 ready tonight we're debating whether or not there is evidence for evolution and we are starting right now with Dr. Wilson's opening statement thanks so much for being with us Dr. Wilson the floor is all yours. Hey James thanks for having me I'm real excited to be here so uh yeah I am I go by Dr. Wilson on YouTube I have a phd in molecular biology so that's what I'm going to be focusing on in the context of evolution so uh to get started here I'm just gonna share my screen and uh yeah I my expertise is in the world of molecular biology so that means I work with proteins DNA and RNA and all of these things fall under the same principles of evolution as whole organisms and I want to start on the molecular level by going over just one molecule that's one one biomolecule that's really near and dear to my heart and that would be oh wait I need to do the slideshow uh that would be the ribosome so in graduate school I worked on the ribosome specifically on how the cell builds its ribosome and I've specifically heard um Nephilim Free uh mentioned before that the ribosome is what makes ATP in the cell and I just had to be honest that hurt me a little bit because uh that is not the role of the ribosome ATP is generally made in the mitochondria which is as chat will know the powerhouse of the cell yes hooray cool um but uh the point that Nephilim usually makes when he brings up a giant macromolecule like the ribosome is that it's irreducibly complex the idea being that you cannot it's so complex that you cannot reduce it to a simpler model therefore it could not have evolved but that's not really true uh in fact when we examine the ribosomes that uh exist in today's organisms ranging from more evolutionarily ancient for example bacteria to more evolutionary recent so for example humans we do see that the ribosome has a general decrease in complexity as you go more further back in the evolutionary timeline this demonstrates uh two principles uh when we look at ribosomes in this context one is that you can you don't have to have a macromolecule like the ribosome as complex as we see it in humans it can exist in simpler forms the other principle that we learn is that there are very many core elements of the ribosome that are conserved from bacteria to humans so these elements are the same despite hundreds of millions of years of evolution this tells us that uh life this is evidence that life is linked over a long long time scale so uh not only is and there's these principles apply not only to the ribosome but to lots of different molecular complicated molecular structures structures in the molecular world so um but you know what are some other examples right of things being similar across very large evolutionary time spans from multiple different organisms well another example of this are hawks genes so hawks genes are genes that exist in most organisms that have a segmented body plant so organisms like the fruit fly organisms like you and me humans and these genes simply uh work in a way that plans out the body of the organism such that if we were to mutate some of them a fly might grow legs on its head where instead of growing legs at a different segment in its body that's how these genes work but the really interesting thing is that when we compare these hawks genes from ancient more ancient organisms like the fruit fly to humans we see that there are a lot of paralogs between humans and drosophila and these paralogs are ordered in the exact same order and they're on generally one chromosome each set is on one chromosome and they're ordered in the exact same way so we have this parallel between fruit flies for example and humans that spans hundreds and millions of years of evolution and uh this is very strong evidence of evolution because the model is that these genomes these genome structure changed over time picked up new functions added new information and new mutations which ultimately gave rise to the rich variety of species that we see today another good piece of evidence of evolution when it comes to the genome comparing across species is that between humans and our closely related closely related cousins chimps gorilla and orangutans and this comes in the form of the fact that chimps gorillas and orangutans have one extra set of chromosomes then relative to humans so in chimps gorillas and orangutans there will be two chromosomes two for example a chromosome 2a chromosome 2b but in humans we just have a chromosome 2 and what happened at some point in our common ancestors history is that these two chromosomes fused so these genetic fusion events can be characterized and observed to have occurred and when we look at the rest of the chromosome we can see that the same genes are located on the same portions of the chromosome so this either tells us that a creator created things this way or that this is exactly consistent with evolution another great point that always gets that always comes in my mind when i think of molecular evolution is well how do these molecular changes how do we know that these molecular changes were really passed down from flies for example to humans well we can see in the example of embryogenesis the development of fetuses of things like lizards and mammals that the information for these ancient structures such as gills a tail and so forth are still contained in our genome as these structures are made and then ultimately turned off as we develop in utero so this information is in our genomes because we are descended from a long line of common ancestors and last what i'll cover for my opening statement is just i know that nephron for example likes to bring up this point that genomes can't produce new information and that's just not true there are several mechanisms by which a genome can essentially evolve new information and this paper here is one such example in it the authors were working with bacteria and they identified this mechanism that they call innovation amplification and divergence you can read the highlighted sections on screen but i'll just summarize by saying that essentially what they did was they took a gene from a gene that encodes an enzyme and studied it in the context of a bacteria they then introduced selection pressures to that environment to the environment of that uh bacteria and they were able to cause this enzyme to adopt a new function that helped it better survive in that environment this is again just one such example that was characterized here uh and what what the mechanism also explains is that it the cell accomplishes this by first duplicating that gene so uh the common thing that some creationists might say is that mutations are usually deleterious they're usually harmful but cells can circumvent that problem if they first are able to duplicate their gene and then it is that duplicated gene is free to evolve with little consequences because the original version remains functional for the cell so the authors were able to achieve this evolution within 3 000 generations they confirmed it with sequencing and they were able to uh they also describe in the paper some other mechanisms aside from this innovation amplification and divergence that exists in humans uh as well so um that's kind of a rundown of what comes to my mind when I think of evidence for evolution in the molecular world um I think that the main crux of this conversation from me is going to be uh you can examine all of these changes all these similarities between genomes across organisms that are separated by hundreds of millions of years of evolution and you can say that a creator created it that way you can say that it's evidence for evolution but the difference between the two statements is that only one of those ideas are test uh testable or falsifiable so for example if we go back in the evolutionary timeline and along the way we find a a new ape species that is much more closely related to a lizard than any other known ape that would be a real problem for evolution to explain but if 20 seconds right but if a creationist saw that evidence they could still say that a creator created it that way so it's not falsifiable it's not testable and it's not really science whereas evolution is testable and observable and I'll stop there you gotta thank you very much dr wilson for that opening statement and want to let you know folks if it's your first time here at modern day debate we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science religion and politics and folks if you haven't heard one second if you want to wait for a moment before I'm sorry I thought you had to approve it okay sorry but want to let you know folks we're absolutely thrilled for this monster event that is coming tomorrow night you don't want to miss it matt dill hunty and christian apologist and scholar dr kenny roads will be here debating whether or not there is good evidence for god you don't want to miss it folks so if you haven't yet hit that subscribe button and that notification bell so you don't miss it and with that we'll kick it over to nephilim free for his opening as well thanks nephilim free the floor is all yours thank you so uh on a share screen uh something is it sharing yep okay all right so evolution first off you have to understand the evolution is a an ancient myth it was begun by the hindu brahman passed on from them to the ancient egyptians and babelonians who passed it on to the ancient greeks phallus of myelitis anaximander anaximinis and and anastatl spoke of evolution they had a different idea they believe that creatures were originally created but those created kinds evolved pretty much like what evolutionists say today with the exception of what charles dormant's claim anti scientific claim was that charles dormant unified the idea that the created kinds created by the gods were actually came from a single ancestor so he codified the modern theory of evolution by coming up with the idea that all the created kinds actually had a common ancestor and there were no created kinds but prior to that so evolution is actually an ancient religious myth it's a religious myth it is very ancient goes back to the earliest history of mankind almost now the only evidence that we have for evolution is what somebody sees when they believe evolution evolutionists are required to ignore a mountain of scientific evidence and they do so pragmatically and dogmatically militaristically my opponent says firstly let me say that he spoke about ribosomes i did speak i did miss speak is what i said about ribosomes and ATP i meant to say ATP synthase that was simply misspeak if my opponent had watched quite a number of my videos he would have heard me speak about ATP synthase producing ATP not ribosomes that was just a misspeak but he spoke about we have evidence that ribosomes going back into the distant past demonstrate evolutionary transition one type of creature to another that's that's bogus we don't have any ancient ribosomes preserved in the fossil record that we can observe what we have is various types of ribosomes in the existing creatures today and evolutionists make grand assumptions that well ribosomes that are different today means they've always changed see the change is the assumption he said mentioned chromosome two chromosome two has been discredited as a evolutionary fusion event genes that span the