeus devised the systematic classification of life in 1735 He noticed that everything was nested in a hierarchical series of daughter groups descending from parent categories that were themselves siblings of several generations or ranks of earlier ancestral Classifications what he saw was the branching pattern of a family tree and this was wholly Inconsistent with his belief in divine design and he had no explanation for it because he knew that there could there could be a Variety of forms within any given species whether dogs or cattle or pigeons or pea plants since he was a botanist But there was no bridge between species no point where two closely related populations could diverge to the point that they could no longer interbreed Different species could sometimes produce infertile hybrids if they were in the same genus But not between different genera even in the same family and his taxonomic tree required Speciation the emergence of new species which he could only he could only assume was good would be an act of special creation by God and He could accept micro evolution, which is variation but within the species but not macro evolution Which is variation between species being the emergence of new species and later He realized that speciation had to be happening, but he couldn't figure out how and he died with his greatest enigma unanswered Then a century later Darwin provided an explanation for the origin of species by means of natural selection And once we knew that speciation could happen folks began directly observing and documenting that in real time on top of the many other ways That we can confirm these relationships in any given taxonomic family For example, what was originally nested only in morphology is now twin nested in genetics as well Like following two sets of footprints back to where they once walked together The Bible talks about different kinds of plants and animals and it describes Kinds according to whether they're able to interbreed to produce fertile offspring to bring forth after their kind Thus the Hebrew word min means exactly the same thing as the biological species concept And modern creationists being forced to accept some level of taxonomy But desperate to reject the rest have tried to redefine that and they've tried to Misdefine macro evolution to in many other relevant terms as well But neither science nor scripture supports their attempts to move the goalposts to change what these words have always met And creationists and I by them I mean Can ham and even can't hoven now accept that speciation happens Which means that they accept macro evolution by definition and they accept natural selection as an evolutionary mechanism leading to speciation So they literally accept Darwin's account on the origin of species by means of natural selection Yet they pretend to reject what the erroneously label as Darwinism not understanding what that word means either They have no argument against evolution at all and nothing to promote a mystical creation by Conjuration either all they can ever do all they can do is point back to Some point in the misty past beyond evolution to the origin of life and some notion of universal beginnings Things we don't understand nearly as well to pretend that we don't know therefore magic as if the unexplained is explained by God as if the magic imaginary designer is somehow the default assumption When there is there's not even such as not even possible much less probable and it's nor is it any in any way indicated They have to show that there's a there there something to show that there is at least some reality to the absurdity They believe that it's not all entirely imaginary as it certainly seems to be Evolution on the other hand is not remotely imaginary. It is demonstrable We know now that if you take one original population and divide them say in on different sides of an Natural boundary like a wasteland that soon enough if you find a lone wanderer in the no man's land between them You'll be able to recognize just by looking at it Which group it came from because these now separate populations continually produce their own unique mutations That are not shared with the other group anymore because there's no more gene flow between them But the smaller the community or excuse me population genetics means that the parent gene told the parent gene pool Tends to restrict new variants So the larger the population is slower the evolution But the smaller the community the more likely new traits will be expressed and spread throughout that population generations down the road Until you have discernible subsets where every member of this group shares common traits that are not shared with any member of the other group if they can still interbreed and produce fertile offspring then That is a subspecies distinction what the Bible would call a kind But the more diverse each collective genome becomes the more they grow apart genetically The less likely they will be physically or chemically compatible and the higher the probability that their progeny may not be fertile or even viable Until finally they are each their own genetically isolated species at that point the leash is off the old gene pool Imposes no influence at all anymore Thus speciation is the only taxonomic distinction that has consistent definition amongst actually reproductive animals And it is the only way that that were the only way that any of this diversity happens is by evolutionary mechanisms This accounts for the whole of taxonomy all of it at every level if you take the time to look at it in detail You'll see that we can watch evolution happen manipulate it trace it confirm it conclusively with multiple lines of independent overlapping evidence Tracking back hundreds of millions of years Evolution is an inescapable fact of population genetics fossils and phylogeny our opponents cannot deny that evident reality No matter how much they would rather make believe in something else instead All they have is a literal fairy tale nothing but folk tales that have been proven wrong We can show the truth of evolution They can't show that there was ever any truth to creationism You got it. Thank you very much for that opening as well We are going to kick it over to the creation side as well But first want to say folks in case it's your first time here at modern-day debate We are a neutral channel hosting debates on science religion and politics and its only debates And we want to let you know no matter what walk of life you are from we hope you feel welcome atheist Christian Muslim You name it. We're glad you're here And this is a big one at the bottom right of your screen as you can see this Friday Apostate prophet and David Wood Partner up against perfect Dawa and Nadir on whether or not Islam is violent You don't want to miss it hit that subscribe button so you don't miss it and with that we're gonna kick it over to Cindy and Sal Thanks so much for being with us. The floor is all yours for your openings as well Cindy's gonna go for nine minutes than me for three You bet Again, thank you to James Aaron and Dr. Chris for making this discussion possible Consider the title of this article by evolutionary biologist John J. Welch what is wrong with evolutionary biology? Welch's article is just a partial laundry list of the problems with evolutionary biology We hope to show tonight that he did not even scratch the surface of those problems Consider also Jerry coin author of why evolution is true coin states in Sciences packing order evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom are closer to The pseudo science of phrenology than to physics We emphatically agree with coin in putting physics at the top and evolutionary biology at the bottom I'm sorry my evolutionary friends. We do still love you Um, for example in physics here are Maxwell's equations for classical electrodynamics These relate electricity magnetism and optics these equations also led to Lorentz Einstein's theory of special relativity Without our modern understanding of electromagnetism represented by these equations There would be no modern electronics no modern cars no spark plugs no airplanes computers phones light bulbs, etc We cannot live modern lives without scientists accepting Maxwell's equations of physics But I'm sorry to disagree with dr. Chris We can study biology without accepting evolution at all Biology is the study of structure and function of living things structure and function I believe scream design purpose foresight and planning Why is evolution believed it is somewhat like this picture of a pencil dipped in water that appears to be bent and This diagram representing what ancient man believed was a geocentric universe Thomas Huxley Darwin's bulldog said the great tragedy of science is the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact Or in our opinion the slaying of an ugly hypothesis by a beautiful fact These optical illusions created misconceptions that were finally destroyed by facts The pencil is not bent and the earth is not the center of the universe Stephen Jay Gould asked the rhetorical question did he that is God create life to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby Francis Collins also argues that to deny evolution would make God a great deceiver This is like insisting the pencil is bent because we assume God would not make optical illusions But this is a logical fallacy The real question is whether the pencil is bent or not The metaphor of the bent pencil applies to evolutionary biology There are many things in biology which could give us the illusion of natural evolution for example aloo elements junk DNA Pseudo genes etc. Sal's going to take that further during opened dialogue Darwin supposed a nested hierarchy similar to this tree of life diagram from the Smithsonian To many people the grouping of life forms appears to conform to that tree of life diagram Because of morphological and genetic similarities For example, all living organisms are made of cells So the appearance can be that we must have all come from a first cell Additionally, 99% of living organisms use the same genetic code and the same DNA alphabet a Ct and G However, remember things are not always as they appear For the sake of argument, let's say there is a universal common ancestor a first life form That first life form would still require a miracle According to Virchow's principles Cells only come from pre-existing cells This begs the question. Where did the first living cell come from? We understand I a biogenesis is not the same as evolution However, there would be no evolution without the miracle of a biogenesis Because there's no evolution without life therefore Evolutionists you are not off the hook on the origin of that first life Some scientists deal with the a biogenesis question by appealing to multiple universes Some appeal to aliens Because they know that all life requires a parent or a seed In addition to the fact that evolution cannot even get started without the miracle of the first life The next problem is the origin of major protein families Major protein families are so vastly different both in shape and sequence. It's clear from diagrams such as this There is no universal common ancestor for the major protein slash gene families The major protein families and many taxonomically restricted protein families would require events Indistinguishable from miracles of God The question is fundamentally whether complex life emerged by miracles or by no miracles We can examine this more in open dialogue So far we have assumed for the sake of argument that the earth is billions of years old and that common descent is true In order to show that evolutionary theory, however, you define it will still fail on the most important issue Namely the emergence of as Darwin said quote organs of extreme perfection and complication and quote Though Sal and I believe in young earth We acknowledge unexplained problems like geomagnetism Radiometric dating speed of light and a distant starlight problem. We have not emphasized these today in the interest of time But if the earth is young then there would be no Universal common descent because there would not be enough time to evolve everything from a pre-mortial cell So this raises the question for some Why then would God make creatures similar to us? like chimps The answer we're putting on the table is that God created these patterns of similarity to facilitate scientific discovery and medical research In this intelligently designed but also cursed world Creationists should thank God every day. We have body parts that resemble the body parts of quote model organisms As seen in this diagram We claim that through these model organisms we can understand that we are fearfully and wonderfully made as it says in the Psalms If we did not have these designed model organisms We would have to resort to dissecting humans rather than fetal pigs rats chimps or squids We are different enough from chimps that if the earth is young it would be evident We do not share a common ancestor but are rather separate creations But we are similar enough to chimps That chimps can serve as a model organism for scientific and medical research We can do medical research just as well. If not better assuming common design by God Rather than assuming common descent with no God Take it away. So And thank you Cindy Some of the problems that I will point out we can discuss it in the free discussion Are problems with the transition from prokaryote to eukaryote? I deal with diagrams like this in the origin of eukaryotic Chromatin And this is just all the machinery involved in double stranded brake repair for eukaryotic chromatin The number of simultaneous events and things that have to be there for this to work just boggles the mind If not in the theological sense, it would be a miracle in the statistical sense gradual pathways Do not at all seem reasonable and that is subject somewhat to experiment There's also the problem of the membrane bound nucleus Of the eukaryote. This would involve just So many things that it just boggles the mind in terms of the complex complexity There would have to be the membrane bound Borganel plus all the ports like the nuclear pore complex The import export machinery involved the gatekeepers and then things called nuclear localization signals I have I have diagrams on that and also Translocation processes I've had the privilege to work with Dr. John Sanford He is a Cornell research professor retired his invention the gene gun has fed starving billions He represents the unsung creationists that you don't hear of He is published in All sorts of venues including the prestigious scientific journal nature He published in the journal mathematical biology. I've had the privilege of being his colleague and work for him This Theorem that they published at records in the journal mathematical biology I have then Worked with them on the population genetics of this natural selection does not work according To what you think it does in the textbooks the elite Know that it's kind of a failing paradigm and we can cover that Um He was invited to the national institutes of health to talk about this problem. We are decaying And there are all sorts of other things there as far as mechanism We do have on the table by various physicists that god exists as a possibility and I would just say that um argument by contradiction is not an argument for From ignorance how improbable does something have to be how complex Before we began to entertain the possibility That it was a divine miracle. We can scientifically argue for improbability. That's well within the bounds of science If we're willing to be speculative we could invite these This conception of god just straight from quantum mechanics without appeal to any sort of theology This leads testable predictions about the human genome decaying the Destiny of the biosphere the destiny of civilization So I look forward to uh the Free discussion and I want to thank everyone for joining us tonight Thank you very much for those openings from our creation side We are going to jump into open conversation. This is going to be a civil conversation folks as we know that for you It's important that there is not too much speaking over each other or interrupting That's why if it gets too rowdy, we'll just break it into two minute segments With that thank you very much to all of our guests. We're thrilled to have you here. This is going to be a fun one The floor is all yours All right, well So I go ahead And shakes across the aisle before we come out indeed. Yes. Let's have a nice civil debate. I think that that would be a great idea Um, yeah, and also i'm chris. I'm not dr. Chris. I know I put that in there That's because if you're going to search for my youtube channel, you have to add the dr. Chris Thompson You can find it. I have all kinds of videos on mostly about neuroscience and How the brain works? But you know, I I um So yes, I I'm chris. Um I don't insist anyone calls me dr. Chris. Uh, so let's see. Um I I have a couple of questions regarding your presentation And I guess one of them is that you are Putting forward the idea that common morphology that we find that appears to follow a very nice Uh, um specific pattern that follows along exactly the predictions that we see from evolution From what we would predict would be like when recent common ancestors happened And that these but these model organisms that we happen to use that these were specially created To allow for medical discoveries. Is that right? Yes, yes, and I would just say this in in geocentrism you had testable predictions that were fulfilled It was the anomalies that broke it. So in geocentrism Uh, you could predict eclipses and all sorts of other things So would that then suggest that? Sorry, um, would that then suggest that your hypothesis that these model organisms are well suited for discovery of health issues in humans Um, would there be anomalies there that that would disprove that hypothesis? How would you go about this? Oh, yeah, okay. So there is there is a peer reviewed publication this that I've worked on And it's actually been pioneered by a lot of other people on this topic Where we uh, so first of all since I knew you're a neuroscientist I put the squid up there for you. I appreciate that Yes Neuroscience is pioneered by the giant squid axon It's not very as far as I know very near us But it was it's beautifully optimized in some sense to enable it to probe It's it's nervous system because we could insert You know little probes in it because it's just so big relative to other creatures I would say that it's because they don't have myelin. That's why their axons are so big So they never evolved myelin. That's something that's specific to vertebrates And so they don't have any myelin sheathing and that allowed for those axons to be very large Which makes it easy to record And that's why early early studies to identify how actual potentials work and how synapses work A lot of that work was done in the giant squid like you pointed out Okay, if I could share my screen, maybe I could more directly answer your question. Dr. Dr. Chris I'll try to call you Chris. Yeah, that's fine All right This is Again, we have similarity I'm not denying that of the human and zebrafish. That's the collagen And we can say it's 75 similar depending on your scoring technique So and then you can build these nested hierarchy diagrams these phylogenetic phylogenetic It looks like compelling evidence for evolution. I but then I show that there is The problem that the proteins don't have Really good There's not a common ancestor like here. So on the left is collagen on the right is the zinc finger 136 And like on the left the glycines are highlighted on the right the cystines and histidines