create the fusion site code for polymerase and and and and genes that cause specialization of cells that are relate to almost 200 different types of cells in the human body so the evolutionist would be required to believe if the chromosome two were actual fusion site that evolution is somehow written over a telomere information is critical and it produces molecular machinery necessary for the organism to exist such as helicase and polymerase because both span the chromosome to site span it that means they pass over it now that's that that simply can't be it's irrational to believe that random mutations wrote the genes that produce helicase and and polymerase over a telomere that just doesn't make any sense it's not sensical no geneticist would say that's logical okay so he mentions genetic hox gene similarity there are tremendous dissimilarities in hox genes maybe my opponent's not aware of the fact that the hox genes that produce the lobe fins and fish which are allegedly evolved into the legs of lizards or amphibians are not the same genes but evolution would have us believe the mutations modified those hox genes so instead of producing lobe fins and fish now they produce legs you see because that's the evolution story the genes that produced legs produced wings is evolution produced birds right see the same genes preserved modified by numerous mutations now they produce wings instead of legs right the same is true for the lobe fin fishes the lobe the fin fishes hox genes allegedly receive mutations that transfer them into legs so that the fish walked out on land but this doesn't work why because the genes are not the same hox genes the hox genes in a fish that are are not the same set of genes in the same location in the genome as the genes hox genes in a reptile or an amphibian that produced legs and the same is true of birds the hox genes in reptiles evolutionists claim reptiles evolved into birds that in reptiles are not the same hox genes in the same location of the genome as those that produced the wings of birds now the evolutionists can argue against this by saying oh well they'll try to fix the problem well mutation moved the hox genes uh-oh problem medical science has documented in the journals hundreds of times that when you translocate a set of genes you produce deformities they're so severe the creature is usually still born or dies shortly after birth or has a terrible deformity or chromosomal disorder that haunts them their entire life natural selection would remove such an organism not promoted therefore that idea doesn't fit evolution that's bad science this doesn't work now new information the evolutionist has this fake belief that mutations happen that duplicate genetic information and then my opponent says that mutation then the duplicated gene is free to be mutated and become new information because see this is where they this is called hand waving this is where they pass it off this is where they slide it on the take that's a it's a card trick okay they'll talk about well how do you get the new information well a gene can be duplicated rare event very rare okay according to genesis that's very rare and then they'll say it's free to become mutated to become new information that's never been observed that's what's never been observed hand sliding see look mutations can happen to duplicate a gene therefore new information because new mutations have changed that that's what's not been observed they want you to believe that because they can point to the fact that a rare mutation can duplicate a gene in the genome and it is rare it's not common it's very rare very rare that that means oh well i must believe then that subsequent mutations are going to transform that duplicated gene and the information is new and functional and produces new anatomical features uh-uh no we don't need to that assumption that's your assumption that's not science that's what you believe maybe that's not science okay you can't demonstrate that nobody's ever demonstrated him okay so evolution is observable and testable was the last statement my opponent made nobody says so even Stephen even Richard Dawkins agrees he says evolution is not observable it's just we observe it in the past that's what he says we observe it by looking at the past with a rose color glasses and assuming now evolution is scientifically impossible 90 years of study into the effects of random genetic mutation had been conducted since the 1930s since the days of howling and guess what 90 years over a million studies if you printed them all with the desktop printer and stack the papers they'd be multiple stories tall that's how many papers have been published in the science journals about the observed effects of random genetic mutation in science since the 1930s multiple stories worth of papers 90 years worth and guess what nobody has ever demonstrated that it's been observed the mutations build anything to structural and functional in any organism ever never not once nothing what mutations have been proven to do and science for 90 years is caused weaknesses deformities and stillbirth or death prior to birth but never new biological structures the evolutionist believes in their mythology passed down from the hindu brahman to the ancient Greeks spoken to us by thalus of my leaders and xamander and xamines and aerosol that the mutation the modern version of this is the mutations create the structural designs of living things if evolution were true all the anatomical features of every single creature in this world the proboscis of a mosquito the nasal passages of a mouse the brain of a human being in every anatomical kidney of a chimpanzee every anatomical feature in every creature in this world would have had to have been produced by random mutations accruing on on on genes to cause them to build in information that produced new structural designs in the anatomy of living things if that were not true evolution cannot be true because everything would have the same anatomy anatomical change is necessary for the evolution to occur there's zero scientific evidence that genetic mutations have the potential to cause anatomical change that's functional and becomes thick now don't straw me functional and becomes fixed in a population mutations can cause anatomical deformities which natural selection removes but it never has been observed and we have no scientific reason to believe the mutations cause new structural design that's functional useful and preserved in populations because of mutation never observed no scientist has reported that in any science paper in 90 years ever what modern science not the ancient myth of evolution passed on to the Greeks from the Hindu Brahmin in the Egyptians and the Babylonians has demonstrated is that life is so complex down to the molecular level that it's implausible to believe the evolution is true it's obvious a mind was involved in fact DNA has been proven to be a physical model molecule that could never arise by sheer natural chemistry it can't produce the the the nucleotides all of them they will even produce it or the sugar ribose backbone molecule so that can happen natural chemistry cannot produce the DNA molecule but upon that we have this DNA is a physical medium just like a book is a printed medium encoded with digital overlapping nested hierarchical highly complex information which operates linguistically with phonetics semantics punctuation syntax grammar semiotics and operabetics and operates algorithmically the problem for the evolutionist here is the information semiotics and algorithms arise only from an intelligence therefore it's an empirical scientific fact because DNA I'm done thank you we will kick it into open conversation and want to let you know folks our guests are linked in the description so if you want to hear more from our guests you certainly can by clicking on those links in the description box and that includes if you're listening via podcast as folks we are pumped that moderated bait does have a podcast and you can find our guests links in the description box for each podcast episode as well so with that we'll kick into open dialogue thanks so much gentlemen the floor is all yours okay thanks nufflem I'm not quite sure where to start here but I guess a good place to start would be it's kind of weird that you're saying that no mutation no beneficial mutations have ever been recorded is that is that fair to say that that's what you said nufflem free are you on mute no I'm sorry I'm here yeah so is that did I hear that right is that you're you're saying that no beneficial mutations have no no that's strong man I said nobody has observed that random mutations are occurring mutations in a population build anatomical features that are functional and useful and preserved by natural selection but I thought I also heard you say that mutations have only been recorded to be uh deleterious like cause no no I didn't say that still births you know I didn't say that no okay say that okay but but beneficial mutations are outrageously rare possibly one out of every two million mutations according to genesis in the late 1990s well the reason for that is that mutation is always happening and you're not necessarily going to notice the beneficial ones unless there's a specific selection pressure well if they're that rare how in the world are they going to build anatomical structures over a trillion years well with a very long time they're happening all the time and so so they're happening all the time even with even randomly generated nucleic acid sequences can yield functional properties that can offer advantages depending on the natural selections you place on the organism for example we have this paper here where the scientists measured uh just that they had a set of random non-coding DNA so this DNA was not coding and uh they basically cloned all of these random DNA sequences into just an E. coli bacteria and then did competitive growth experiments and found contrary to their expectations that about 25 of the randomly generated cloned DNA actually uh enhanced their growth rate so these are randomly generated non-functional segments of DNA that end up developing or evolving a function when correct selection pressures are placed upon them so well you say a function I don't see a function nobody has described the function secondly you pointed something that causes cancer increased growth rate uh over the normal growth rate that's that's exactly what cancer is you know but bacteria bacteria adult let me let me respond so uh that that's not you haven't provided any evidence for evolution all you've pointed out is that mutations can cause an increase in growth rate which is above normal and that's a bad thing for an organism yet so what you've done is what evolution is always do you've seen uh something that causes change and you've read into that millions of ideas of evolution but science doesn't demonstrate that see evolution isn't science it's the ideas in your hand can I can I ask you a question can can you can E coli get cancer um well no but you're talking about that's uh that that's a straw man you're talking about no well no because because you're you're saying that this that's a straw man well no you're you're saying yes no you're you're saying that let me finish the article is about multicellular organisms is it not no this article is working with bacteria okay so growth rate uh growth rate uh does that relate to reproduction fitness fitness fitness how does growth rate relate to fitness because these are competitive assays the the organisms that produce well now you have to let them finish when you ask the question yeah the the organisms that outcompete the rest of the E coli are the most fit so it relates to their fitness are you are you familiar with lansky's experiment which has fizzled down to a drizzling draw to a death where lansky's experiment has in the last couple of years demonstrated that the the the possible the the population is completely unsustainable and now the mutations have actually virtually destroyed everything and it's they're all dying because they become so so dependent upon the specific environment provided by the researchers that if released into the lab uh into the natural environment they would simply die almost immediately so what you're calling specialization really is specialization to a survive you're not providing evidence of science the genetics causes any new structural designs to arise in body plans which would be necessary for evolution an organism becoming specialized in its ability to survive in this restricted environment is is an adaptation which is an example of intelligent design but doesn't generate demonstrate any evolutionary mechanism evolution evolutionist love to pretend the evolution doesn't say what evolution does and what evolution says is structural designs change over time to give us every proboscis every feature every eyeball of every creature that lives in this earth but they can't ever talk about that instead what they talk about is a bacteria can survive in an environment highly selective highly managed by the laboratory experimenters and and then if released into the environment because they become so so specialized to that environment they would die and that's not that that's not evolution in the real world that's selective pressure in a petri dish that's not evidence of evolution well I will say that by definition an organism becoming a spec especially uh a custom door fit to a lab environment is still evolution because evolution will naturally try to push an organism towards its optimal fitness in a particular environment not just an acceptable fitness all right so let's try to merge take your idea and extrapolate it to the real world so the organism can become specialized in a in a highly controlled environment produced by a researcher which is a specific food at a specific temperature a specific amount of light etc and for a very long period of time and it adapts to survive in that environment now what evidence is there from that the anatomical features that biology the mutations design changes to structural designs create body plan changes morphological change that leads us to believe that a creature with a fundamentally different design can arise from one with a fundamentally different design because if evolution were true that's what you got to have evidence for creatures becoming specialized in a petri dish doesn't help evolution what's the evidence for real evolution yeah yeah so so I know what you're asking but the point here is that these experiments in the molecular world that identify fundamental mechanisms by which a genome can grow change develop new genes so so on and so forth all of those things still apply to the macro world and we can observe evidence of these events happening in the genomes that we see today for example in the form of pseudo genes genes that were once functional but now are not and also another example being what I brought up in the opening statement with the hawks genes which I think the point there was that the order in which hawks genes are organized on a particular chromosome is conserved throughout millions of years of evolution that was the main point they don't all have to be the same there are plenty of paralogs between organisms but the point is that the order in which they're organized is conserved and that is a very striking similarity that is kind of what we would exactly expect if one were to predict evolution and go looking for evidence of it in the genome well I didn't hear any evidence for what I asked for I heard assumptions and when it comes to pseudo genes I'm not going to read all this to you this is just a fraction of the information I have available to me I don't know if you're aware of it but pseudo genes what are called pseudo genes many many many of them have been discovered to actually have function they're not pseudo at all in fact they actually have function so a very large and so so here's here's the thing if evolution is true mutation and natural selection has to create all the anatomical features of every living thing in this world we have no scientific evidence that's true what we have is a petri dish you can give a selective food source under a right temperature to a bacteria and it'll survive it'll survive it'll survive Lensky's experiments are just about fizzles now this the bacteria are so specialized and there's so many broken genes they're almost dead are you aware of this Lensky has reported himself okay you're aware of Lensky's experiment going on for what 35 40 years right now right and how and other other scientists produced the very same kind of experiment one produced I can't remember his name from the 1930s till the 1970s or something a similar experiment he produced the very same thing the bacteria specialized and when released into the environment died because they can't they can't survive anymore I'm not hearing evidence that evolution by natural selection and mutation produces the physical features that explain the variants the variety if there's a Darwinian tree of life or even a bush or a web okay you have to believe that mutations and natural selection builds the structures that build all the creatures the incredible variety of things in this world that's what we can never give get evolutionists give us evidence for instead they argue for ridiculous things like bacteria can continue to survive in a petri dish so I'm not sure why you think that a bacteria becoming hyper adapted to a lab environment is not evidence of evolution I just can you explain I just explained it to you didn't I because it doesn't change the anatomy of the bacteria one tiny bit it doesn't give us any more evidence of evolution than any of the mutations observed in any of the other organisms including deer and human beings that have been observed tested repeated in a laboratory or or measured or or you know reported in the journals what we what we observed the effects of mutation and this is where evolutionists jump science they skip science they hate science you actually hate science you hate the fact that science is reported for 90 years okay so mutations cause weakness for me and death and you believe this mythological thing that mutations don't do that instead they build fantastically complex interdependent functional new stuff that's what you need evidence for if you can't provide that you have zero evidence of evolution yeah that's I I'm telling you the fundamental mechanisms of DNA that give rise to all of those differences but let me just uh let me say first that you can change the morphology of bacteria in the lab with experiments that can I can I ask you a question for example anatomy or morphology just let you speak so let's let them finish what are you saying you can change the I mean anatomy morphology it's kind of the same thing with a bacteria but when it comes to biofilms so bacteria will come together in these communities to form what we call biofilms those have a very specific morphology anatomy whatever you like to call it they have very specific structures to them and you can observe evolution of biofilms in the lab so I mean that's kind of an example of that in the molecular micro world but if we take that to the macro world all of these principles of new information arising in the genome all these mechanisms they still apply to organisms like you and me and we can see the changes just in the past in the past recent history that these kinds of changes can cause in the genome just with speciation in plants for example or how far we've taken wolves out of their environment and evolve them into all the different forms of dog that we see I know that you're probably going to say it's still the same kind but those genetic mechanisms are causing all of those drastic morphological differences that we can observe so it's it's observable okay so you're confusing as evolutionists always do morphology with anatomy I hear this all the time it's a favorite tactic of theirs what anatomical change has ever been observed in one of the things I would like you to address is because you said they're kind of the same thing which comes back to you in bacteria okay so what anatomical what I would like you to address is what anatomical feature has been observed to arise in bacteria by mutation and natural selection I'm going to tell you right in front the answer is none biofilms none no and morphology is form and structure anatomy is the structural design of a functional feature which has critical interdependence with the rest of the body plan that's an anatomical thing nobody's ever observed an anatomical feature arise incrementally in any bacteria ever what we observed is morphological the bacteria can change shape they can be completely round or they can be elongated you know they can be oblong but but when nobody has ever observed this see you're confusing morphology and anatomy because evolutionists love to do this they love to play this game that look morphology can change therefore anatomy changes uh no no no no stop right there no just just for a second give me an example of what an anatomical change in a bacteria would be so well that's I hear that question every time I bring this up from every evolutionist they always ask so because you believe that morphological changes over time equate to anatomical change but you can't provide the science of that so what's the evidence of it but if you could just answer my question what's what's an example I would ask you to give us the evidence you said they're kind of the same thing can you tell us the evidence that they're the same thing no no I didn't say they're the same thing you said they're kind of the same thing let them finish no no no no in the context quote you said quote they're kind of the same thing when it comes to bacteria and quote okay let's let me talk for a sec let me talk for a sec please don't misrepresent what I say that's exactly what you said please please hold on a second when it comes to bacteria anatomy and morphology okay bacteria you don't have a body plan so if you're talking about anatomy it's technically not doesn't apply to bacteria morphology is the correct term but we're talking colloquially here so I just said they're kind of the same thing when it comes to bacteria when it comes to organisms like you and I it's not the same thing I'm perfectly aware of that but I'm talking about new genetic information causing morphological changes in bacteria yeah right back to morphology see when I when I when I caught you in this uh you know hide you know hand hand hand hand game you know