are highlighted And you can see it's a very distinct architecture. So there's no common ancestry In the proteins and I think that's problematic and it's also a probabilistic thing But to the point of biology being optimized one project I'm working on is if you take The sequences Like say it's zebrafish humans and you take the homologs across a large spectrum of species You put it through an algorithm that looks kind of like this here is you can look it up on wikipedia It's the direct coupling analysis. It can then Give you the protein fold a three-dimensional. It's just like voodoo and to me I mean just It's worth exploring But the testable hypothesis is if we start to remove creatures from the set of homologs That the protein fold prediction will fail that would indicate to me As I was saying the hypothesis we put forward This is biologies optimized for scientific discovery That both morphologically and then also at the molecular level it's optimized, but you really see it with this And if one is a young earth creationist, you'd have to say, okay, why do you have all the similarity there? What's the pattern because it does look evolved and we've acknowledged that here But if it's young that would be kind of the ugly fact that destroys evolution that it's not common descent It's common design Um, I don't know if I answered your question. Yeah, I mean I saw I'm I'm actually struck by a story that I know quite well Which is the discovery of the park engine. I don't know if you're familiar with this But it's called the park engine Because this gene the first thing that we learned about it is that in humans that have a specific mutation in this gene They have early onset parkinson's disease. So we identified this gene. We said, oh, well, this must be The gene for parkinson's disease because we had no idea what it was involved in So eventually though what we did is we went to the mouse model Which is what we usually do and so for those that don't know parkinson's disease This is a specific disease where you have a loss of dopant-emergic neurons in the substantia nagra pars compacta And that that loss of dopant-emergic neurons means you have insufficient drives to allow for Motor plan motor behavior. And so then you can no longer you're frozen and stiff So why not do this in mice, right? Because we can't do it in humans. Like you said It's just unethical. So we're going to do this in mice. We're going to knock out the parkin gene in mice And what we find is that there's no parkin phenotype whatsoever Now they do have some effects, but it's mostly has to do with like weight gain So there's some changes in how they deal with high fat diets and also a couple of effects in the heart But they show no absolutely no effects on parkinson's disease And so and it turns out that the parkin gene Is involved in a process of what we call mitophagy. So that's how we get rid of damaged mitochondria Now it does it both in humans and in mice, but the ultimate effect of knocking out this entire gene In mice leads to basically no phenotype no parkinson's disease And there were millions and millions of dollars wasted on grants to identify this Of course, they discovered interesting things about how parkin works But it completely violated the hypothesis that wow, we're going to have now a way of Looking at parkinson's disease in mice by knocking out this gene and it just didn't work at all and there's lots of examples like that Mice are great for lots of things But oftentimes we find that there are important subtle differences that just Completely illustrate the fact that there we have to take into account that they are not tiny little humans that were Perfectly designed for us for allow us to discover interesting things about the way humans work And I mean it just kind of blows that whole hypothesis out of the water Well, I have a different opinion because we certainly would not have As as much medical technology if we didn't have model organisms I'm not saying that they're perfect, but they certainly have immensely helped I can't imagine us doing medical technology and advancing our understanding of human Without model organisms. That's why we have such a suite of them And you know the alternative is then to be dissecting each other So I'm not saying that they're they're perfect models and that's what we call the model organisms, but that being said In terms of pure science just as a scientific question Um, and that's why we try to subdivide this where we assume common descent. It's like, okay We can at least argue complexity But then you know, we we would have I'm just conceding to you that with an old earth And you look at the pattern of biology you'd have it's it's hard to deny common descent So I think we're on agreement there and I've tried to tell creationist don't argue that way Because if you're going to argue old earth And you try to argue against similarity you're going to lose I do gene browsing a lot And I could see genes that are 100 identical between us and chimps I also see the patterns of pseudo genes and I dealt with aloe elements and urv's So, you know guys just creationist if you're listening don't go there But if the earth is young And there's I have I have gone from being a theistic evolutionist and old earth creationist to young earth creationist Some of the stuff in physics has started to make me Think and enough that they put enough doubt that I said just given kind of my own You know, because I'm a christian and I I have you know, I read the bible It's like okay, it seems enough of it aligns with the way that I see the scientific evidence Just as a matter of faith. I said, I'll I'll accept it by faith I'm not going to pretend I have the science But there have been certain things with radiometric dating That has only emerged like in the last year with electron heavy electron quasi particles There may be a pathway to changing nuclear structure and that could throw everything A monkey wrench and everything and you know my under my graduate degrees and applied physics And I was very fascinated by this topic And I think it's still kind of early in the game to kind of write young earth creationism off The other thing is as I said, I'd published in population genetics The dr. Sanford it's in university shelves and a book on mathematics mathematics and the arts and sciences Um And the human genome is decaying There are many titles that are saying like by evolutionists that say wire Why haven't we died a hundred times over that to me just screams that you know, humanity is young And this does have medical implications and will lead to testable predictions about the direction Of civilization and how long we're going to stay on earth and to me that's just very sobering And i'm just throwing it out there And I don't know any major geneticists that thinks our genome is actually improving So I I can say some things aren't I don't want to hog the whole the whole time And I know that you probably have some things that you'd like to say about this so Yeah, um first of all addressing what Cindy said We can learn nothing By assuming gods and magic There are a number of things that we can determine about evolutionary ancestry and phylogenies and so forth, but there is nothing that Pretending that we were created by a magic spell will ever avail us. There's just there's no there's no future in that Cindy lincoln never addressed evolution at all nor does she give any indication that she even knows what it is Unfortunately, I don't think either of them listened to my my opening statement because that was explaining what evolution is And they're going to say that and she she immediately followed that by saying that evolution is a belief Everything that I just said about what evolution is is demonstrable Measurable verifiable not a bit of it is belief This is all the stuff we can verify And then if you want to get into what I call the phylogeny challenge if you're going to argue for a creationism If you're going to argue that all these animals are not related Then if we get into the taxonomy, you're going to have to show me where the division is that there isn't one That's the phylogeny challenge. No creationist will even try to answer this and the reason is because of difference in our perspectives If you're a science-minded person Then you look at this as an investigation. It doesn't matter What what the end result is you just want to find out whatever's true whatever it is And and and if it's not something you wanted it to be oh, well Uh, when I find out that that something that I believed Um was not as well supported as I was told that it was I don't have to have that notion disproved It's enough to know that there was not a reason to assume it in the first place I have already stopped believing it But they're coming at this from a belief perspective where they have the conclusion. They're going to make believe that conclusion Doesn't matter what the evidence is It does I've had people admit to me believers admit to me that even if they knew it was wrong If I had proof that it was wrong they would still believe it anyway So having no idea what evolution is and I would love to fix that for Cindy I mean because I mean she's lived with can't hoven. She has no idea. He has no idea what evolution is I've had to correct him on this numerous times and I I've come to the point where I know That he knows that he's full of shit That he knows that the things that he says are not true This is this is the same with with all of these leading creationists They know that they're selling a bullshit story That that none of their claims are are true So what I said was that she can't talk about evolution. She's going to have to reach back past evolution To look at you know the origin of life instead and that's exactly what she did So there was nothing in here about evolution at all and I even noticed like other people were commenting that that They aren't going to be looking at any kind of taxonomy, which is what evolution is all about We're talking about phylogenies here and other people are talking about the origin of the eye as if it was something that just poofed out of nowhere Again, these are detailed things we can study and it would take time to learn them incremental incremental branching phylogenies for all of these But it's a very complex subject and then we're not and we're not even looking at it So then she said that she noted she mentioned that her god was apparently deceptive because he would create things That looked just like us and didn't just look like us but also had Structurally exactly like us but also had the genetic the genome to verify that that we and they are the same thing That we are the same family That we are apes that humans are a subset of apes just as chimpanzees are just as gorillas are and then we have the fossil record for Dozens more species that no longer exist that they were all apes too But you've got no concept of that creationists don't they just don't look at anything They don't want to see because they don't want to understand it because if they understand it they'll believe it They want to believe something else And I don't believe evolution because I want to believe it I don't want to believe anything. I want to understand What is really true and finally she she she referenced virtue Wait, wait, you have two subjects on the table and you're about to do a third and my brain can't handle all that I want to reason the first And it's kind of related to the second if you don't mind Okay, sal would you put up the smithsonian taxonomy One moment. It's fine And Here you go Cindy say in the younger generation wait for it There you go um, it's not fair for you erin to say that I Only believe what I want to believe Okay, you can't speak for me in that way. I don't believe that accurately represents me From the time I was in college I remember seeing these trees of life And in fact, this one isn't a very good one because it doesn't really show All the different life forms I remember seeing wow that starfish Is hugely different than that sea cucumber Even if you want to put them together low on the tree They're still vastly different And sal is going to disagree with me on this but the point he was making about the proteins Uh Gene families being so different Um, let me see if I can Are you trying to find it? Thank you, honey that they are so Unique They defy a common ancestor. I would say that and this is what I was saying sal would disagree with me on I would say many Of the families Um, are so different and so unique They defy Somebody's saying they have a common ancestor for me. It was just obvious looking at those trees that You know, yeah, you could say all the cat family are related, but you can't say a cat's related to a giraffe You might be able to And they're all made of cells obviously And another thing sal might disagree with me on is I don't believe it has to be provable That god made All of us have a nervous system a digestive system So that we could study it medically that's a good idea, but I don't think it has to be proven in order to defy evolution Personally, I think it makes sense that we all have Arms and legs and and mouths because we all have to walk We all have to pick up our food. We all have to live on the same planet. We all have to breathe the same air so for me that that makes sense and I think that's all Okay, so you're talking about a subject you you know, absolutely nothing about you've seen some very very simple pictures But these these are in depth and when you talk about how you you know If you can say that all the cats are the same family What do you what do you even mean by that and then are they are they in the same parent category as giraffes? Well, they are both mammals, aren't they? And if we get into details on this You're going to have to we could show we could start with the with the simplest things to start moving backward And you're going to realize these things are all related and yeah, we're going to we'll just go ahead and say like Like your ex-husband did all the well, I think a five-year-old can tell you they're all the same kind because But thank you He has to base his science on what a five-year-old says because that's the limit of his understanding But the point is when you when you go back when you go back and you start looking at these There there is not a point Where you would say, okay? Well, this is independent of these these came from separate special creations No, you're going to say these are related these are related these are related And as we track back further and further you're going to realize yeah, these are all related and and when you take Uh for any two things you have to show up any two animals Just to keep you know to keep it easy. Let's use animals Show any two animals you can always show differences between those two animals You can show differences between me and sal I mean if you all you focus it on on differences and there's only two examples, there's always going to be differences Throw up three Put up three animals Two of them are going to be closer than the other one the old sesame street game One of these things is not like the other Explore that with I guarantee I guarantee I can prove Evolution to your satisfaction If you would if you if you really are the truth seeker that you're pretending to be right now If I am unfairly representing your your belief system If you really would change your mind if you saw the truth Let me Correct your situation and you will thank me for it I can show you how these things really are related That tree that sal just put up you do believe that we all that a that a single sal Turned into all the diversity Can I show you all the detail on how you can know that too? Well, can I just have a yes or no? That's not something I I don't I don't like to use the word believe Because we use it in a different I use it differently than a believer does a believer is going to make believe Okay, if I say that I believe something It means that this is what I think is true or closest to the truth But I don't know that because it can't show it. I can show I don't think it happened So this is not something I believe This is something I know and can show thank you Sorry Go ahead Go ahead Cindy If you think that All the diversity came from a single cell. I disagree and I can show you how to know that But it's going to take some time. This is a very complex subject And you haven't learned about it because you it would take years to invest in it But I can give you a short summary I can give you a rundown in just a few different interactions like in in in a discussion board or something I can show you all the evidence you would ever need to realize. Yeah, this is a thing and change your mind forever I'm sorry. I don't believe you. I know you don't believe me. Let me prove it Honey I know doesn't mutual explain And it drives me nuts But cells produce cells bacteria produce bacteria I'm sorry, but it's yeah, and that's according to the laws of evolution There's two laws of evolution that apply that apply that the law of monophilie and the law of biodiversity Which your husband never understood. I I constantly corrected him and he kept saying this idiotic thing. Well dogs produce dogs I don't know dog. Yeah, you idiot because that's what evolution allows, right? You cannot grow out of your ancestry. Okay, you never stop being Whatever you're do you understand how contradictory that is if you don't understand what evolution is And I know that you don't if you're gonna say a cell becomes a dad What I never understand your position It seems contradictory to me to say that A dog is always going to be a dog But a cell is going to over millions of years turn into a dog. You mean dogs are not still cells That's playing game. Have you ever heard of the cell theory of biology? You mentioned Virgil. He's the one that came up with that So Cindy if I if I can interject a little bit. I feel like you're you're you're asking origins of multi-cellularity so for You know our model, right and I agree with Aaron that we don't believe things We have models with working models. Some are better supported than others Over all of it has some support. We wouldn't have come up with it otherwise Now the working model is that for billions of years There was essentially just single cell organisms for a long time as far as we know At some point multi-cellularity emerged now that sounds like a huge leak But there are studies showing under natural selection under laboratory conditions that you can evolve So I'm just going to show really quickly here Well, there's a huge difference between a colony of multiple cells and a cohesive system This is a cohesive system of organisms in order to respond to predation So they were under natural selection under predation conditions where they could you know, they had to respond in a certain way And on over 750 generations, which it sounds like a long time but for algae it isn't They were able to develop multi-cellularity and this was a permanent change So now these organisms are now multi-cellular in their nature and this happened over a period of just like weeks And there are other studies showing similar things. So this leap of multi-cellularity You know, you could imagine then that now we have organisms that have multiple cells And then you're going to lead to expression changing Transcription factors that involve and change to allow expression to affect and induce change in their neighboring cells To allow for those cells to differentiate and and do different things Within a Within a limit Those I don't know if it's within a limit. I mean like the limit is what? those different cells because we're talking about billions of years right from being A colony algae into an animal of any kind Yeah, you're