slipping the the nuts around and looking for the pee underneath them you you revert back to morphology see that's the game evolutionists always play and a new a um the arrival of a flagellum would be a new anatomical feature in a bacteria oh okay great you say yes or no and then let me finish my response please so you yeah is that correct you know yes you can observe that would that be anatomical would that be anatomical in a bacteria or not tech tech technically morphological technically not no because bacteria don't have a body it wouldn't be anatomical okay so you're saying that if a bacteria had no flagellum and then it had one that would not be anatomical it does not have a body plant so I don't believe that regardless of your I think we're getting naphthalm-free you have to give them more than two words to respond to these questions do you get that I think I think we're kind of spiraling into semantics here and that's not really helping the conversation here because the core issue that I'm trying to get across here is that there are mechanistic changes in DNA that we can observe we can test that result in changes in fitness and in the case of bacteria direct morphological structural changes and we can observe the same thing when we apply those mechanisms take what we learn bacteria and apply it to organisms like you and I look at the genomes of dogs plants any organism you choose and you can find evidence of these exact mechanisms having taken place over long periods of time so are you saying that bacteria have no anatomy they're not anatomical features to a bacteria like a flagellum is not an anatomical feature in a bacteria or ribosome is not an anatomical feature or the cell membrane is not an anatomical feature or the proteins which span through the membrane of the bacteria that either allow or or disallow other elements to enter into vacuoles those are not anatomical features are you actually telling me that bacteria have no anatomy there are no structural designs that are functional that are part of the bacterial cell is are you seriously doing that so so like I said I think we're getting into semantics here I don't believe that I don't believe that anatomy is the correct word because cells don't have a body plan they don't we talk about when we talk about cells we usually talk about their physiology their structure so if a cell has no if a cell has no anatomy if a cell I don't care how you use it I if this evolutionists usually if a cell has a flagellum or has no flagellum another bacteria has none is that not anatomical it would not anatomy be considered a structural design which is biomechanically functional is that not correct would you not consider an anatomical feature to be one that is a biomechanical feature again if if that's correct then would not have the existence of the flagellum or the absence of one be considered an anatomical chain difference between two species of bacteria and then what is your scientific evidence of random genetic mutations have the ability to create anatomical features in complex organisms again I don't think that I don't think that anatomy is the correct word when talking about cells you didn't ask a question I asked you if the existence or the non-existence of a flagellum would be an anatomical difference in a bacteria and I'm telling you I don't think anatomy is the right word but let's let's just get back to the that would be more logical then let's get back to the core issue but can ask you would that be morphological not anatomical in your mind I would call it a change in cell structure but you wouldn't call it morphological but you did say that morphology and anatomy are basically the same thing when it comes to bacteria we are we all heard you say that I don't hear the word anatomy used but that's what you said because you brought up the word anatomy no you said the bacterial when it comes to bacteria anatomy and morphology are basically the same thing so is that not an anatomical difference if a bacteria has no flagellum and another has because there are plenty of species that don't have plenty to do this this is this is getting way off track but I want to answer for your beliefs I've answered I've answered several times but let's get back to let's get back to something you said earlier you were you asserting so in your definition of anatomy for a cell let's just take that and go with it were you talking about structure of a cell membrane as being anatomical no I didn't mention membranes you did well I mean later I did but I wasn't yeah I said that the you know when it comes to bacteria we're talking about a simple organism and there's no such thing as a simple so so would you would you consider a change in your definitions of what we're talking about here would you consider a change to the cell membrane as an anatomical change I said wait didn't I describe anatomical as biological functional yeah you included cell membrane when you talked about that I wrote it down physical thing right so I think a protein spanning through the membrane if it has a feature where it creates a port for example in the membrane of the bacteria is an I would consider that anatomical if you don't then I don't know it seems like you're the one playing games with anatomy and morphology because you don't want to support evolution so I'm asking for evidence of evolution you're telling me you know that there's no anatomical difference between bacteria but then we have plenty of bacteria that have flagellum and some that don't you know so is that anatomical or morphological again you're you're getting deep into semantics which is not a question is it anatomical or morphological? I'm dead serious I'm going to start muting you liberally if you keep giving him two words to respond with he gets more than two words that's fair right listen you brought up anatomy we are now in this really deep and I think unproductive conversation semantic conversation about anatomy and morphology I told you that I don't think that anatomy is the word that cell biologists use when describing cellular structures but you want to have this dichotomy between morphology and anatomy which I get is important when talking about organisms with the body plan but I'm not trying to talk about that right now I'm trying to ask you if a cell were to drastically change its cell membrane would you consider that an anatomical change in your definition we can call it morphological structural whatever you like but would that be would that is that kind of along the lines of what you want to see when it comes to these structural changes in the cellular world? So you're asking me the same question that you refused to answer I don't have to answer it because you refused to tell me whether or not the presence or absence of a flagellum in a bacteria would be anatomical or morphological after telling us 15 minutes ago that morphology and anatomy are kind of the same thing when it comes to bacteria end quote okay so I don't think we're getting good job with that so you're you're you that's a that's you know it's obviously it's obvious that you're playing games with words because you won't answer my questions and you can't answer my questions with science that demonstrates evolution now I can skip the bacteria altogether and go on to what are considered complex organisms or rather i.e. multi-cellular organisms with intercellular systems like organs right and ask you the same question and you'll play the same game you won't be able to do it what's the scientific evidence that in random mutations acted upon by natural selection are able to build in the anatomy structural functional biological features that you know so that we can believe there's a tree or a web or a brush of life you know that all organisms have a common ancestry and you won't be able to answer that question either we could spend 18 hours in this live chat and you won't be able to do it so what is the evidence for evolution the mutations building upon each other when 90 years of mutation experimentation have been performed and nobody's ever reported any such thing you believe it I know we're gonna what's the scientific evidence that that occurs we're going to give Dr. Wilson a chance to respond and then I think it's a good idea if we explore other you could say subarguments in this topic and so Dr. Wilson go ahead and then maybe we'll change gears to a new topic before we go into the Q&A and maybe about 20 25 minutes or so okay yeah so I don't think we're getting anywhere on this topic but where I was trying to get to was if you think if you're looking for an anatomical change in the cellular molecular world the easiest thing to point to would be sickle cell anemia which is a complete structural change of a red blood cell from a biconcave disk to a crescent shape and that all happens from one point mutation in one protein and so in the molecular world that's a pretty drastic change but obviously when it gets to bigger organisms those changes are not going to be as drastic with just one point mutations you know but from results that we can see physically such as a different sized appendage or a new body part those changes are going to happen much more slowly over time so that's why we don't directly observe these things happening in our lifetimes or in the last hundred thousand hundreds or thousands of years that we've been recording history because it evolution predicts that those drastic changes are going to take a very long time in order to accumulate enough mutations to affect a body part that drastically so but in the molecular world we can see it pretty easily and we know the mechanisms that cause that and we know those mechanisms happen all the time in larger organisms as well are there any other arguments in terms of either against evolution from naff or arguments for evolution from dr wilson that are different from what we've discussed so far something new changing it up yeah yeah well i would respond it no not responding to the last argument we somebody's got to have the last word on each of these arguments okay we can give you the last word on the next argument but i do want to change gears into a new argument okay well i would completely disagree with what my opponent just said but okay now i will say that we know that but we do i just want to be sure are you are you just going to go back to the same argument and respond to what he just said or are you okay changing gears yeah sure i'll bring i'll bring something i'll provide up that uh the existence of the DNA molecule itself just credits evolution theory conclusively first of all sorry the one of the natural the existence of it natural chemistry can never produce DNA in a prebiotic earth scientists who are secular themselves have reported that there's no no mechanism for the development of the DNA molecule they they're they're scratching their heads it can such as Robert Shapiro one of the world's foremost biologists and evolutionists by the way admits that you'll never get the sugar ribose backbone molecule of the DNA by by natural chemistry it's just never gonna happen okay and so on top of that then we have the very existence of DNA which is a material medium encoded with digital information more complex than Microsoft windows an operating system more complex than windows which is algorithmic and linguistic scientists have reported in the medical journals numerous numerous numerous times the DNA operates linguistically algorithmically semiotically it persists it has uh uh phonetics semantics punctuation syntax grammar aprobatics and semiotics it also operates algorithmically algorithms information linguistics semiotics are all products only of intelligence so the evolutionist is completely in denial of 20th century science because of their 19th century myth actually 3500 year old myth because modern science has proven the info DNA is information linguistics and algorithms which can only be produced by an intelligence only if that's true sorry well it's not true well we'll give a chance to dr wilson to respond yeah so um this is kind of getting away from evolution and into a biogenesis so evolution explains the diversity of life that we see a biogenesis tries to answer the question of how all those molecules that make life got there so that's kind of getting outside of the discussion of evolution and more into a biogenesis is what i would say to that um but uh also i'll add just for the sake of argument that uh DNA is incredible it is operating in ways that are really complex but all that complexity kind of emerges from a relatively simple set of rules which is uh complementary base pairing for four letters atc g complementary base pair together and from that rule and a few others a few other chemical properties of the molecule you get a very wide array of really complex mechanisms and i don't think that necessitates intelligent design because well it we can understand the properties that govern the mechanisms in DNA and its chemistry i don't think you can't test whether or not an intelligent designer created DNA because it's not falsifiable i guess we can go back to that point that i made in my opening statement it's it's just not falsifiable because no matter what you observe you can just say that the creator created it that way okay so here's the mistake you made you pointed to the fact that uh the acgt interdependencies from one strand to the other on the DNA molecule uh determine what which base pair can attach or not is not able to attach on the other side of the DNA molecule that doesn't have anything to do with how it became specified and one of a beautiful example of that is the modern science which evolutionist despise demonstrates that the information on one strand of the DNA read one direction can produce one set of instructions while the other strand read even in the opposite direction produce a different set of instructions so that doesn't that doesn't necessarily give us reason to believe that not DNA natural selection there is no such thing as chemical natural selection that can produce a DNA molecule it's only exist in the fantasies of evolutionists if the if if what the incredible discovery of modern genetics is that DNA genetic information is strand hopping reverse and forward reading overlapping and compressed information and it can even hop strands and read verse backwards so it doesn't matter that if you have a on one side you have to have a g on the other it doesn't matter that's not that doesn't matter it's not like natural chemistry could even produce that couldn't even produce the backbone it's not going to happen according to robert Shapiro one of the world's foremost biogenetic biologists so uh and as an evolutionist he's a thing honest he's saying look i can't figure it out i'm one of the world's experts i can't figure it out if you guys can let me know that's what he's published you know he's just being honest he doesn't say i believe creation he just says i can't figure it out it doesn't seem plausible to me but hey that's what it is and so and nobody's argue you get Shapiro nobody has said Shapiro is wrong this is why he's so blatantly wrong nobody says that they just say well Shapiro is right we got to figure it out right okay so okay uh well i just want to focus on one thing you said which is the directionality of dna so yeah we know that dna is two strands um that base pair together and one strand is read one direction the other strand is read the other direction there's one directionality to each strand why is that weird why is that evidence against evolution yes oh that's a marvelous question because it demonstrates that the designer was so ingenious that two completely separate and critical sets of information were written at the same time when one side was encoded it demonstrated that another set of instructions for other biological functions in the organism were written at the same time that are completely unrelated to the other or critical to the organism's existence to believe that that could arise by natural chemistry is absurdity why because of the complexity of it it because both are necessary and because of the complexity of it evolutionists hate complexity because both what what both is necessary both both strands both sequences of information may be necessary to the organism's existence and yet they're only dependent dependent upon each other because of the arrangement what this demonstrates is intelligent design at such a level that is beyond human comprehension it is outrageously ingenious so i guess this kind of goes back to the irreducible complexity argument because dna while it is very complex we see that there are self replicating particles that are lifelike viruses that exist with a single stranded RNA genome and you know that's a much simpler uh pseudo life form than a double stranded dna helix carrying organism so to think that it had to start with two strands in an organism is not that's not necessary at all there's a simpler there's a simpler system that probably you know came before the more complex one well there's a simpler system that exists in the imagination of the evolutionist well now we can we can see plenty of plenty of evolutionist scientists themselves have discredited the rna world hypothesis they've acknowledged that the idea is implausible uh robert superior is one of them uh that this idea is just implausible it's a ad hoc assertion but nobody has science that demonstrates it secondly um um you're you're you're positing that that this information that produces one strand on one strand and the other could produce by by natural selection do you realize that what you're expecting us to believe is that as evolution produced one strand of information at the same time it's accidentally produced other information that's going to be so critical to the organism's operation do without the first one the other one is no good well and and that to me demonstrates the absurd anti science thinking of evolutionists they believe in the most magical sort of situation where you can believe that the most complex information known to man could arise because molecules bump into each other and yet man is not able to write information that complex or specified with microsoft windows in washington united states the microsoft corporation one of the largest corporations in the world can't write software that is as complex and functional as what's in your dna but you want us to believe that what what's in your dna happened because molecules bump around no evolution doesn't say that but so that's exactly right no that's not what it says it is it is not but you are kind of skipping the fact that you know it doesn't have to start as double stranded dna with uh one strand that perfectly complements the other if you have enough single stranded nucleic acid molecules such as RNA or dna around eventually they're going to be able to base pair with each other because it's only four letters so eventually you're going to get mechanisms that allow these two single strands to base pair together and then if that yeah and if that mechanism is favorable to the fitness of whatever organism is carrying those molecules then that'll be selected for and then over time we get dna stored in the nucleus eventually so how long is this what is this timescale of yours where you believe that eventually one one bit of information one little tiny uh you know bite of information in the dna gets selected for so many times that it becomes critical and then not only becomes critical but design something and then numerous events like this happen so that it designs something more and more and more and then becomes the proboscis in in a mosquito i mean well well you do not realize that the timescale the evolutionists have equates to multiple times the existence of the universe according to secular cosmology you're talking about trillion is in a role that you've asked nef let's give him a chance to answer those trillions times trillions nef like how that's not that's not how does that if i say let's give him a chance to answer that doesn't mean you keep going uh go ahead dr wilson it does not necessitate trillions of years but uh one thing you said uh so how how long would it take right so in my opening the paper i showed where scientists were able to uh observe an enzyme adopt a new function to contribute to the fitness of the bacteria that took 3000 generations in a selective environment and it required what can i ask you again nef we gotta give him a longer to respond no i i just i have some two different questions no i just want to hear what he said he required two mutations come back to it i promise no i just want to hear what he said do you want to give him a chance oh i just want to hear what he said can you what was it that you say was observed i'm sorry i just didn't hear you scientists observed within generations could you repeat that please so within 3000 generations scientists observed an enzyme adopt two separate mutations i believe it was a point mutation and an insertion that allowed this enzyme to adopt a completely new function that allowed the organism to survive in this selective environment that the scientists had created for it okay thank you i wanted our clarification on that because i didn't hear what you said uh again we're going back to lensky uh you know no evidence for evolution there um you know survival in a petri dish doesn't demonstrate that that you know that the tusks of an even of an elephant or the you know the jaw of a marsupial kinetics you know or the ear bones the the ossicles of a you know marsupial are going to evolve because of mutation what we have what i've been pressing you for a long time about in this debate is the evidence that random genetic mutations and natural selection can build the structural signs of living things and what you've told me is that you believe it and you believe it because bacteria can adapt in the environment in a petri dish and survive and that's your belief on evolution and that's not sufficient as evidence of evolution as anyone with a clear mind give them a chance to respond so again i'm trying to show you the fundamental mechanisms by which larger events happen but i don't know why you're hung up on this idea that bacteria grown in the lab not being able to survive in a different environment is somehow disproving evolution because if you took bacteria from the environment and moved them into the lab and had them complete compete with the lab strain the lab strain would win so it's just a matter of you know perspective so i don't know why that's a problem for evolution right it's like it's like saying