not going to see that in the lab. I would agree with that We're not going to see it in reality either. I well, I mean reality is a long long time. It's a lot longer than a few thousand years And so I actually I want to get to that because what is your explanation for the organization organization of fossils that we find In the fossil record. So we see older rocks have a certain Penelope of different kinds of animals and plants sometimes but not even plants and at certain levels And then eventually you see different animals. You see different plants and we see drastic changes that occur I live in the Appalachian Mountains. I can go to some parts in this area I do this I go out with my kids and we go out and look for fossils Certain areas have different fossils than other areas that are only 20 30 miles apart from each other uh, and what's the I mean If everything was specially created six thousand years ago Why do we see fossilization in this very discrete order that follows along and in fact seems to match The genetic data and the the implied data from what we have for comparative morphology. What's like I want to know your explanation for that like what what happened I mean you guys are implying that there's an intelligent designer or creator that did this How was that done? I'll stop sharing We're correct We do not believe that The fossil record represents a time record And in the Appalachians, you're quite aware that there are coal seams and oil That is smashed up dead things by the scores that is actually more Biomaterial than exists on the planet today Which I believe indicates that the planet used to be tropical used to be a lot more Lush than it is today That's pretty much proof of that By the way, since you mentioned proof, I noticed somebody else who made the comment about that if I offered to prove something to you I'm doing I'm not doing that in terms of mathematic proof. I'm offering proof in the terms of An overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond reasonable doubt sufficient to convince you that yes, we have a valid point So I I spent a couple of weeks in the desert A couple months back. It was in wyoming on a fossil expedition Into strata that was dated to 47 million years ago So everything we found in this remote desert area was all Like freshwater lake deposits and mammals that we found Rhino like horses and horses like rhinos because horses and rhinos are very closely related They evolve from a common ancestor and so there's a lot of branches that you've intermediates that you find there So why isn't we find those there and then a couple years ago? I was in South Africa I was in a different fossil area where it was dated to 243 million years ago and everything we found there Were therapsids. This is before dinosaurs. There were no mammals. So we know nobody finds mammals But we find all these permean things at the types of animals you would expect to find in the permean We can find them again in in texas too where I live in the permean basin So one of the that's one of the many things that we can show there's there's different layers of Exposed strata that we can radiometrically date according to You know like when there's when there's ash falls and stuff like that so that we can date the range and we're going to find Certain types of fossils at each of these levels and everywhere in the world is going to be the same types of fossils We're never going to find a mammal in the permean Do these rhino like horses or horses like rhinos that I found in wyoming from 47 million You're not going to find one of those in the permean never ever happened If there really was a global flood which we know for absolutely certain there was not and we can prove that We don't know that Any place on the planet they will say to you At one time this whole entire area was covered by water And some places were not a lot of places were but some places were not so we can By the way, there are ammonites on the top of those mountains. Yep, because mountains rise and fall Yes, they rise and fall. I I've got I've got a fossil right here collected this a few weeks ago These are brachyopods. These are ordovician brachyopods from one layer strata And yeah, right like there's there's a shell there, right? So you can see it's beautiful Yes, and and but then you go to other layers and then you find as you were saying like we find these carbon rich layers Those are carboniferous They bear carbon. That's why it's called the carboniferous layers and that that's when we have it whole different kind of penalty of Organisms primarily trees these giant trees that didn't decompose Ended up creating cold beds and I've got another example right here of carboniferous plant material Which you don't find even though it's only 15 miles away where we see this Ordovician type material and we know that we can date these layers and the carboniferous layers match to what we Would expect that those datings to be in the Ordovician layers are you know 400 some million years old and I mean, what's the explanation for that? That's not you can't say that that's a global flood that allowed just these particular species of brachyopods Be found in layers of rock that happened to be radiometrically dated to around 420 million years ago or like Aaron is saying that we find these you know in permean layers Thrapsid animals that are only going to be fine in in these permean layers You know in either the united states or in china or other countries And the same pattern you might have some places you might have evidence of a tsunami for example. I mean you you might have a Cretaceous Cretaceous animals that are found in what appears to be a tsunami deposit Or you might have another tsunami deposit might always be geraniums So everything in the area is from the Jurassic And then you can have ash falls, which also like in china You'll have an ash fall that covers all these Cretaceous animals and then you have paleozoic ash falls in the united states like in nebraska Where again all mes all all pleased to see mammals not one dinosaur In the whole group And that's consistent everywhere in the world Nowhere on the planet ever do we have anything that matches the global flood of noa And there are several different ways that we know and can prove that noa's flood never Happened adam and eve never happened the tower bevel never happened the exodus never happened and snakes don't talk Snails don't talk go forth out show and tell here This is a whale fossil that I found on the coast of virginia. Where do you find those senozoic? You know place to sign Fossil so this is a whale Fossil right? This is probably shoulder bone or something like that I pulled this out from the the coast along the petomic And you don't find them in or deficient rocks. I have looked through or deficient rocks I don't find any whale bones whatsoever if this is truly the result of of a Of a global flood. Why can't I find? Waterborne mammals in those or deficient rocks or any mammals just whatsoever you don't find any until the end of the cretaceous These were among the most common of all life forms in the ocean. These are ammonites I dug these off of the of a cretaceous beach That was one time almost the entire state of texas was underwater and the beach line was right around where texas meets oklahoma So there are thousands upon thousands of these that built up on the beach and then were buried So you can get where the shoreline is just covered thousands and thousands of these And one time the whole area was covered by water. I know not the whole area It was that was the beach because if you continue continue on east and north You stop They're no longer on the beach. They're gone. No, they're on every mountain on the planet. No, they're not Study paleontology before you start talking to paleontologists about it. Okay No, they're not on every I've got pictures of shells from the andes the himalayas I know, do you know why the himalayas the rock is you know why? Because the indian subcontinent was once attached to australia broke off and crashed into Eurasia and what was what was then the ocean between them got shoved up and is still being shoved up an inch or so a year Into the Himalayan mountains that used to be seafloor All right, and I think you should like let's get a word in gentlemen. I haven't spoken for 20 minutes. Yeah, please Aaron, uh, you've been talking about our population genetic. I'm sorry, sir. Aaron. I no offense intended. Uh, Aaron Have you studied population genetics? Have you published in it? No, I have not published. Okay. I have and you're talking about not studying things I study and under top evolutionary biologists. I publish in population genetics. There are problems It's not as good as you characterized First of all, the definition of fitness is now known to be flawed Natural selection tends to reduce versatility Yes Did I ever bring up a definition of fitness you're just talking about population genetics? It comes up That's a that's a field of population. If you're going to bring the topic up What is my definition? We were talking about faith here I have you said that we ignored taxonomy That's partly because sell stuff takes priority I just showed stuff with a chromatin double-stranded break repair How does that evolve? How does the dinosaur and fossil record explain that? That's what I'm saying. That's what we are saying are faith statements You can't just use circularly circularly reason phylogenetic methods to try to explain probabilistic problems here Because I'm not we could walk through that we could go through the cell membrane Dr. Chris probably teaches about chromatin and the cell membrane nuclear import export How did that evolve? How does the fossil record explain that? How can you explain it in terms of phylogeny without resort to circular reasoning? These are non sequiturs to go from the fossil record to be asking all these questions about young earth creationism So you're the one using no It still doesn't solve it. It is a faith statement. It is not reason. Thank you You're accusing me of using a definition I never used and never even brought up the definition You asked me how dinosaurs explain things that evolved before dinosaurs So you're complaining that you're doing a whole lot of non sequiturs here Why don't we just look at the taxonomy of any specific thing right start with dinosaurs if you want start with dogs if you want I told you why I gave you the challenge that you sir cannot answer and must If there was any don't have to answer it and we know that there is no truth to creation So there is truth to evolution. There's things we can demonstrate to be true about evolution Nothing What You're talking about phylogenetic trees, but the tree that sells What I don't have I don't have to prove anything that you ask because The problem with cell transitions makes it moot. This is a big deal This is exactly the problem with the bent pencil If you want to check on the question you want to ignore anomalous problems you can and you can I've given the single ugly fact that breaks a beautiful hypothesis that is the eukaryotic Components the emergence of them from simple forms and also proteins that just don't have common ancestors They'd have to come from nothing Put that up You're complaining a bunch of different non sequiturs while accusing me of the very thing that you're doing If you want to argue for creationism then you are the one who's ignoring everything I gave you the thing that you must address If you want to show that taxonomy is only good up to a certain point, you got to show me where that point is He did he showed he didn't he doesn't even know what the question means He showed you a taxonomic tree. I ignored it. Yes, because it is moot. I have everything I put forward Dwarfs your issues. This is a bigger problem. It doesn't sound you have to come up with a mechanism to explain Eukaryotic transition if you don't have eukaryotic evolution, you don't have evolution I should do the problems if you want to have evolution and pretend it doesn't exist as a problem That's your choice. Don't don't put words into my mouth like this because I'm not the one pretending. I'm not the one ignore We feel different I mean not saying if you want to argue but I don't feel like I'm one second Okay, just to be sure that we for sure they're not too much overlap go ahead rn We'll give you about two minutes Then we'll take it over to one of the speakers on the creation side Okay, if you want to argue that That our taxonomy is flawed someone that there are different kinds Like if you look back to the Noah's Ark thing for example, you want to say that Noah didn't have every species He only had certain kinds and then everything evolved from the from there then give me what those examples are Show me what those so what show me what the the initial archetypes are show me where the taxonomy breaks down That's the phylogeny challenge that no creationist will dare answer because it disrupts the belief system That's the thing you have to ignore. That's the thing you are ignoring and then I'm not Because it has nothing to do with your protein conflation that you brought up before Show me where the taxonomy breaks down. This is the argument. This is the very thing you are saying is happening Show me that that is happening The protein configuration Shows that they are so different They could not have a common ancestor No, it doesn't show that but it that also doesn't address the question. Does it how does that identify Which animals or what type are on Noah's Ark? How does that show where the taxonomy breaks down? It breaks down at the cellular level. Okay, so you're saying that On the Noah's Ark I'm saying that Just like those Cell families are so unique That that's what we see in the animal kingdom as well. Okay, so did God just create a bunch of cells? And then they they become the different animal inages. Are you using a red herring? Yes, no, I know that's a reason No, it's a red herring. I told you why you can't have an isms. Okay. Yep I mean, that's actually Right, they believe that God may be intervened and created life. And then That Noah had a bunch of cells We don't have we don't have that the I don't know cats or is it or is it carnivore or is it phyloidia? Which what where is the where's the root of all of these all of these clades and she just said cells Those are irrelevant questions relative to the problem cells. You don't have your periodic evolution. You don't have evolution I have Problems you have to solve as evolution is if you're going to say it evolved one sec Just to be sure that we're going to argue the cats will break it in two minutes. Oh, we'll do one of the responses Go ahead aren't one minute If you're going to argue the cats and dogs or giraffes or whatever Wherever the category is that you want to put the divider If you want to say that there is a divider you have to show me the justification for your claim Where is it that the taxonomy closes down? So the specific thing is to look at Noah's ark. What did Noah's ark? What did Noah have on his ark that was the archetype to begin what clade? I don't follow that question, but Everybody knows there are different families and even you would say one of the The um Categories is family Yeah, and we are in the eight family specifically. We are in the the great eight family That's your opinion. That's not an opinion. That's demonstrating some morphological and genetic similarities, but there are some Not just similarities that are definitive That define us as great apes and we are worse than that We are in the in the taxonomic super family of hominoidia, which is the larger classification of apes That's a fact. That's not an opinion So you want to show me where the taxonomy breaks down? Show me what Noah had on his ark. Give me give me the archetypes Look at and look at the cladogram for cats the cladogram for dogs the cladogram for whatever you want to look and see how far down it goes And tell me that was the lighter is show me Scientists say well, these two are related to the common answers here and you'll say no that there's no they're independent creations Show me where that happened apes and humans Show me our apes common ancestor that we are apes Show it to me By look it up google it. What is hominoid? Show me how an how a cell turns into A monkey just changed the question. He just changed the question again So again, we go back Is No, no one's What that's what you believe that's what the whole No, you're not going to put a cell in a dish and then have a monkey jump out of it That is not the claim the claim is that there's billions of years Of life on earth that for billions of those years We had single celled organisms where we don't have a fossil record of but your what your table shows the the tree that you had from The smithsonian basically if you look at the different branches you get to the eukaryotic organisms And you have the three major branches the fungi the animals and the plants and they're just one long Little tiny branch off if you look at the vast Array of the single cellular organisms that are out there now. This is getting way out of my specialty I'm I'm a neuroscientist. I study animals But I know that there's a huge range of genetic variability We can find across a wide range of unicellular organisms Billions of years allowing for you know an abiogenesis is a tough question I'm not going to say that it isn't and it's also way outside of my my field of expertise However, we know that we can have change and mutation that leads to Adaption and change that are concurred within animals and we can look for in the fossil record of this genetic change For instance, so we can look at we have now the genome of neanderthals Do you believe neanderthals were humans or were they apes? What is your opinion idea? There's something please Yeah, I I need to I need to correct what chris just said they're asking whether Neanderthals were humans or apes is like asking whether a corvette. I'm sorry. You're right non far I'm sorry non human apes. I should say yes because Neanderthals were both humans and apes. Yes. I and humans are humans and apes. I agree and thank you for the correction Yes, I were they were they human or were they a kind that are apes that were specially created? That's what I'm trying to ask for me All right, can I get a word in can I get two minutes james? Sure Okay, I got my timer. Can I share my screen? Sure, please This is a topoisomerase enzyme. It is homo dimeric I published on this enzyme We estimate 60 some interface points To make this this is difficult. I ask evolutionist how this evolved They just gave me these circularly reason phylogenetic explanations has nothing to do with taxonomy But we would be dead without this It also has to have reformatting and the nuclear localizations and a lot of other things in the prokaryote to eukaryote transition There are other things with proteins that people seem to like not ignore. That's one of my co-authors Published in nature and let's skip this You can talk about topoisomerases. This is the phylogeny. It's a mess And I have one minute to go one of the problems in protein architecture is the fit There needs to be proper charge distributions and shaping so we can get these induced fits Delving an attacks on him. He doesn't solve this. I asked evolutionists all the time. How does this evolve? They say we don't know we have just a phylogenetic thing It's a face statement and to say that somehow you look at the fossil record and you can claim these things These complex systems like this like the easyh2 can evolve. That's a non sequitur and until you can answer that Sounds good. Yeah, a faith statement. That is not science. Thank you Uh, okay, very I appreciate your passion for the cell Um, I am no I