it's like saying uh oh you know a fish is so adapted to the ocean but if you move it to land it's gonna die like i don't i don't really understand where you're going with that f1 free are you there in f1 free i just uh all i've heard is you know speculations that you know microbiological changes that occur in the bacteria uh demonstrates that evolution is true and it's produced the tusks of an elephant and uh you know the eyeballs of a tiger and to me that's just anti science you're welcome to believe that it sounds an awful lot like mythology because that's clearly what it is it began with the hindi brahman it was passed on to the from them to the Babylonians who passed on to the Greeks it was written about by Aristotle and xamander and ex-minis and thalus and my leaders and that's where you got it then in the in uh and the uh renaissance late renaissance during the enlightenment era uh the Freemasons cult got a hold of the idea and they pushed it into the science and that's where you believe it but nobody has demonstrated science that demonstrates the mutations natural selection produced structural design changes that cause one type of organism to develop features that move it towards becoming a fundamentally different type of organism we have absolutely zero absolutely zero scientific evidence for that you can't talk about it all you talk about is bacteria surviving in a petri dish because you don't have any reason nor scientific evidence to demonstrate that one organism can develop into a fundamentally different type of organism because of mutation natural selection over time there's no such thing in science no scientist has evidence of it if evolution were true you need to be able to tell me how dna is a a physical medium encoded with complex specified functional information which operates linguistically algorithmically semi-autically possessing phonetics semantics punctuation syntax grammar and apropetics if you could tell us that you could turn the world upside down but you can't provide any evidence of that i would like to hear evidence for that sorry sorry evidence that dna is what you said it is just the the science journals report count countless times by not creationists but secular scientists have reported that dna is in from complex specified so information which operates i heard that perfectly semi-autically possessing phonetics semantics punctuation syntax grammar and semi-autics okay and this is not the creationist papers so evolutionists have published this all right so can you explain how those things can arise by natural chemistry it's chemistry it is chemistry can you explain it we have to give them a chance to actually elaborate so the so the nature of a nucleic acid with a nitrogenous base and a sugar backbone with four letters atcg those simple chemical rules give rise to complex mechanisms and you know we can go through an entire course on that but i don't think that's really what the audience is looking for i just i think it's weird that you keep calling evolution mythology when so evolution is trying to answer the question of how did this diverse array of life get here we can we can hypothesize that it got here from random mutation and natural selection and that all life is related to each other and on some level and we can go out and test that idea we can look for evidence of it and we find evidence of it all over the molecular world all over the fossil record all over any disciplinary every discipline in biology but the other answer that you seem to be pushing is that it was an intelligent designer which you can't test and you can't falsify so i don't see one as mythology i don't see evolution as mythology and the other as science you know what i'm saying like well it how do you test how do you test or falsify in an intelligent designer we're gonna do a brief response now and then we're going to go into qna okay it's absolutely testable and observable and repeatable the dna is information complex specified information which operates linguistically algorithmically somatic punctuation phonetics syntax grammar linguistics algorithms and semiotics that's a fact it's been published in the science journals over and over and over and over again by evolutionists themselves so the fact is those things can only be produced by intelligence it's impossible for natural chemistry to mimic therefore evolution is false intelligent design is a scientific fact like it or not we're going to jump into the qna and want to mention folks our guests are linked in the description so both dr wilson and nephilim free are linked below folks if you want to hear more from them they have their own channels you can hear plenty more to your heart's content and as i had mentioned folks that includes if you were listening via the modern day debate podcast as we also put our guest links in the description box for each podcast episode and so we highly encourage you to check these guys out we really do appreciate them and i can tell you guys a lot of positive feedback people really enjoyed this and so it's been a really fun time we've got questions we're going to go through so we're not done yet we are going to start with let's see steven steen nasty guy says neph if my science neph is my scientific hero of truth got a fan out there neph and andrew rouse thanks for your kind words says james it's rouse like house remember that's right says and yes over here near midday in australia keep up the effing good work my guy thank you for that andrew and we're always excited with people from around the world tune in and say hello so very very thanks for your super chat says miss you neph hope all is well when are we going to have a debate on this channel about the reasonableness of belief in god james let's do this well that might work could be a juicy one then we have a message from raw nakedness which has been deleted she must have said something really bad dustin ellerby thanks for your questions that how can a mind exist with no data yet can create matter out of nothing to produce complex life i'm not even sure that's for how can i think it's for no no data that's okay go ahead neph oh i i i just say uh no data well the data is all in the uh in the hands of the creationist uh it's been demonstrated for 90 years the mutations are destructive and the evolutionists believes in their pseudoscience that mutations design upon each other they build upon each other to create complex stuff it's a myth that it requires deep time that nobody can observe it's a fantasy what's observed is the mutations cause weakness deformity and doubt that's observable testable repeatable science juicy this one coming in from raw nakedness says why did god make metal hydroxides tend to appear in lots of active sites in current molecular biology this is a prediction of the z world hypothesis that from free i think this is for you okay the z world hypothesis is counterbalanced by the cube hypothesis which is heavily weighted on the i hypothesis which nobody knows the origin of except many speculate that it may be caused by the g hypothesis we're not really sure do either of you know what a zero hypothesis is okay good me neither next up dustin alibi says has anyone witnessed a god create complex life nephilim free no but nobody's observed evolution either we can't observe the past we can make speculations best based on the preponderance of evidence this one from the legend rives says since race isn't proven by science how does population genetics explain evolution via race this seems contradictory so well i mean what we what we socially determine as race has valid evolutionary explanations just based on where those human populations lived in the world and uh yeah i'm not sure i understand the question for the matter me neither i'm glad i'm not the only one but this one coming in from raw nakedness says you bacterial flagellum evolved from a secretion system there are dozens of basal bodies on several species where that's all they do is secrete protein he's uninformed because uh secular modern secular biologists have acknowledged and they've published that it's the other it seems to be the other way around uh the uh instead of the flagellum uh evolving from the secretary the type three secretary system it looks like the secretary system evolved from the flagellum uh because of the molecular arrangement of it so that kind of kills that idea this one from jupiter darman thanks so much has no question at this time just showing some love for one of my favorite youtube channels of all time and enjoying dr wilson's presentation so thank you for that and raw nakedness strikes again says hiv one evolved a viroperon which is a port in the membrane by your own admission anatomical features have evolved under our own eyes neflam free it didn't evolve one it modified in the existing one that's not evolution and it doesn't relate to the complexity of multi-sailure organisms or explain how we should believe that mutations in natural selection are able to create anatomical features in the big things no scientist is ever put forth scientific evidence for that juicy this one coming in from appreciate your question we don't have we do have some for dr wilson church of entropy asked dr wilson how does evolution via mutation predict punctuated equilibrium yeah so that's the interesting thing about that is uh one of the papers i showed uh demonstrated that uh random genetic material can adopt new functions so if mutation is always happening in the background you're getting a wide variety of mutations accumulated in your genome that don't yet serve a function because as we know most mutations are neutral uh but in terms in a situation of punctuated equilibrium where there's a lot of selection pressure that diversity of mutations within a population can give rise to new traits that can give some organisms in that selection selective environment an advantage and so that's how random mutation can contribute to punctuated equilibrium do i get your response we've got a thousand questions for you neph so no the next up the craw daddy zero two nine says nephilim free it's not information it's not programs we make comparisons like we compare the eye to a camera and b in addition to that we are not at the pinnacle of science hmm well i say the neutral theory was refuted in 1950s by kumura and others but if you want to believe the mutations created microphones in Beethoven from rock soup you're welcome to raw and echinus strikes again saying that's not true nephilim free the relationship between natural selection and kinetic chemistry is being elucidated so prebiotic natural selection is a thing no scientist uh who is a researcher in uh the origin of life has acknowledged that we have a mechanism for the formation of a cell they have all acknowledged that it seems well beyond their grasp and the answers are completely unknown this person is either diluted or completely uninformed nephilim free this is your own daughter raw nakedness you're talking about how dare you oh wait no the last one was the craw daddy your own son the craw daddy strikes again he says neph spanish is derived from latin do you think a latin speaking mother gave birth to a spanish speaking child if not welcome to evolution i i think uh uh spantonians it came to the earth 30 billion years ago and created flutonicus and flutonicus has evolved into modern spenet spenetard which which now spanish they let's see frankly i don't dr wilson are you able to uh explain what they're trying to get at with this question because i'm frankly i'm like i don't understand the analogy did you repeat it again they said neph spanish is derived from latin do you think a latin speaking mother gave birth to a spanish speaking child if not welcome to the evolutionary camp oh i think this is just supposed to illustrate gradual change over time like latin and spanish are two pretty different languages and that change didn't happen i would say the evolution of language doesn't demonstrate the evolution of biology it's an analogous absurd analogy next up the karate 2029 can't stop can't get enough says i don't know that was his last one next up is shogun lobsters his creationists such as nephilim free are often critical of evolution and demand great evidence that they're so quick to dismiss yet we're supposed to take god's magic on faith alone nephilim free isn't this hypocritical no of course not um because it's not like a creationists don't provide scientific evidence it's not uh faith as they would just define faith it's uh it's scientific evidence this is an absurd um sort of uh cherry picking game to play you know to say that we don't we don't ever get scientific evidence for creationists we just have to believe what they say well if if you're just gonna not believe anything without investigating you know you're welcome to your delusions and in in ignorance nephilim free this one comes in from ferran salas who says quote intelligent unquote design so quote unquote designed it gave us a laryngeal nerve that detours an extreme length in humans and giraffes an intelligent creator i think not nephilim free nobody has demonstrated that the development of a laryngeal nerve is possible in any evolutionary process as well it's possible that the organism adapting uh is physiology in the length of its neck and the possible reduction of it could explain the change and its length of its of its nerve but that doesn't demonstrate evolution evolution requires us to believe that the feature itself came into being by evolution nobody has any scientific evidence that that's even possible for any feature of any living thing so pointing to a change in an examinal feature which could only have been produced by intelligent design and then claiming that this is the reason to believe in evolution is an example of severe evolution you got it and andrew coming thanks for your question for dr wilson says what do you think is the relative importance of hetero chronic parentheses time change and hetero topic in parentheses location change regarding changes in evolution time change and location change um i'm sorry i i honestly don't understand the question well enough to answer um well that makes two of my bad i'm a molecular biologist not a strict evolutionary biologist so i don't know all of the terms you might ask me about sorry no problemo n o xd thanks for your question says good job guys and remember the banana is the atheist nightmare and it fits perfectly in your hand perfectly in your mouth explain that dr wilson i think probably know who they're referring to oh yeah yeah the the story about the banana fitting perfectly in your hand i think that was great comfort um little did he know that human selected for the banana to kind of do just that juicy this one coming in from brandon ardaline says if romans 120 is true then why are we still having these debates is an infinite god not capable of giving us infinite reasons to accept creationism nephilim free if god created evolution we wouldn't exist because that's impossible since dna is information which is complexly overlapping neph nested information that operates linguistically with semiotics linguistics algorithms and it's functional and interdependent um that that can't be produced by natural chemistry natural chemistry causes things to decay and and bump around but it doesn't build fantastically complex functional useful things and necessary things that's what chemistry doesn't do no chemist in the world has ever reported or known of chemistry that produces complex functional necessary things by natural chemistry it only produces decay according to the second law of thermodynamics you got it and thank you very much for this question coming in from fenwick wool fox says shepiro actually said that self-sustaining autocatalytic chemo synthetic systems associated with amino acids predated rna not that it's impossible he said that that's his belief system but what the shaperos also said is that no chemical pathway towards any biological dna or complex system in a cell has been observed or is known by chemists so uh his belief system is what the uh questioner is asking uh shaperos says this is what he believes but what shaperos writes in his papers is also that he knows of no potential mechanism in chemistry and biology for the formation of these things and this is a survey and he admits that this is a severe problem for the evolution theory gotcha and thank you very much for this question coming in from snake was right good to see you old buddy a long time debate around here says naff modification of existing structures is evolution modification with descent modification things don't evolve from nothing can you admit this well if things didn't evolve from nothing then everything would be a bacteria this is how obviously and simply my that that questioner has failed i don't need to address it anymore address it anymore i can speak for an hour about that but the simple responses then there could be no evolution end of story gotcha and dr wilson got a question for you thanks so much for this one coming in from end time teacher says four dr wilson at what point did creatures evolve from fish into large whales and other others evolved into insects without bone structures how can creatures go from bone to having no bone well insects have an exoskeleton and creatures like whales have a inside skeleton um and when did fish evolve to whales well it was a journey from the ocean to land and then land creatures went back into the ocean and there are transitional fossils for those stages of evolution that have been found um that process took place over millions hundreds of millions of years gotcha and this one thank you very much for your question from shogun lobster says nephem free just because you question evolution doesn't automatically make id correct we don't have evidence for your watchmaker outside of wild bible interpretations where is your hard evidence for id the very existence of the dna molecule which is complexly organized information which is strand hopping forward and reverse reading or highly compressed overlapping and nested information which operates linguistically possessing semiotics algorithms linguistics phonetics semantics punctuation syntax grammar and apropetics you got it juicy and this one thanks so much for your question fox says question for nephem free if there's time hypothetically what would be evidence that you would see a supporting evolution what would you have to see to be convinced the question is like asking what would i have to believe that to believe that robotic space monkeys of a purple sort have invaded the earth and we're all just in a delusion that they don't even exist but they're here every day on the streets that that's about how absurd i would have to believe you know what the absurdity i would have to believe to believe evolution gotcha and looking for any last questions want to say folks we really do appreciate our guests they are linked in the description so if you want to hear more from dr wilson or from nephem free you can and that includes if you're listening to the modern day debate podcast version of this debate as we put our guest links in there as well and so folks one last thing see this debate on the bottom right of your screen folks it is going to be epic you don't want to miss it the day has finally come tomorrow matt delahunty returns to modern day debate taking on christian apologist and scholar dr kenny roads and whether or not there is good evidence for god you guys i am stoked for it it's going to be phenomenal so you don't want to miss it folks seriously i think it's just going to be ginormous and we are excited that this crowdfund sponsored event it's the live showing is free to the public so in other words like even if you hadn't put into the crowdfund this one is actually going to be completely live and then it'll be of course on the channel afterwards as well so i will be right back with some announcements of other upcoming debates as we've got a lot of juicy ones coming up but want to give a final thank you to dr wilson and nephem free it has been a true pleasure to have you guys tonight thanks a lot james it's awesome my pleasure and actually there are just two last really quick questions a bubblegum gun just fired this in said they're simply even hasn't been enough time for the evolutionary model to even work dr wilson and random mutations are literally entropy you will not get humans like that give you a chance to respond so they can make comments as well as questions so yeah so i mean evolution happens on multiple timescales we can see mechanisms of it happening today right now and we can see evidence of the long-term timescales that were necessary for larger changes in things like the fossil record um what was the second part of that question they said that right now entropy or entropy you won't get humans like that right no it's not just mutation it's mutation and natural selection and it's i think this entropy point is alluding to the second law thermodynamics and that doesn't really apply here because second law thermodynamics refers to a closed system and the earth is not a closed system we receive energy from the sun so we can take that energy in to build complex things rather than just sit and break down is there any part of the earth that doesn't decay because of the sun i give you a chance to answer that dr wilson if you want otherwise i've got one question for you enough is there any part of the earth that sorry doesn't decay or does decay what what did you ask yeah is there any part of the earth that doesn't decay especially because of the sun i mean the i think your question i think your question is missing the point right no right we must move to the next one this one from your daughter raw nakedness says does nephilim deny the existence of virates it's spelled v i r e t e s i i deny that which they say which are capable of lateral gene transfer i deny that lateral trains uh gene transfer uh is able to uh produce the information necessary to create the anatomical features the evolution requires gotcha anyone who believes that is believing in a myth they're not blaming science juicy and we do have a thumbs up a uh you could say message of gratefulness as we do appreciate that thanks so much for your positivity this one coming in from heat shield appreciate the positive vibes and the energy you bring here my friend says a totally neutral thank you from me to both guests for this tonight and they said since i've never met dr wilson before a little extra handshake to welcome him to the party so again thank you dr