am not an expert in topoisomerase for sure However, I did a little bit of looking into topoisomerase. I'd like to Share my screen if I could One second here. I also have to add that if we say that we don't know something That's not a faith statement Not having the answer but saying that you do have the answer. That's the definition of a faith statement So sal saying that he knows that was a god or that he has reason to believe that that's a god That's a faith statement. That's not what we're doing. I asked him a question. He refuses to answer. So he needs to change the subject So this is we've touched on model organisms. I made up a Based on this link below kind of added to it and changed it a little bit. I made this phylogeny Um, uh, you know myself, um sort of stealing some of the things and elements from this link below um, and this is illustrating some of the uh, what we know to be the The the last point when there was a common ancestor between humans and chimps was around 10 million years ago Probably a little bit less than that for humans and mice around 90 million years ago Chicken and frog and zebrafish much older hundreds of millions of years ago And then you get into the invertebrates where genetic difference as well as Other things, you know around 990 million years ago billion years ago before The cambering explosion now what we know is that organization of like 450 million years ago We don't find humans in those fossil records But the other thing is that we see sorting of genes as we go through and anyone can do this anyone can go and look So you can go and use certain resources that are available from uh The ncbi database in south i'm sure you're more than familiar with this you can do a blast search So this is topo isomerase one. I know you were showing us topo isomerase two Uh, but this is topo isomerase one where I blasted the sequence of the human topo isomerase two pan troglodotes, which is the chimp and Lo and behold, it's 100 identical. No difference whatsoever. And here's the sequence You can see this is the human version all these little letters represent different amino acids And then here's the chimp version 100 simple Now when you go to a different animal model the mouse now we start to see differences We see substitutions. We see insertions As cell pointed out topo isomerase is pretty important does important functions in the cell But we're seeing mutations and differences that occur as you go down and phylogenetics Now we see additional differences now. We're comparing humans to chicken and even more substitutions and insertions and deletions You get to something like the fruit fly now. We have a huge range of insertions and deletions and Of course what if you can go through and anyone can do this you pick your favorite gene You can go to the ncbi database type in ncbi gene Type in a gene that you like you can find the human one That's usually the first one that shows up and then it'll say run blast And you can run it and that blast means that you can choose to compare that gene to Thousands of other genomes and you can compare it to a chimp genome Then compare it to the frog genome my you know one of my favorite animals since I work with it And what you'll see is that percent identity of human genes to Say chimps is going to be quite high when you get to mice It's less than chickens. It's less and frogs and zebrafish. It's less Because we know and this is going to be the consistent pattern that you're going to find Not only with other genes, but also topo isomerase It's the same thing and so if this is something that's sort of like specially created that's so critical Why is it that the amino acid sequence can be as much as you know Over 35 different between humans and the roundworm and have it still work I have the answer. Let me just be plug and play right and why do we even have any difference actually? It's not plug and play. Okay. We found by the way If you'll indulge me dr. Chris Scholarly discussion. Thank you very much for looking into that I would I'll confirm for the audience but dr. Chris presented is what I see as well So he's an excellent scientist. I earlier mentioned the out the direct coupling analysis The differences between creatures Enables us to do this protein fold prediction It's a testable prediction if you remove some of the sets who are not able to do it that indicate design Now the specialty We can take human topo isomerase put it in yeast Topo isomerase 2 alpha beta put it in yeast You cannot do the reverse. We didn't actually do a direct experiment. We went from a yeast to a mouse Then died The reason is that they're post translational modifications on the c-terminal domain that are optimized For the multicellularity and the complexity of the human. So you ask why there are differences In some cases it's very species specific. You will see like on the c-terminal domain maybe 50 more Locations for post translational modifications. You'd only get maybe five to ten on the yeast So there is for organisms that are not very complex. There's a lot of toleration for variability Also, just because you have a phylogenetic diagram does not imply that it evolved because Without the topo isomerase one is dead. The other thing is when one is going from the bacterial gyrase form To like the eukaryotic form. It has to go from a hetero tetrameric form to a homo dimeric And then their nuclear localizations need to be inserted these things are like fatal In the process of the evolutionary transition just because we have all these fossils and taxonomies I'm not trying to say i'm changing the subject because I want to avoid it I'm just saying it's moot. It doesn't solve this problem And you can accept that it happened, but you can't do so based on any direct Evidence except phylogeny or belief in evolution. Therefore, it's a faith belief. No cell I I'm I didn't show any unicellular topo isomerase there. Yes. This is all multicellular So why are there these differences amongst multicellular organisms if there's just a designer like you're not going to find Uh designers that if you go to a factory, they're not going to create new types of little Things to put into each like computer if you go if you're Experiment experimental evidence Right Yeah, go ahead apologies. Dr. Thompson. That's fine I just wanted to say we have experimental evidence. It has to do with the post translational modifications There's some slight things with hydropathic Properties that are optimized for the creature. There was someone I forgot his name. He published on that So there are some optimizations there, but also I have been studying the post translational modifications The difference in amino acids like the residues for like serine and three and nine will enable different Phosphorylation states that will change the conformation of the c-terminal domain And that may be cell type specific in the way it works. So it's a good question We know humans are particularly sensitive to changes. That's why you could take a human topo isomerase dump it in a yeast the yeast list you can't go the reverse And in fact the differences even happen in the paralogs of topo isomerase even in the same human genome We have the alpha and beta isoforms And we were wondering why do we have two? Well, we knock out one for sickness So We have experimental evidence to address some of your claims not all of them. By the way, thank you again I didn't mean to interrupt you my sincere apologies. Yeah. Yeah, I appreciate it. I still want to know I mean, did Noah have Every species of dog and every species of bovid and all of that on his arc or Or did he have like archetypes and then you have other species evolve from that archetype I think I'd like your answer Aaron. You thought Aaron I'm very sorry It's just that I thought of that me. I'm so sorry. I'm not trying to no worries, but but so you accept Do you accept that or do you believe that Noah had every species that exists today? No, or did he have archetypes which then evolved into the different species we have today? I believe I can't prove but I think The when you're in the debate with Charles Jackson and he pointed out the wolf like ancestry. I agree with that Okay, so you accept evolution happens Not from a single change. I accept that definition of change happens and then macro evolution by definition That did the emergence of new species At or above the species level including the genus level and sometimes even the family level according to cantoban I never thought of it Okay, so you accept I don't like the definition. There are I'll tell you why Okay, but you accept that evolution happens and that it's not just a belief I I accept that I accept that some But it doesn't explain all all the features of life We can go back past to the formation of life back to the the formation of the properties that you want to argue for But we're talking about evolution today. That's the purpose of the debate So I just want to get a concession you accept that evolution happens So now let's talk about the creationist argument On Noah's ark if he didn't have all of the different species then he had archetypes for the beginnings of the different species And the creationist argument is that all of taxonomy is correct But only at the only at the surface and then they want to cut off Some some little roots for archetypes if you're going to make an argument that there was a creator Then you have to come up with the origins of these archetypes that you can't avoid that The only thing you've come up with so far is that god made cells But that means that everything from the cell on Evolved if you want to do if you want to talk about evolution Or if you want to say that there is no evolution then you have to show where the creation began Well, you can't say there's no evolution you have to accept that the evolution was at some point Evolution is a given we both accept that evolution happens But you're going to you're going to contest that god made some of these and some of these well some of what Where is the point that he created things? That's a very good question And my answer is I gave examples nuclear localization signals chromatels So cell for cell parts specific cell parts And I gave I gave probabilistic reasons why it had to be there because it's I'm sorry did Noah have a bunch of cells On his ark or did he have different types of animals that were created by your god? I don't know and I don't think I need to answer it to believe that god I knew you didn't think you would answer remember when I said so many times that this was the creation of this argument They have to answer It's ridiculous to say that we believe cells were on the ark. Okay, that's insulting then quit saying it you're busted quit saying it I didn't want me to make fun of that repeating it quit repeating it No, so what is the argument? What is it? What did Noah have? So let's look at the taxonomy of any given animal you like and see how closely related they are like what I brought up with with with Jackson Right you you accept it that wolves and dogs are related right evolution, right you get that Domestic dogs and wolves you accept that they're evolutionarily related Right I don't know I wasn't there. It seems to me like there's a big difference between a domestic dog and a wolf Okay, it seems to you what what kind of evidence would determine whether something was it was related by evolution or not What you're trying to do is make me do really specific when I'm trying to do broad I know you're trying to avoid the detail because that's what the devil is I'm trying to say that the tree that sal put up from the Smithsonian where All the diversity we see today came from a single cell is ludicrous. I don't know what happened. Do you accept? Special creation of individual kinds. Okay, do you accept That Noah or do you believe that Noah had all modern species on the ark or that he had archetypes that then evolved into all the modern species? I have not contemplated that question nor do I think it's really relevant It's it's immediately pertinent. It is your claim if you're arguing that evolution didn't happen You're either saying and you've said over and over and over again that that cells that God made cells No, I didn't say that We know that at some point they're that there's evolutionary ancestry you accept that were you don't but but sal does Sal accepts that there's an evolutionary ancestry your ex-husband accepted that there was an evolutionary ancestry He just refused to say where it stops and he wouldn't look at the details because he knows that's where the devil is Well, even if you do the wolf dog thing that's still canine It's not related to feel what if you go further be created. So I'm if you go further Tree It's an orchard Right. Where is that? Where is the root of the orchard? It doesn't matter. It matters entirely. It is your argument It's what your argument is the crux of what your argument is based on If you want to say that god created cells, okay, fine. God created cells and from there They all You said it over and over again if you if you don't want to say that quit repeating it But you but what what is the the definition then what things did you accept? Well, our 11 are evidently related by evolution and and where is the cut-off? That's your argument. You know where that is I don't need to know that For me personally then why are you are why are you in a debate on that topic? We're in a debate about evolution or creation Right and you're refusing You're refusing to even understand your own side of this argument We're the you agree with the smithsonian Uh tree that sal put up. Is that your belief? I don't have a belief in this case. I have what we can demonstrate what you will okay That I'm saying I thought that's what the debate was either that happened or special creation happened, which you call abracadabra I call it let there be Okay, so let's let's say that there's a let there be And that god comes out of whatever and goes abracadabra. I created as I speak and poof. You have cells No, and those no cells especially created kinds and then those cells evolved and now no Because so so no it doesn't or does have cells on his on his arc. What is it? Like I said are and I never said that you said I said that so did No, I have all of standing alone Did no, I have all of the modern species on his arc. I would like to get off this Dead work Then don't don't get into a debate on evolution if you're not prepared to talk about what evolution is If I may get a word and just briefly Cindy. That's all right. Um For you for if it began as Cindy said it came from a single cell And if that cell is prokaryotic, it's going to have to split off into eukaryote I described all the problems that haven't been solved and they are gigantic I'm not just the one who said this these are evolutionary top evolutionary biologists recognize. This is a serious problem So we can just wave it away and say that we're dodging the issue But I showed a major problem So we could at least say one member of the eukaryotes one member of the prokaryotes had to be created There's at least a divide there There's at least one created kind of each and if you want to go further you can subdivide it But it's irrelevant to the question of what Cindy pointed out. Do you believe that it comes from a single cell? I gave reasons that have to be explained if you're going to believe it And right now right now, it's just a faith belief on your part You have not explained all the mechanistic details that are very serious that you can add probabilities to You can actually look at the molecules. I tried to show that if you want to ignore it I'm not the one ignoring everything you are you have said many times you don't have to answer the question That you are ignoring that is the thing you are ignoring So you're saying that Noah just had what uh ichthyostega on board this arc and that's it just All tetrapods evolve from that Or is there something a little bit more precise than that strong man? Yes If no one didn't have every modern species if some of those modern species evolve then how far back does it go? Do we go all the way back to the root of all tetrapods? I don't have to answer that question If I believe that eukaryotes and prokaryotes were independently created I gave good reasons why And I don't need to answer about Noah. There are people that may not even believe in Noah's arc and are creationists of some variety Sure, but we you guys have already said that I'm okay. I guess do you believe that there was a flood cell? I personally believe it. I cannot defend it as I have defended some of the other things here Okay, why do you believe it then? Because I think enough that's a really good question I believe it because As I've studied the evidence more and more aligns with the bible I've seen a trend over 40 years as I've watched the creation evolution controversy And as I've watched it develop the trend has been favorable more toward the young earth view So kind of just by way of extrapolation and that's a face statement That I I'm tending to believe it more literally and I see that stronger each day Especially now because of the genetic entropy argument. I don't think humanity has long to live I think humanity has been recent that confirms the genealogy of Jesus christ central to the christian faith and therefore That genealogy interpreted literally would suggest to me the earth is young I have now started to study heavy electron quasi particles. I think Radiometric dating could be flawed And I'm excited about where this could go in the next 10 20 years That's a face statement. I admit it's a face statement I don't pretend that part of young earth creationism is primetime science Well, then don't project your faith onto me either because I don't have a faith statement So I can show actual facts that are positively indicative of evolution and exclusively concordant with evolution and that contradict creationism Can you show? Any Actual fact that we both accept is an actual fact something that we can both verify to be true That is also indicative of the creationist position I'd like to say aren't that you have stated repeatedly that those things are true that what things are true All evolution is demonstrable and that creation is falsified do not accept that you have not shown either You you do accept well cell accepts that all the canids are related by evolution, right? Whether you I'll give you two testable predictions before you do that I just want to give you all a two minute heads up and then we've got over the qna okay Two testable predictions the human genome is going to continue to deteriorate. We won't last long as a Species also the geomagnetic field. You can actually look at a bit wikipedia. It's predicted to be gone in 1600 years that would be suggestive that It hasn't been around that long civilization will end and That is suggestive or that is suggestive. These are testable predictions. We may not see it in our lifetime but civilization will see these born out And it's kind of sad and that's one of the reasons just to answer dr. Chris That's one of the reasons I believe this had a famous geneticist go from atheist to creationist A lot of billions of people saved by his invention. He studied the genetic entropy hypothesis I I strongly agree with his concerns It does not square with evolution It squares with a young earth creation that young life creation that happened recently our genomes are decaying I had lots of papers here if you wanted to actually Converse I have so much evidence that our genomes are decaying not consistent with gradual evolution or Improvement as darwin had supposed can you show me give you about a matter of actual fact That we can verify to be true that is also indicative of the creationist position. That was the question I gave you two right there if it's you gave you you gave me a prediction just wait 1600 years to see if you're right We have evidence of the geomagnetic field already declining Substantially in the last 100 years direct measurement your position I tried to explain We've got to extrapolate that and well, anyway, I'll let you go ahead and ask I you know, so Go ahead james. I'll Be quiet if cindy if you want to talk go ahead you can make some closing We have got about Eight seconds and then we've got to go into the q&a because we do have to quick rush through a lot of questions Is we want to go through these as fast as possible? It was just such a good discussion that I didn't want to interrupt it But want to say thank you very much for your questions folks We're gonna jump right into these this one coming in from do appreciate your question This one from fernandez t says we cannot prove there is a god if we could it wouldn't be faith Christians require faith and don't ask us to explain it either you have eyes to see or not Any responses from anyone on the panel? Yes, please I wanted to state that earlier when arne was talking about a similar situation my faith isn't My faith in god came when I realized that god came to earth and showed his face Wrote a book And talked to us and he proved it by healing the sick and raising from the dead None of which actually happened This one coming in from do appreciate your question as well Dige says john wick bent that pencil I don't get the joke cameron hall says can the creationists give an explanation for the human chromosome number two Fusion proving our ancestry with all the other apes No, there's a there's a dispute even among creationists whether fusion actually happened or not So you'll get answers from both sides charles jackson thinks it probably fused so Um, sorry, that's the best. Thank you for the super chat and everything You got it and one last thing is we usually do a topic or a poll Topic of subtopics that we ask the audience What do you most want to see the audience or I should say the Guests discuss before we wrap up the number one thing was transitional fossils So what we're going to jump back into the q&a But I do want to give a chance because I forgot to do this before the q&a is Transitional fossils any thoughts maybe you take five minutes just to talk about this really quick because we do want to honor this Subtopic selection poll from the audience transitional fossils thoughts in about five minutes Uh creationists are divided on this I actually I argue vigorously there are transitional fossils in the sense of architectures Just like you can say transitions in cars But what you can't have is transitional protein parts in the major families I demonstrated that rather forcefully tonight and by the way other evolutionary Biologists will back me on that surprisingly So you don't have like you don't have like a common ancestor to the parts of the car like the the piston The gas you know the gas the gas can the the spark plug etc But you can kind of build a phylogeny Transitioning from primitive cars to the modern day ones In likewise, I would say that we do see a progression from simple forms morphologically to more complex and there's kind of a nice Transition so creationists are divided on this so it depends on which one we'll say creation ministries international had said Of the arguments not to use as a creationist is don't say there are no transitionals Just dump the topic all together You got it aren't and dr. Thompson any Uh, yeah in my book foundational falsities of creationism. I give a list of some 400 transitions According to the strictest definition of that term And we know of now what that was just within vertebrates And that just within vertebrates we'd actually have knowledge of thousands of transitions And these are all consistent not just you know morphologically transitional and genetically transitional in many cases But you know, they're also chronologically appropriate. They're in the right places in the fossil record You've got it. Absolutely. Yeah, if I could add to that so You know aren's 100 correct. We have Hundreds of different examples of transitional fossils. You mentioned one of the more famous ones ichthyostega Which we've got a few several different kinds of uh of specimens that have been identified This is it's called ichthyostega Because it got that name because it looks like a fish kind of but it also has legs And we have examples of this and and aren't you have your question about like was this also on Noah's ark It's a very important question because we you have to we have to make What we know about the fossil record and biogeography work with your model with your mechanism It's not enough to just punch holes Into the fact that we don't have great explanations for how certain protein families involve from other protein families You're asking for something that happened way way way in the past for which we don't have any fossil record for We could talk about evolution of certain proteins though as well then how they in fact Morphology and we can even look at genetics in fossils like neanderthals, which is You know a very sort of minor transitional fossil between humans and a common ancestor that we had with the other great apes But there are lots of examples of hominid evolution And and transitional fossils as well. You look at the australopithecines those animals had Pelvis that indicated that they had upright Bi-pedal locomotion, but they had a brain case that was incredibly small And as you look at more and more recent rocks Well, two million years ago one million years ago. You see the evolution Well, we see the emergence of now the genus homo that now we have larger brain case and still upright Bi-pedalism you have to have some kind of explanation for what was australopithecis africanus Was that an animal? Was that a human? Was that an ape? It's bipedal. Was it on the was it on Noah's ark? That's another important point That's just not being addressed whatsoever You got it and he thought Cindy before we jump in back and back into the q&a Yes, but I lost what it was I think of it. I'll bring it back up. You got it and this question coming in from Cameron Hall says can the creationist Got that one sunflower says arin sal made several points about specific topics in evolutionary biology and physics Let's see Mr. This one I just uh We're looking for substantive questions folks that one looked like it was at first But then mr. Monster says all mammals are related Fact all vertebrates are related fact. Can you debunk these facts creationists? Can you prove the earth is young? They're separate special creations as we said there will not be enough time for evolution I gave testable predictions that would be consistent with that. We'll see in time I would also predict that radiometric dating is going to be shown to be incorrect or unreliable Yeah, I got a break up that you know whenever creationists come up with a testable thing like a prediction You know when they they say that there's never going to be a purpose for a half a wing And then we discover lots of purposes for half a wing and we you're never going to find a fossil of an animal That has half a wing and then we find a bunch of fossils That for dinosaurs that had half wings and they're just every time they make these predictions You're never going to find a transitional species. Yeah, well here they are. You're never going to find a fish with feet Well, here's a bunch of them. Just I don't see any slides aren't I don't see any slides You don't see what? Any slides I would be happy to show everything you're saying because I I've tried to and I tried to invite you and I mean this Sincerely I want to help you because I know that you've lived in this dark place You don't even know that it's dark But let me it's way darker than you realize It's way darker than any of us realize I'll just I'll just allow that to be true because I'm afraid you're right So but let me let me help you understand this topic because it will not take long For me to show you this topic so that you will understand it I would like a just a chance like I said the apodino spent six hours on the phone with me and he ended up pulling his hair out You are not beyond help I said I'll give you a limit. I'll give you a limit two dozen mutual exchanges I will show you everything you need to know This one coming in from also listen because I'm pretty sure I'm not going to be convinced Go ahead James bubble gum gun says dr. Thompson Can you please name me one single intermediate between the gray wolf and the Dalmatian dog or? Are the intermediates simply abstract data to fill in the gaps It's a great Yeah, so Okay, is that Cindy's he can't I can I'm mocking go ahead Yeah, so I'm I'm happy to let it aren't uh fill in some of the gaps of what I'm going to be talking about But um the you know the thing is Uh There's been artificial selection for dogs and it's something that actually is relatively rapid and we know That when you do artificial selection This is something that you can you can induce enormous change within just a handful of generations So there's a great experiment that was done by Dmitry Belayev a russian scientist and in in uh, Siberian in the 1950s going up till today Of uh doing selection for tameness in wild foxes and within 20 generations He was able to get a line of foxes that are essentially like little dogs And with emergence of traits that he didn't even select for such as uh floppy ears And piebald coloration and curly tails all he was selecting is for tameness And so you you know, you can imagine that you're not going to have fossilization occur for just 20 generations So you're we're going to find gaps like We're talking about very small differences between say wolves and dogs But you know, aren't perhaps you can fill that in because I know you know quite a bit about this topic Well on the on the evolution of dogs I mean they were looking for the specific sub what they're looking for the specific breed of Dalmatian And what you have to identify is that we know that domestic dogs come out of us out of four different genetic strains From asiatic wolves. I'm not sure which uh, which of the strains the genetic the the Dalmatians Is on but we can identify which strain that is I mean I'd have to look for you know We'd have to look at the genetic study for it But we can identify which strains the Dalmatians run I can't remember if off the top of my head whether they're what what are the terriers or whatever. I don't know There's a ton of information on there on the dog genome project. You can look this up. There's but you're not going to go direct You're not my point is you're not going to go direct to Dalmatians because there's a lot of intermediate studies It's like it's like you don't ever go from From wolf to doxened, but you could go from wolf to to wolf hound to blood hound to basset hound to doxened You know something like that with these you have these gradation steps But what you're going to have to trace is not the fossils in this case. It's the genome And in the genome so that emerged out of that dog genome project We know that they're these small breeds and they identified the gene that was modified that there's a mutation that arose And then allowed for small breeds and it's essentially related to dwarfism This one coming in from do appreciate your question Dige says do evolutionists believe we evolved from pond scum as some particular individual says sometimes I I would never refer to my forefathers as scum Uh, I have much more respect for them. So I also I also don't consider what what what cell I'd mentioned before about prokaryotes and and eukaryotes The transition between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is not an evolutionary transition I mean endosymbiosis may have been accepted in the modern evolutionary synthesis But it is not because of because of the horizontal gene transfer It doesn't to me qualify as an ancestor descendant relationship And therefore doesn't meet the definition of descent with inherent modification You have to have an ancestor descendant relationship in order for it to be evolution And if you don't have an ancestor descendant relationship, you have Just poofed out of nothing. No this one from G man's let's see Brandon Oh, I have a question. It was a fake username. They said gman's manager Go ahead, uh, Cindy Okay The whole select the whole, um Dog thing, okay You can select certain genes to make certain kinds of dogs but in the selection pool there is certain options not available until there's mutation to produce them But can you have a dog mutation that's going to make something different than a dog like Once again, I told you that the the laws of evolution include the law of biodiversity and the law of monophily Neither of which Allows a descendant to be to grow out of its ancestry You still belong to all of the ancestral clades that your parents did Even if you start a new clay to which they don't belong you still belong to everything You are still everything that they were I've heard that argument before it doesn't Answer the question for me. There's still a pool of selection a pool of genes available In the dog gene pool that is never going to give you a rat tail or a platypus nose or any other Thing there are mutations that could do those things. I mean you can have mutations and then you can select for those unique mutations when they occur Mutations are the source of new genetic information But just because you have a dog with a rat tail or a platypus nose Doesn't mean it's no longer a dog The law of monophily means it still belongs to all of those ancestral clades It doesn't it doesn't stop being what its parents were But a nose of a platypus Is would be a dog with the nose of a platypus It's it's it's like a complete system. The platypus is a complete system They're all does it are you saying that a dog should turn into a platypus or a dog would have a platypus nose I'm saying Evolution isn't possible because of the limited selection in the gene pool What you're saying is evolution isn't possible because an evolution doesn't do what it's impossible for evolution to do Which is to turn a dog into a non dog Because i'm sorry your husband was always wrong about this all the millions of times he repeated that lie It was always wrong. There was never never in evolutionary history Never ever in evolutionary history did one kind of thing ever turn into or or give birth to another Fundamentally different kind of thing Never happen that smithsonian tree is wrong. No the smithsonian tree is correct because it doesn't say that It never has anything Different kind of thing that its ancestors were just to get through more questions from the audience This one coming in from victor hallock says for creationist Do you believe that protecting our children is the most important thing we need to do as adults? How can you justify teaching them that these quote-unquote stories are real and harm them? We would say the same thing about evolution except that we have we can show that evolution is true You can't show fact one for creationism. I can show you that we can We would say the same thing about I can show you how we can trace evolution You can't show there's any truth at all to creationism None you just said that you can't show that the smithsonian tree is true I just said that what the smithsonian tree says is not what you said it does It never says that one thing turned into another fundamentally different kind of thing that never happened We just to go back to their question if I answer that can I answer that question from the one from the audience? Yes, yes How can I justify it? Because there's no salvation and evolutionism there is salvation in jesus christ There's no such thing as evolutionism This one from anton gomez says question for the yes evolution team A creationist told me the immune system is irreducibly complex. Is this true? No This one from pocket locker e6 says hi brother sal. I really enjoyed your performance tonight I hope we can chat soon. You were right. I need a hug. Hope you're doing well and melody kate says humans Believe their god created animals to be humans slaves to be dissected and eaten are humans god's creatures He can torture and destroy to practice his desire to murder with That doesn't have a desire to murder He's got a good point sal. There's this book called the bible that contradicts that idea an awful lot He judges evil and then demands the death exposed everything Yeah, everything. Yeah Including including he'd even demands that you get an abortion if you suspect that your wife that you suspect your wife Is cheated on you that you should force her to have an abortion against your will That's a numbers five and and just all and in numbers 31 It says you can take preteen children and slaughter their families and keep the little girls as your own personal sex slaves There's all kinds of things wrong in the bible are and that is not characteristic of the god of the bible I have not it's not the guy who said that that female slaves are half price of male slaves That's not characteristic I'm sorry. This is a different topic. We can argue religion at some other time I just want to bring up something else sal and cindy both agreed That new species do evolve So there are there are comments in the chat that said that I showed no fact Well, we have an agreement they evolve Species by means of natural selection exactly what darwin said they accept that evolution happens I don't I don't believe you can call it you can call it micro evolution But that would be incorrect because it's the origin of new species that's macro evolution by definition So you don't get to just say that it's micro But then you don't get to show that there's micro creation either because there's you got nothing Where's the creation I can demonstrate evolution demonstrate creation for me This one coming in from do appreciate it hates stairs says excellent debate other than mispronouncing apalachia I don't Victor halex says aron Uh ron wyatt and bob cornuc proved noah's flood happened checkmate. I don't know what they're referring to I have an eight-part series proving that noah's flood didn't happen. You can look it up on my channel You better this one from spartans theology says lol should debate j bundy. Who should debate j bundy? I think he's referring to me We have a long history. His team was Competing with mine. My team was michael b. He robert parks and william demsky his was linsky pennac And adami so this this this is like a 15 year history You've got it and this one coming in from do appreciate it pocket locker says James I should debate sal maxed. He is afraid of me. All right. Sameer says behavior is not passed on in dna How do you explain orphan dogs know to bury his bones for later retrieval? If not information loaded outside of dna There's a ton of things like that There is a ton of things not explained by chemical chemistry or dna How come your is when you're crying how come your dog comes up to you It comes up to you when you're crying I mean you if you have a relation so dogs are social creatures So are humans and dogs will have a sensitivity of the emotions of the people that they live with They see us as part of their pack Um, it's not surprising to find social creatures will have certain empathetic and Affiliative behaviors That sort of mimic and um, are you saying that there's something like magic there? I'm saying there's something that's not Physical not physical you're talking to a neuroscientist right you understand that You're telling you're telling a neuroscientist that behaviors are not genetic. They're that they're not physical Or rooted in the brain somehow. Yeah, the brain is a physical organ Not not to make not to say anything about my my my partner today But I've talked to a number of other neuroscientists and some neuro philosophers as well some famous ones And the message that I've gotten consistently from them is that there is no support for mind-body dualism Neither in neuroscience nor even in philosophy The thing you're arguing for is unsupported what is Survival of the fittest if you're going to love something so much that you would sacrifice yourself We have kin selection to explain that there's an entire field Going back 40 years explaining how Organisms that are related to each other Sacrifice themselves for others. I mean that's the entire explanation of why we have hymenoptera, which are the bees ants and wasps On why they have these you social Organization systems and it's because they have a very odd genetic organization Where the individuals the females are 75 related to each other So they're more related to each other than they are to their own queen And therefore it's an excellent explanation for why why they would sacrifice themselves and not make themselves And just be taking care of the offspring of a of an organism that they're only 50 related to which is the queen It's because I know we gotta move on yes, it does and and there's a quite a famous book that was written to explain that very thing And it's called the selfish gene This isn't gonna be a problem. Do appreciate it. Alan Bupri. So Sal, what is your plan to convince the scientific consensus regarding your positions? I don't have one because they'll make up their mind Uh, I think the best thing is to have experiments that will start to change I'm grateful that we've been able to break a little bit of the peer review paper Barrier we couldn't go through biology had to go through things like mathematical biology I don't think you broke that and I'm I'm sorry Anyway, you guys can look up My publication in a spring of reference On population genetics but going back I would emphasize experiments and observations because we're finding that With the way Darwin formulated natural selection is not working at all It tends to reduce versatility. There's a 2017 paper by Cauchy and Lensky That the genome fitness in the fitness of the creature's increase while the genome decays That is standard selection pressure reduces versatility. Therefore complexity It does not build organs of extreme perfection and complication if we're just willing to extrapolate that that's going to be brutally obvious Also, testable prediction is the human genome will continue to decay We will not account for it unless we're willing to sacrifice evolutionary theory Sadly, that's how we're going to be persuaded as civilization starts to die Thank you. However, I have to say that every time without fail Absolutely every single time a creationist has ever said there's a study that says this When you read it, it doesn't say that So provide your citation I'd be happy to read it, but I'll tell you that in 1600 years Evolution is still going to be dominant in creationism won't exist. Not your version of it anyway This will come in from do you appreciate your question? GodServant says keep up the good work. Modern day debate. Thanks for your kind words Says aren't wrong. Why did we evolve quote singing? I think they mean the the behavior of singing And it says god bless friend and acts 238 Give you a chance to respond aren't in terms of Singing where the behavior singing there's a handful of social animals that have developed similar patterns And that is the social aspect. I mean, there's certainly a number of birds We can expect that dinosaurs probably did that to the non avian ones We know that uh, what are the other there are some other animals that that bob to music and and make There's a number of insects or so, but there were again social cues for it So i'm going to say that it's a social interaction for a number of reasons And not just to express a happy mood If I could add to that So this actually is right along my area of expertise. I can go on for hours talking about this Um singing is something that we see in animals and particularly we see it in three different groups of birds We see it in songbirds. That's why they're called songbirds. We also can see vocalization learning in parrots We also see it in hummingbirds and it turns out that they have a very common basic overall brain morphology shown here And here's the link to the or the citation for this paper that I took this from We have a a nice Discrete circuit that actually superficially seems to Um to maybe be irreducibly complex you date and you destroy any one of these areas that it's going to just break apart But in fact, we know that these areas are just the same basic areas that we find in all animals It's just that these have become specialized for singing and we have good explanations of the genetic changes that actually arouse for this And and these are three different animals that are not heritable They're they're obviously all birds, but they are a separate evolution of the same kind of system You got it. Thank you very much for this question as well from stupid horror energy strikes again says for sal if topo families She had submitted a second one. I know she said she corrected that she says you don't need topo Let me know if I pronounce this right up or a summer is thank you very much You don't need topo a summer ace if the dna is in a short non-circular strand as there will be no twisting strain to remove Oh, well, thank you for that information miss energy. Nice to see you again. I don't object to what you had to say Also says for sal if topo amare's Families evolved independently in ancestral lineages of viruses We predict that some were never transferred to cells and remain to be discovered topo amare's V of course amare's. Thank you v of m Candelary is such a viral specific enzyme The problem is we don't know the origin of viruses. There's a cellular theory of the origin of viruses So these could still have cellular origin um So you can I know a virologist that says we don't really know if viruses came before cells We think they came from cells so it may actually have Ultimately a cellular origin and by the way, it's great to see you again stupid whore my favorite this one from youtube punk says Sal when are you and when are you going to debate j bundy myron bless you? James a k ace will link and thank you for that But sal who is this j bundy fellow? Is this one of your buddies? No, he's like I said, he was on a team that was in opposition to my team to competing university uh viewpoints and uh So why don't we try to set it up bro? Um, I don't know that we're ready for prime time on modern day debate. He's But man, he's all for colorful. I mean if you want someone who's going to entertain He'll light up the uh the city for you james. So there you go j bundy. I gave a plug for you brother Samir says 52 factorial is the number of possible arrangements of a deck of cards universe is not 52 seconds old It says oh factorial seconds old. It says 2.5 billion factorial is the odds of arranging 2.5 billion random atoms Into a single chromosome I'll read that again because I suspect i'm not the only one that's confused 52 factorial is the number of possible arrangements of a deck of cards And so that I think people understand that you can arrange a deck of cards uh And many different ways factorial numbers of ways says universe is not 52 factorial seconds old 2.5 billion factorial is the odds of arranging 2.5 billion random atoms into a single chromosome I'm starting to chromosome Yeah, I think he's talking about the improbability. That's that's all I can see right that's that's what that's referring to Um, and and obviously it's directed to the evolution side. So I'll take this the The So that's just assuming that any particular first of all there's a lot more than just 2.5 billion atoms because Uh, we're you're gonna have to talk about we're talking about an individual nucleotides Which actually each one is made up of many different atoms. So it's even more than that The arrangement of chromosome of a given chromosome Or you know, the entire genome is not something that is something that has to be Emerged just de novo um On its own right like that's not how natural selection works. We have Random mutation that occurs variability that occurs within a population Uh, some of that variability is due to random mutation deletion insertions Even whole genome duplication, which is something that we know has occurred in vertebrate evolution And then that means that you have duplicates of genes that are free to evolve and change and do new functions So this is something that we can see traces of in the genome and how that leads to the You know the emergence of embryology and how we get the brain to organize You know, it's you don't need to have a distinct just random Uh, um assortment of genes. Um, you know just de novo You got it. Thank you very much for this question coming in from Wait, I'm sorry james So Aren't you like itching to answer that? I know I was actually just wanting to respond about j bundy if I could just finish the story. Oh come on He works for the lenski Long-term experimental lab. I work for the evolution informatics lab. This is this is rival evolution labs going after it So that's why james just wanted to explain what's going on You got it. And thank you very much for this question coming in from Victor hallux says creationists. Why did japan ignore the flood entirely? I think they're saying my guess is they're saying there's no stories of a gila or I should say a global flood much less a massive massive flood in japanese Old culture. I don't think that's true. I think there is They have so many tsunamis. They take that shit seriously. So they don't make up these favors This one coming in from do you appreciate Your question from james w says after show at amy newest channel open mic Thanks for letting us know that as well as nominal says aren't if you were born in a building and lived your whole life Without any contact from the outside world. Would you assume your building had no designer? Can buildings create themselves the way organisms do This one coming in from thunder storm says my problem with evolution is it's extremely political and has created a false narrative without of africa The first americans not being sol utri and sol utri, I don't know folks the first americans Let me just uh, so you Americans I guess Okay, so so evolution is not remotely political Uh out of africa is not political. That's genetic And what are we talking about the the first americans, right or determine both genetically and archaeologically? Gotcha I think we've understood that as best as I at least I could this one coming in from umbrella corp says D osug is the answer to evolution. Does anybody know what this acronym d o s u g no This one coming in from do appreciate it nominal This one pocket locker 86 says bokeh bundy and tag team partner flying wane versus sal and cindy Okay, gotcha and the stupid whore energy strikes again She says the computers and computer chips and lack thereof at some points due to shortage Those alone make it impossible to do nested hierarchies with cars Sal I think this is for you You can still do that with you can see do it at the morphological level clearly because I've had cars that had their computer chips broken. It still looks like a car so You can actually and that's the thing when you look I know she's relating it to a presentation I gave where I laid it the the um the morphological progression looks like a nice phylogeny But all the little pieces are actually very different and that's where the protein you have these You have the protein orchard. So even if you can build a nested hierarchy like you do with the All the organisms you start to have these taxonomically restricted protein slash genes and orphan genes And so you could still have it at the morphological level and you could still be really keen I explore this I explore this in a video called falsifying phylogeny Where and I show like the Volkswagen beetle, for example, had an aluminum Popper engine four cylinder in the in the rear configuration And then later Volkswagen beetle suddenly had a metal out of a different Alloy in the front engine and it was water cooled instead of air cooled and saved it the automatic transmission To just everything had changed whereas in phylogenies you have derived synapomorphies that they have to adhere to You can't just arbitrarily change everything like a creator can and if there was a creator Then we wouldn't have derived synapomorphies evident everywhere. You would have Insects that had mammal eyes or mollusks eyes or mollusks that had human eyes or humans or or mammals that had Insect eyes because a creator can mix and match parts as he wants to but evolution can't and that's why we don't see any of those type of exceptions That's also what I've always thought about evolution if if we had Gradually gone from one thing to another in a random fashion without an intelligent design We would expect to see eyes on various parts of your body. Why would you expect one number of arms? Why would you expect one thing to but there's a lot we we need to talk Cindy really? I am I'm imploring you to please State are you in I'm in Texas? But we do we do everything online, right? I mean so so so contact me James put her in touch with me via email. I want to have a rather do it in person, but I guess it would be a long Yeah, what I'd rather do it in person, but I'd have to come to Texas for a long time I'll put you in touch. We can do it quickly painlessly over email or you know, that I doubt This one from Samir says simple animals evolved 600 million years ago there are 8.7 million species on earth Even if we ignore extant ones that's still one new species every 68 years Name newly evolved animals or explain evolutions nap Evolutions nap the pattern in reality is extinction Not development of new kinds. There's isn't it you understand that even hoven percent are extinct You understand that even hoven to argue that that speciation is observed, right? Well, she's saying or that person is saying Something about the development of new species and I'm saying the pattern is extinction There's no The pattern is proliferation and then you have an extinction level event that wipes out large groups of them And then you have you have surviving buds and they continue to branch on for further proliferation Taxonomy is so much more in-depth than you could possibly imagine I can show you cladograms that are so detailed to make a headspin This one coming in from do you appreciate your question big bad mama says Sal and Cindy do you literally believe that trees were created before the sun was created like the bible maintains? Why not it's only a 24-hour day Sleep wake up. There's the sun I personally believe it and also one reason it was I believe the reason it was done Is to force one particular interpretation of the bible being the six-day literal creation And less than 10,000 years. So, yes Faith belief not a scientific one. Thank you. Hi big bad mama. Thank you. Bye big bad mama. Thank you for Thank you for caring for Cindy Yeah Dory we've got more from big bad mama This one from naffano says are in is man bear pig Let's see in the room with us right now. I don't get it some sort of south south park joke I don't know. I don't watch popular media much anymore. I don't know what's going on anymore Okay, this is what aiden linden says question for sal if you'd met parts of your position are faith based When you lack evidence, how can you claim to be the one with more evidence? I don't oh by the way, aiden and I just want to thank everyone who's had the outpouring of love for Cindy Even on this panel just want to aiden's one of the special people Um, I don't claim that I have more evidence I claim That I find evolution less believable Than creation and I gave I gave the examples particularly at the molecular and cellular level So nice to see you aiden growing in over time just like with me. I was first saved in 1984 And I was in college and in Secular university when I first started hearing them talk about evolution. I went That doesn't make any sense and my belief in the strength of creationism and the weakness of evolution has only grown over the past 40 years of being a christian and that makes me think that I must have known honestly no exaggeration I must have known more about evolution when I was in second grade Then you did then or now This one coming in from option select says how fox has got tame with selective breeding if behavior is not rooted in dna That's for me. I guess so Behavior is rooted in dna because behavior is a manifestation of the activity within neural networks neural networks have to emerge from the You know the the expression of genes during development and how that they work in the brains as they work So we actually have a pretty reasonable explanation for how this change of behavior came about We think that what's being selected against is against the aggressive Stress response that the foxes were having So that's the adrenal gland that's involved with that the adrenal gland arises from the same part of the embryo as the rest Of the brain does which is the neural crest and if you're selecting against Something that arises from the same part of the embryo you're going to see similar changes that come about this is known as the domestication syndrome Actually, I have a video on my youtube channel. She's explaining this phenomenon. It's really super interesting topic. I encourage you to check it out You got it. Thank you very much this one coming in from Theros rex says thanks for inspiring me to become a teacher aron. That's nice Big thang flying wane says if jay's lab is d1 Sal's lab is d11 levels Pocket locker says j bundy here. I okay enough of jay bundy He says I worked in the lensky lab Sal keeps citing he's wrong. He knows he's wrong. He keeps going to debate me. He needs to do his homework Oh juicy. So all right. Well, that's a lively one This one coming in. Can I say something? Responding to chris if it's short and pithy We've got a couple more questions and we got to get you guys out of here to get a decent night of sleep Well, it's fairly juicy Okay, so chris is maintaining that behavior is genetic I'm maintaining the behavior is a manifestation of the activity of neural networks. Of course, it depends upon genes There the the field of behavioral genetics is a very Growing vibrant field has absolutely nothing. I mean, of course, it has a lot to do with evolution But we can consider that even separate from questions of evolution. Yes. Well To me that's points to the obvious conclusion that judgment is ridiculous can't judge these behaving in From their genes there's got to be choice and responsibility You understand that dogs are bred for behaviors Right. I mean so they identify that certain dogs have a propensity to particular behaviors So they breed for those behaviors if they're not if it's not genetic Then it's not possible to breed for those behaviors And I want to address something that I said before because I know it came out wrong So a bunch of comments about it When I was in second grade, I was reading books on evolution And I was explaining evolution to my parents and Cindy said she didn't start learning about evolution until she was in college That's what I meant. No. Well, I didn't mean to say that. I mean, I was raised in a secular school. So I And that doesn't I know how bad america's secular schools are they don't teach evolution in public school either They certainly don't do it properly. No, absolutely You got it this one coming in from do appreciate your question only just a couple more syrupy says cindy slash sal Faith, right? Does it ever bother you that faith means confidence and belief? Belief is emotionally based. Are you scared to be proven wrong? No, we're scared At least I am I can't speak for cindy But as far as faith goes What began it for me was when I was in math class and they said these are the axioms Of mathematics real number system through like the articles of faith. I almost fell out of my seat So there are certain assumptions that are unprovable that may be true and at some I think there's some the variety of thoughts and theorems where Fundamentally the most important things the most foundational can only be exited by faith. You cannot ultimately prove it You just find one set of statements bodies of belief more believable than others And I so thank you for the question I would have to say that it involves both Okay, there are some things that you accept by faith. There are other things that are based on historical facts Jesus is the historical fact. No, it isn't by is my faith. No, he isn't My faith. Okay, but a fact in faith are not the same thing a fact is objectively verifiable data Are you saying he didn't exist or that he didn't? I'm saying it's not objectively verifiable data You can have opinions You can say well, I'm I'm 60% sure there was a jesus, but maybe it wasn't exactly like what they defined In any case jesus is not a fact In your opinion This one coming in from joe schwarz Says I am the soyest of the boy. I feel the same way, erin. I feel the same way Aaron and a fact are objectively verifiable data. Jesus is not objectively verifiable data. Therefore jesus is not a fact I disagree not an opinion. That's a fact Jesus is not a fact is a fact I disagree. There's a whole lot of okay. You're welcome to be wrong You got it. This one from Amy Newman says after show after the debate great job. Aaron and dr. T Hope you're doing well. Cindy and sal may I ask what would it take for you to be convinced of evolution? Cindy and sal Show that it's statistically feasible for the things I pointed out For chromatin evolution and eukaryotes for the membrane bound organelles for the insertion of eukaryotic Nuclear localization signals across multiple proteins simultaneously. So the creature doesn't die Also to solve problems with a biogenesis et cetera et cetera and to also refute things like genetic apparently genetic entropy and Do that I'd be impressed. Thank you. Okay. Nice to see you. Amy And thank you for your outpouring of love to Cindy Cindy thanks for being Cindy's friend. Appreciate you You got Go ahead. Um I just want to point out. I see somebody in the chat named angel move I was accused of being angel move Somebody accused me for years of being that person. I can't be here and there at the same time Something else somebody I saw in the comment a lot if I if you don't mind me just jump in and say this because I saw it scroll up a number of times Atheists do not believe we came from nothing. That's creationists who believe that We don't I don't know an atheist alive who believes there was ever nothing to start with So just just another Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krause Right. Lawrence Krause does not believe everything came from nothing. He redefined nothing in his in his deceptively titled book The first time I had a chance to talk with Lawrence I can I I complained about the fact that he titled his book that way and just to get him back We were on a we were on a charity fundraiser Telethon at the time when I first talked to him. I said just to get him back We did come from monkeys and I can prove it This one coming in from came from absolute nothing. We believe that Uh god can make something out of nothing and that's why a resurrection happened because he can take a dead body and make it living Well, the only demonstration of that is that you guys made up god out of nothing This one coming in from do appreciate your question. Deej says aris. Are you saying that jesus wasn't real? I'm not entirely sure about that. I think that there was some core Uh inspirations for the jesus character. I don't think there was just one I don't think you could if you had a time machine and a guide who spoke aramaic I don't think you could find The jesus you're looking for if you found a jesus it wouldn't be the jesus you wanted You got it this one coming in from think that's some of your things for your final question we got says Why did birds that lived away from humans for thousands of years develop the ability to speak the time that those who lived with us didn't This is god's way What speak the time I don't Does anybody know Is he's saying that birds evolved the ability to speak Even though they weren't living near humans for their model Okay, uh, okay, right. Okay, so Well, if I could read it one more time just in case anybody else didn't get it I think I get what you're mean But they say why did birds and then Dr. T will kick it right over to you They said why did birds that lived away from humans for thousands of years develop the ability to speak During the time that those who lived with us didn't Be real simple about it certain species are not going to just spontaneously learn how to speak because they have to live with humans they You know that there's just it has to be something that's naturally selected for it has to serve a purpose We know that birds have learned how to sing or vocalize because it offers it confers as a selective advantage It's typically something across many of these species that we see that just males that sing and they're advertising to females And they're using it in a very reproductive context So that's my answer to that You got it. Yeah, thank you rich high flyer says i'm not sure if there's a god of the universe But I do know there's a god of modern day debate and his name is arin get a fan offer arin This one from kd five six 81 says keep up the great work arin. I learned a lot from you Yeah, gotta give some love to chris because he did a really extraordinary job here. I appreciate that. Thanks. Yeah Yes 100 percent same on the other side too. I really appreciate the the conversation we've had so far Thank you. This has been fantastic. I've got to say I appreciate that you guys have had the the perfect mix of Being cordial and also being passionate. That makes it fun as like it's fun. It's just nice when it walks that line It's just right kind of goldilocks of where it's passionate and yet it's not going off the rails It's it's reasonable still so I appreciate it. This has been a fantastic debate I want to say thanks everybody watching our guest or linked in the description So there are 712 people watching right now and I'm sure this is going to get tens of tens of thousands of views Folks, I've got to tell you our guests are linked in the description So if you'd like to learn more about their positions You certainly can by clicking down below I highly encourage you you can check out those links right now including if you're listening via the podcast All of the modern day debate debates end up on the podcast if you didn't know that folks It's ad-free. We don't make a dime off of it So I highly encourage you to check it out on your favorite podcast app But our guests are linked there as well So you can find arins dr. Thompson's and Cindy's and sal's links in the description box of the podcast too So check those links out want to say one last thank you to our guests. It's been a true pleasure to have you. Thank you very much You know, thank you so much James. Yeah, this has been fun My pleasure and hold on sorry the after show This is how you guys just two last ones. This is samir for saying says sal you're smart But you don't talk at all. Oh my gosh, that's a huge dog. Is that a bear? I'm sorry to interrupt you james. That is a big one. What the heck is that? It's a great piranese He was a rescue. He walked into my house like he lived here because his owners threw him away Oh Aren't you scored? I love him scored This one from one two last ones. They snuck them in there was a compliment from samir. So sal you're smart You don't talk enough. They want to hear you talk more Syru syrupy says I Stand dr. Thompson to your point. I hear starlings in the parking lot of my work mimic car alarms Yeah, they do. They're amazing mimics So you can even get starlings to vocalize and even make some human noises too. So they're awesome That's cool. Yeah. Well sing too With that Cindy and I have an after show on my channel. Just FYI You want to do a reason or yours? I'm streaming as well if people want to come into my channel. I know I don't need to steal everyone but Happy to answer some more questions and talk a little bit with people too. So Sadly, I have deadlines. I have to meet I've got projects. I've got to jump into editing and I was up all night last night I'm probably going to be up all night tomorrow Get some sleep. Got it. Well, we'll let you go. Thanks. Thanks so much I'll be back in just a moment folks for the post credit scene for about a few minutes stick around Amazing my dear friends. You cannot see me yet. I'm rebooting the zoom window But want to say we appreciate you want to say thanks so much for being with us. It has been a true pleasure and Yeah, I'm sorry. Let me just uh try to rearrange this a little bit Got to start the old zoom camera back up But want to say my dear friends, we really do appreciate you hanging out with us. Thanks for all of your support It's always fun and I've got to tell you. Yeah, my dear friends Oh, there so it's a little bit better But let me work on this I've got to say first I want to greet you in the old live chat as we do appreciate you whether you be atheist christians Muslims you name it. We are glad that you were here. Thanks for being with us want to say my dear friends. We have Big things coming up in particular. We are finalizing the modern day debate debate conference called debate con It is going to be huge You do not want to miss it if you happen to be in the dallas area keep an eye out We are going to release the exact Link for tickets as it's going to be in the dallas area and we're 99 percent sure We're going to push it out just a little bit further Give us a little bit more time as it's taking a little bit too long to get everything set up But probably November 19th, it's almost certain it'll be in dallas. It's going to be tremendous And Amanda I see you there in the old live chat. Thanks for coming by Thanks for all of your help and helping us find the location and thanks chris g for all of your support as well Thanks chris. I appreciate it as uh it's Chris isn't a fantastic job. I hate putting him on the spot But chris did a fantastic job volunteering at the last conference. It helped a ton as well as site show nav Who was basically like my right-hand man as we were going in there and just uh worked His butt off as well. And so we do appreciate it you guys. Thank you for all of your support You guys make modern day debate awesome. Seriously all of you we want to say thanks for all of your It really does help hitting the like button. It helps. Thank you guys for doing that. We've got 300 likes. That's fantastic Hitting the share button if you happen to have friends who enjoy creation evolution debates Or they love listening to arin or dr. Thompson or sal or cindy highly encourage you hit that share button Let people know about this debate and then they'll be able to see it too That really helps us as we really do appreciate it third party testimony It really does mean a lot. It goes a long way. And so we appreciate you guys Sharing modern day debate with people all over the place So thank you guys for doing that and I've got to tell you you guys it's Amazing as we have been so thrilled to have so much support by so many people. Thank you guys Even hanging out here. It makes it a fun Channel when we have all these people from different walks of life atheists christians muslims people who are spiritual But not religious you name it everybody. We appreciate you being with us That makes this channel an eclectic mix of different people from different walks of life. So thank you guys so much We really do appreciate it. So that's amazing and want to say We hope that you enjoy the live chat as well as if you watch afterwards I know some people are like man, I didn't get to uh, you know, I don't get to watch live But I enjoy watching after we hope that it's enjoyable for you for real We hope that you feel welcome and so seriously. I'm gonna want to say just some shout outs Wolfos. I see you there in the old live chat living room speakers. Good to see you again Kata Jabril. Thanks for coming by standing for poop aka standing for truth. Good to see you Thanks for dropping in character 57. Thanks for coming by says james That's uh, what's with you and these polls man I did and I liked it quote. I did but I feel stimulated to do it now We appreciate thanks so much. We appreciate that See you stimulated not like that you sicko What I want to say magpana is good to see you there says I saw Anna Casparian Name drop modern day debate to denis prager on her show the other day Modern day debates reputation is growing james. Thanks for that I I was super encouraged a lot of people sent me that as it's true We were mentioned just in passing. We weren't the focus, but we were mentioned in passing on The young turks as well as sam cedars show because I saw sam's got a million subs The young turks has got like five million subs. So that is super encouraging. I told you guys before It's really happening. Seriously. This is a small win to celebrate I mentioned before I said believe me folks. This is like six months I started saying it maybe even 12 months ago. I started saying it. I said, hey, believe me modern day debate is continuing to grow We are going to have it such that you're going to see people big names on Twitter and they're going to say hey, we should debate and they're going to say well who where should we debate? And they'll say well modern day debate. That's what I've heard of that's neutral I'm telling you it's actually happening So we ought to celebrate that small win as it's true the brand that the modern day debate It's presence on youtube really has expanded its boundaries Which is we're not ashamed of saying we want to grow and it's not for some sort of sad Narcissistic thing of me like whoa so many subscribers That would be sad instead. It's because we have a big vision folks We firmly believe that modern day debate has an important meaningful purpose in particular We want to provide a level playing field so that everybody can make their case on A natural or neutral debate platform. You can tell I didn't get a lot of sleep last night I've been stumbling all over my words today, but I want to say thank you guys for your support seriously It's been really busy, but I am excited my dear friends. It's all going to pay off I've been putting in a ton of it's been kind of exhausting emotionally I've been trying to set up some really big debates And one of them has been it's been taking as the old phrases the old phrase the patience of job It's it's been uh, it's been so Emotionally draining as I've been listening and waiting for a response and and saying like hey, uh Hopefully we get a response and trying to set up a debate that if this debate happens It's still not it's still kind of in the air and we're not sure But if it happens, I'm telling you modern day debate will become a major It'll get major recognition and we will get probably even mentioned again on the young terse I'm not excited. It would be that big that I actually think it's probable that it would get mentioned so It would be and not just mentioned in passing but mentioned for how big this debate would be and we've got enough number of other debates as well Namely at this conference These are going to be gigantic seriously, so I'm telling you I'm not making this up Jeremy Nolan, thanks for coming by says James debate c o v i d origin Maybe we've got to be careful. I've got to be honest. I've seen some of these channels get nuked overnight I'm not joking. It looks like it's a nightmarish scenario Some of these channels. I've seen some of these youtubers Basically, they say hey, I woke up and I got an email from youtube and I've I don't have any strikes currently And all of a sudden I get an email from youtube that says hey, we looked over a lot of your videos usually because I won't say why what instigates it because Just no need to say it But long story short youtube for some reason or another Decides to review a bunch of videos on a channel and then they say You violated youtube terms of service. Uh, this would would have been three strikes had we seen it When it happened and so you're done and they just delete the whole channel So you guys you've heard about snico recently snico with a million subs On one channel. I think his other channel had like 750,000. It was huge as well Boom gone overnight So snico is one person we're going to invite to our debate con conference by the way So want to let you know about that namely we want to talk to him about whether or not big tech is unfairly nuking channels So youtube has gone scorched earth on a lot of these people. We think it's sad I frankly don't agree with snico on everything. I don't agree with I mean, you know, there's everybody I'm going to disagree with them in some way, but I wouldn't want them to be Banned from youtube because they have controversial views So that's something that we will probably talk about at our conference ironically And origami says kfc versus mcdonald's debate. Thanks for that idea origami and then greg warrenner Thanks for coming by we are glad that you are here says Greg warrenner if you guys create a market for this watch out because a bigger fish will compete with you guys Yeah, I suspect that I've always suspected that there's probably going to be People that try to duplicate. In fact, I've seen a number of Channels try to duplicate in my opinion. I know this sounds probably a little. I don't know Let me know if it sounds cringe. There are some channels I've seen pop up in the last year or two that I think that they're copycat channels. I just I'm like wow that looks a lot like modern day debate And it looks a lot like our branding and it's so to me. I think that yeah, it's true We've we've been very fortunate very blessed. Whatever you want to say or however you want to call it and We're very grateful. Thank you guys for your support Like I I feel blessed like this has been a total blast You guys have been super supportive and I appreciate that we want to encourage you I've got friends that are muslims. I've got friends that are Muslim that are atheists that are christians that are you name it I am thankful that you guys that we have transcended. I know that a lot of times it's like oh I'm not going to be friends with those atheists or I'm not going to be friends with those christians Or I'm not going to be friends with those muslims I would say folks you are missing out on so many possibly good relationships if you write off everybody from a group like that Do not succumb to that. That's a sad degenerate form of kind of psychology You can't succumb to that type of tribalism I highly encourage you be friend. I know I'm not telling you you're going to like everybody from every other group It's true. Every group's got some people that are just cringe and you don't want to be around them I'll be honest. That's obviously true But I nonetheless I've got to tell you I've had friends from all walks of life That have supported me in my hard times and I'm thankful for that and they continue to support me And I just want to say I appreciate that so we hope you feel welcome whether you be atheist christian muslim creationist evolution you name it whatever it is We are glad that you were here as well as triage gaming. Thanks for coming by says I remember subscribing when you had 80 or what is it just 60,000 subscribers we've grown a lot. I think it's like Almost 30,000 this year. I can't remember we it's but yeah, it's it's been huge. So we are really grateful. So We are super thankful. We appreciate everything you guys It's been a total blast And we are just I'm telling you this is just the beginning of our story Moderate debate is absolutely obsessed with being fully neutral Our moderators are not going to take you know, you could see some channels The moderator will systematically jump in and take the side of one of the speakers or one of the sides in a debate And it's like, hmm kind of obvious where the moderator stands on this even though they didn't actually explicitly tell us Likewise, we're different from all of because every, you know, frankly tons of channels host debates But we're different than all of them in the sense that and i'm not joking because even intelligence squared Is a youtube channel that's bigger than ours at least in subscriber count They're they like have a way bigger subscriber count although though their most recent Debate or like their most recent videos that they release on average the mode view count or even the average Is smaller than ours and i'm not trying to brag. I'm just saying I think modern day debate is doing something different here It's fully neutral intelligence squared. I'm saying it. I'm telling you they've got videos where it's like There's clearly one side. There's a video where it's one side taking one position And you might be like, well james, you know, you could do that You could always just have another video that has one side taking the opposite position But the thing is I don't know if they keep track in terms of whether or not Let's say primarily these videos might lean politically right And maybe only like 30 percent of the one-sided videos are politically left or it might be vice versa Like maybe they're 70 percent politically left And 30 percent politically to the right in which case it's like well, that's kind of clear like you guys are kind of Seeming to like on average push a particular view. We don't do that. We don't have any interviews. We've had people offer interviews big times like sometimes big time people and we've said like Yeah, we don't really do interviews. It's got to be a debate where we can't just do it an interview because It's just not how we roll every every single stream every single video that's uploaded is going to have both sides represented That's important for us Tuss beatbox. Thanks for your channel support. Seriously. It means a lot. Appreciate you being a channel member perfect one Thanks for coming by and thanks for being a mod Thanks for your support says Appreciate that if you build it they will come as I've got to tell you I always thought and here's the thing I put out a poll on youtube recently. Let me tell you guys something I put out a poll on youtube Just I think it was like super late last night. I couldn't sleep as I told you so I can't remember I think it was like was it 11 or I don't know whatever time it was I put out a poll And I was wondering I was like what is it about modern day debate that people have enjoyed it Like what's made it fun because that's the truth. You could do something and be like Yeah, but like what is it about modern day debate that people have enjoyed like is it because like I said I In the post they said I suspect it's the quality of the speaker I think we have good speakers and if they're not great debaters they're oftentimes entertaining and once in a while Okay, I've admitted we've got to improve our vetting sometimes. It's not great I've admitted I've admitted to we've got to improve our moderating and me in particular But here's the thing I've got to tell you my dear friends I asked people in this poll What is it about modern day debate that you really like if you had to pick one thing that you like most What is it? And I was like, you know, I think that it would be that it's because we're fully neutral because that's like kind of rare It's a it's a very rare brand move Is that we're like, hey, that's us like that's our identity That's the most important thing we want to be known for is that like we're going to give everybody a fair shot We're not going to take sides And then I thought well, maybe it's because we cover stuff that the mainstream media doesn't cover This probably sounds so braggadocio. I'm not trying to brag. Sorry about that. If I seem like I am It's not that I'm trying to brag. I thought but like I said, I was trying to figure I was like, maybe it's because, you know, we cover Stuff that the mainstream media won't cover like that, you know CNN is not going to have a debate on creation evolution They might have had like a sound bite like 10 years ago back when religion debates were hot But they would not have had like, you know a two-hour debate like we do So that's one thing and likewise, they'll never have a flat earth debate Even a sound bite of it. Maybe a sound bite I've seen like little segments back when it was really popular like I saw little segments on some news stations But they'll never go as deep as we do and frankly, there are some topics that we have that they probably wouldn't cover like We're we at least cover them more often. So like let's say Aliens UFOs Whatever and bigfoot all that stuff So I would say I think that maybe it's that we cover topics that the mainstream media the news the mainstream news doesn't cover And likewise, yeah, like I mean the mainstream news like what mainstream news is going to have is islam violent We have that debate this friday night. You don't want to miss it. It's going to be huge apostate prophet and david wood Teaming up it is going to be gigantic as they're taking on Perfect Dawa and Nadir Ahmed who are both very experienced debaters as well. This is going to be a monstrous debate this friday for real So that's one thing But I've got to tell you. Yeah, my dear friends. I really appreciate all of your support And yeah, I also was like, well, maybe it's the variety of topics because we're not just politics We don't just do political debates. We don't just do religion debates. We do science debates, too You know, we talked about all sorts of the UFOs or aliens things like that creation of illusion We do everything So it's like, well, like maybe that's it. And then we also have different formats You know, sometimes we have one versus one two versus two sometimes we have a six person panel Probably going to do less of those those are probably too big But nonetheless, it's at least a big variety of types, right And most people let me check on the poll right now because you're probably like, oh, I don't know What does the poll say james the last I checked it was almost double the highest one was Most people said I like that you guys are neutral That's like the coolest thing about modern a debate, which seriously we appreciate that because we try really hard to be neutral The second one, yeah, so that's 47% the next one a distant Second was 24% and by the way, you're kind of like, oh, well, this is probably only like 100 people that voted on the poll It was 1,700 So it was a pretty good like a pretty decent sample And oftentimes a lot of people don't realize that you actually don't need nearly as huge of a sample as you might expect to Now obviously the random part is most important But if it's a random sample, which this frankly actually isn't But nonetheless with a random sample, you can actually get a pretty good Grip of things numerically even with millions of people with Significantly smaller numbers, but again, it has to be random. This admittedly is not really random. It's not random but nonetheless Everybody's welcome to respond to the poll So if somebody was really wanting to say something we also opened it in the comments where people could say whatever they wanted Which by the way, the most common thing in the comments was Modern day debate is neutral. So every like tons of channels host debates on Debates, you know, like we're not the first and We're certainly not the only one that do it does it now But nonetheless, I think people say, hey, you know what? I like though that it's it's very neutral You guys give everybody a fair shot. So We are excited to do that We believe that's a value to youtube and that youtube deserves a better class of debate channel And we're going to give it to them. That's what modern day debate is doing So we want to say thank you guys for all of your support seriously It's just honestly, it's been great. We appreciate you guys. We love you guys Thanks for your kind words standing for poop says the best part of modern day debate is james is 25 inch biceps That's funny And uh, but yeah, I appreciate that. Let me just drink this water. I'm thirsty I'm pretty tired I should go to sleep soon But want to say if you didn't know We do have a patreon Thanks for your support as that helps us to do things like this huge conference that we're planning for november It's going to be gigantic. So that's one thing. Thank you guys for all of your support That means more than you know And patreon is one way to support us. Thank you guys for that support Is that's linked in the description box if you have not ever checked it out. Hey peak. Maybe you'd like it I don't know Otherwise we have youtube channel memberships Which also give you the ability to call to use these emoticons if you do the smallest level Membership you could use this soy boy emoticon and you could say for example Let's see here I'm saying sideshow nav is a soy boy in the live chat and i'm using the emoticon How could you pass that up so we do have channel memberships we encourage you To sign up. It's only $1.99 a month Like $1.99 a day for a cup of coffee from starbucks. You don't get that anymore. It's just not that cheap anymore. It's not So this is $1.99 a month and it helps support the channel Get to use these emoticons and call people soy boy in the live chat as well as say Amazing because we have an emoticon for that as well or nasty. What a nasty guy Sideshow nav does it back. She says james is nasty. That's funny. All right, so yeah, it's true And living room speaker says that's a tremendous jug james. Thank you. You're right. It is tremendous Thanks claire for being with us. I see you there in the whole live chat Thanks tuss beatbox for your channel membership support gene lorette Thanks for your channel membership support. Seriously. It means a lot. We appreciate you guys It really does mean a lot and for real we are we're going to do something big this conference is going to be huge So we really are like the lineup is looking frankly a lot bigger and better than last conference The last conference was good But this one I think is going to be way bigger So you guys it's going to be in dallas. Keep an eye out for it. November 19th is when we're planning Some some are good to see you. I see you there in the whole live chat Thanks for being with us. Hannah anderson good to see you in the live chat to see you there Christoph good to see you as well Deej thanks for your support using the nasty emoticons Shameless Crawford says modern day debate keeps bringing good content. Thanks for that support. Seriously, that means a lot All credit to our guests. Seriously, we appreciate them We they make this show awesome. They're the lifeblood of the channel Seriously, we wouldn't survive without them and they make it awesome. So we are grateful for all of the guests But want to say thank you guys seriously It's always fun and good to see a slang in the live chat as well as therapy Let me know if I'm saying it right. Syrupy. We're glad you're here Theological introspection glad you are here as well as sandy pigeon. Thanks for dropping in brooks sparrow. Good to see you Thanks for all your support brooks. Seriously. I hope you're doing well And thanks so much for being with us Yeah, it was pretty much caught up As well as That's right. Hannah anderson says still time to hit that like button. You can Thanks for that support and let me try this. This is a new feature. You can start a q and a It says modern day debate q and a What is let me put I'm gonna put a question. What is sideshow? Nabs favorite movie. This is a new feature. Do you guys see this in the live chat? Let me I'm gonna do it right now I'm gonna see what this is like start q and a so I just put it I'm putting it in the live chat. I'm saying start q and a Oh, okay. I guess it's just Wait, what the heck? I'm confused. I don't know if you're able to see this but the live chat Okay, so I'm confused. So it still has the live chat It says questions answer Viewer questions live. Oh, I see it. You can like have it so that the Chat can like say whatever To the question sommer says porno. Okay. Well, thank you sommer for that Nasty guy sideshow nav tells beatbox says, what's your favorite bread at subway? Obviously, italian urban cheese. Maybe italian artisan Shamus carford says will you do a debate james? Hey, that's a good question I well, that's not answering my question though Option select says, what's your favorite food? Uh, some some sommer says is james a one-man show behind modern day debate No, definitely not. I've got so many people that are volunteering and helping me out like amanda and sideshow nav And chris and just seriously tons of people are patreon meeting. They're giving me ideas all the time so we've got those patreon tiers and Just everybody's supportive not just financially but the patreon also we have these zoom chats And people give me ideas and they give me feedback on like how to steer modern day debate because I always it's helpful for me to get feedback and so Yeah Therapy said did you ever catch a ball at a game? I don't understand waiters like Like So this will remove all questions in the question list. Oh, okay. This is I guess this is like questions for me I guess i'm not supposed to put a question. I'm supposed to just answer the question. Okay, so But yes, okay. Shamus says will you do a debate james? I'm open to it I'd like to do a debate on whether or not d platforming is good. I would say it's not good I want to make an argument that it's not But I don't want to know if like, you know, I want it to be a really special debate I'll just put it that way So I wanted to be with a big name, you know somebody a big popular debater somer says And that's the ironic thing is people who are for d platforming generally You don't like modern day debate because we've hosted some really controversial people like we we admittedly have Like really controversial So a lot of them they don't like modern day debates. So they wouldn't want to debate me anyway Samira says is james a one-man show? Yeah, it's definitely. I'm not a one-man show Deige says clearly mean girls. That's true. That's bob's favorite. I've never caught a ball at a game I don't think I did I think it like at a minor league game I got a foul ball that like rolled up to the fence when I was a kid I think that had happened, but that was pretty common like, you know It's pretty common you could get that if you went to the game and you know, it was minor leagues But let's see so no not at a major league game Where's arnie once is do you think that if humans want extinct another species becomes sentient to take our place? I don't know. I doubt it. That's interesting But theological introspection says our chickens dinosaurs. If so, you reckon tired was tasty Reckon tired who's tired Cicero nav says you're going to show that tat tonight. No bob says let's Jerry knows it says ask something. Oh, okay. You just asked something. So I'm not supposed to ask you You're supposed to ask me. I guess okay Somebody says james, how are you going to handle super chat questions when the channel is 10 times larger? 1 million subs 20,000 people on live that'd be cool if we got to that And yeah, we'd have to like be very efficient and make sure that questions were very Specific to the top eight deejay says james if you personally do a debate We'll let hurt the channel's neutral reputation. That's one thing I worry about to be honest So that is something I think about and it's one reason why I've been like I'm definitely not going to just jump into any debate. Omega weapons. Let's have a good one. James. Thanks. Omega weapons Seriously, that means a lot sandy pigeons has hit that like button police Origami says get in a deer and Darth debate. Ah, maybe I mean maybe But yeah, I want to say thank you guys. I got to go. It's getting really late. It's nine o'clock here So I got to get to sleep. I'm behind on sleep. I want to say thanks guys for all of your support Seriously, I'm looking through here and yeah, but yeah, I'm I'm pumped and I just want to say thank you guys for all of your support There are a million ways in which you have helped the channel And yeah, like if you're kind of like, yeah, I'm pumped up. James. I want to support it One way is just sharing this channel tweeting You know tweeting it to a friend or sharing it in text message or the friend who loves controversial debates That really does go a long way. We've seen people in our youtube creator studio I can see how many shares each debate gets and you guys do share a ton So we seriously we appreciate that Seriously, thank you guys so much for all of that. So I love you guys. Thanks for all your support We're excited about the future and as I said our story is just beginning We are going to do big things that monitor debate in the future. We're excited about it. Thank you guys for all of your support We'll see you at the next debate, which is this friday. It's going to be amazing. See you next time folks Option select. Thanks for letting me know. I didn't read your super chat. Sorry about that says you missed my second My uh my super chat Which was I did ask the one about the foxes And I know that you also asked can we have a second one for this? I'm open to that. We might like I'm I'm open to it Although we probably want to give this the guests a break for a while and nominal I missed your super chat says they said modern day debate. Thanks for the debates. Thanks nominal. Seriously, that means a lot I do appreciate all of your support and uh, I'll see if you're in the your live Yeah, I see you're in the live chat still. So hopefully you saw you heard me say that But yeah, whenever people give like the high five to modern day debate and they say hey modern day debate Thanks for having these debates. I try to read those on the post credit show just because all the questions for the gas I try to keep the focus on the gas, but I don't know. It's not a big deal. So Um, I appreciate you saying it and I'll probably start reading them some during the q&a too Just because I know some pipe sometimes people leave during the post credit scene So you might may not even hear it be read. So want to say thanks for your support though Seriously, we love you guys. Samir says you missed mine as well, but you read the free question Let's see you Samir. I don't know. Did I let me see You said how are you going to handle questions when the channel is 10 times bigger? Oh, I see. Yeah Thanks for saying I I didn't realize I missed that When did you I can't believe you said that so early when did you? Whoa, did I? Oh, yeah, I did miss a couple of super chats there. Yeah, wait. Those are super chats Oh, yeah, those came in like super early. You're right. I did. Sorry. I missed those But I'm glad you said it so I can say them now. So thanks guys. I love you Yeah, I am looking forward to seeing you in the next one. Keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable. We'll see you next time