wilson and nephilim free we'll be right back folks but again our guests are linked to the description we really do appreciate them and we'll be back in just a moment so stick around then you guys really fun stuff it's like 98 degrees in here so i've got to take the blazer off immediately holy smokes oh i am so hot i feel like i'm like sweating like club when he puts on like high heels and a bikini while he's alone i love club you're my boy i'm you know teasing is my love language so if i ever give you crap in the chat please know it's out of love so it is purely out of love even if i accuse you of cross dressing which nowadays it's like i guess i'm the bad guy if i tease you about cross dressing not to make fun of anybody but so you could even think about it this way let's be fair if someone likes cross dressing then i wouldn't tease them about it because they like they like it and they wouldn't be bothered by it but if someone doesn't like it then i think it's perfectly acceptable to tease them but anyway club and the rest of the chat want to say thanks for coming by henry hansen thanks for dropping in as well as amy newman and and haxt as well as youtube surgeon general and pancake of destiny and fox populi plus pigs can fly thanks for dropping in and andrew coming good to see you in heat shield thanks for your positivity david albert we're glad you are here as well as mountain ours thanks for dropping in and thanks for your super chat from joel fry we appreciate that joel and marshall sharp thanks for dropping in and raw nakedness thanks for your super chat but i just can't do that it would be so vain to be like oh yeah let me show you my muscles uh it reminds me of if you've ever seen 51st dates where shawn astin plays uh oh what was her name drew barry moore he plays drew barry moore's character's brother oh gosh it's gonna kill me i'm gonna think about it don't spoil it for me in the chat i know you're gonna put it but we are pumped to have you here and gainomatic thanks for dropping in as well as riley s and then heat shield again thanks for your positivity chris oh thanks for dropping in and truth seeker good to see you as well as athias junior glad you stopped by riley s good to see you and you guys this debate is happening tomorrow and pumped you guys it is been such a long wait i don't know if you've seen it but i'm gonna post it in the chat this debate already has 73 likes the last time i i checked people are pumped for it it's going to be epic and so i'm gonna drop that in chat folks this one normally for a crowd fund and frankly i think next time when we do another crowd fund we'll probably have it so that it'll be like you have to throw in a few bucks like pay per view but this one was a special one where we were like hey everybody can watch it live even now normally we would say like hey if you want to watch it live if you can throw in a few bucks to the crowd fund and then you know you get to watch it live but if you don't throw into the crowd fund you'd still get to see it but it would be like a couple days later but this one folks we are especially excited about it oh my gosh oh it's going to be awesome tomorrow's i'm putting this in the chat tomorrow's epic debate and i'm linking this in our chat so that you guys can see it and i'm putting it in the twitch chat too so sorry twitch friends that i'm always behind on that was it lucy trying to remember not lucy trying to remember adam sandler saying her name when he walks but anyway her brother when he's like he's like oh yeah i can't let's change he's like flexing in the mirror and he's like oh hey sally yeah let's let's change since high school and that's basically what i would be if i did that so tony d were pumped to you here henry hanson things were dropping in and then blade of zoro pumped you dropped in as well as church of entropy says what's the channel of the post show i think david p neff is hosting one and the crawdaddy zero two nine thanks for dropping in as well as thomas mcarthur thanks for coming by and chris as well as isek cabrera thanks for dropping in and then ken and me thanks for your questions sorry i didn't get to that on time you might be earlier in the stream let me see who if you guys named the character of drew barry moore's character uh let's see redefine living i do love you even though i gave you crap tonight and xm music i was pretty i gave you a lot of crap but we are glad you're here xm music thanks for dropping in sometimes i am going to tell you now not in particular you well maybe in particular you but sometimes i will tell you what you're a whiner that believe me i hold no grudges so if i ever tell you a whiner it's not like a like i'm gonna like like block you or something like it's it's not like you should be worried uh it's just that sometimes i'm like i'm not convinced that let's say for example that one side is interrupting too much or something like that or that's and i i am really big on i want to defend the moderators both the moderators in the chat as well as the moderators that are guest mods so like cas converse carissa we're really thankful for them they rock and that's why i always want to stick with them because sometimes when people and this is a really small percent because 99 percent of you are really positive and awesome and i appreciate it so much for real because the internet i don't know if you've seen twitter not that positive but the thing is sometimes like this triggers me and that's why you maybe saw me triggered in the chat tonight is that someone said something that was allegedly uh it was like allegedly racist and i was like that is obviously not what we want to the channel we've always had the same rule that that's you know just banned immediately so the point is when someone's like the moderators aren't banning them and it's like listen if the moderators banned them a few seconds later than you would have because maybe they're looking in that well for one thing sometimes they don't always see every single chat too they might see it and they might be like well is like is it racist like if somebody says like white people oh man white people love their hot dogs and then mexicans love their tacos like it's like it's like well it's kind of a gray area are you really gonna be like oh you just said white people love hot dogs lock them up i'm like uh like that's an example where it's like a little bit more gray like food stereotypes is like uh like so if the moderator is kind of like looking at it mulling it over like believe me the moderators work really hard they do a fantastic job and so that's why sometimes they get a little irritated when people are like moderators are doing their job and i'm like the moderators do a great job i'm like the one percent of people who complain about them i'm like oh my gosh like seriously but anyway true wrecks so we're all on the same we're all on the same we're all on the same boat here we're all on the same side we are all against anything that resembles hate speech and we are also against people harassing the speakers so we are united in that believe me folks nomad teacher thanks for coming by as well as mark reid good to see you and craw daddy says i think i got something for you i never heard the term anti natalism until you asked me but i never assumed i was the only one i i never assumed i was the only one i've been not in a week of listening to anti natalist arguments hey we love to host the topic depends on the speaker and a lot of other factors uh but i'm open to it and we'll kind of go from there but true wrecks good to see you says stream liked thanks for liking this stream and let's see says jx music says if you're planning on doing your dissertation on these debates you already influenced the outcome so it will be bogus sometimes what's referred to as non-independence i would not i'm not doing my thesis or a dissertation on these debates but in hacks good to see you as well as joel fry and slam our end good to see you thanks for dropping in thanks for dropping in and let's see thanks for your super chat endo xd says thanks for hosting these fun debates james i always have a good time see you tomorrow along with 7 000 other people hopefully peace thank you window xd for your support seriously that means a lot and it's fun i love doing what i do seriously this is a blast it is a great time for me like i i just love this and so i am pumped to see modern day debate you guys have just done a fin like seriously you've made it awesome it is really fun and so i am just pumped about the future and yeah what can i say i'm i'm thrilled tomorrow is i think going to be absolutely epic i will tell you guys it's crazy how hungry i am but anyway lost musician good to see you and let's see here king 101 good to see you as well as dirty cats on the counter glad you came by best in show thanks for dropping in and not a pollution says thank you for moderating and thank you nef and dr wilson so thankful for your positivity that means so much seriously really do appreciate it and raw nakedness i am not your performing monkey how many times so sexual analysis majority consensus flex that's funny seriously i am basically if i if i flexed jesse would say i'm a beta male because you know it was like if someone like tried to flex like you know sean astin's character in 51st dates if they were trying to like flex to impress as a beta move beta male but margaret good to see you says this debate is going to be amazing it really will be and ferran sallis says beta thank you ferran i'm glad you made it and free naturalists says thank you thanks for your debate videos love them thank you so much free naturalists and all credit to the speakers by the way dr wilson and nef are still linked in the description and we can't thank them enough seriously super thankful for them they make the debaters are the lifeblood of the channel they make this awesome if it was just me debating myself every night oh terrible channel you guys would be so bad and let's see youtube search general says yep the people that's funny you're a character but let's see norman bait's good to see you and that's funny no only fans believe me and brandon early next says acknowledge me senpai thanks for coming by and amanda says it's lucy whitmore oh okay i thought it was lucy thanks for saying that and medic pandas says don't take this as me wanting you to be meaner in the chat but i kind of love it when you get salty with someone i think it's because when you get angry at someone they usually deserve it i mean well one thing is if someone says something in a reasonable way like someone put it so politely in chat today and you don't even have to use please i think they just put like hey modern a debate it might be the case that you know someone might be over talking a little bit that to me i listen to and i'm like okay let me seriously consider this but when someone like tries to tell me what to do like james jump into the debate and and confront so and so and i'm like okay well first of all the other debaters should be doing that like a moderator for me it's about making it fair like not teaming up on who you don't like and so when people one i just even if they ask politely like james will you confront will you please confront someone i'd still find it cringe because i'm like it's a neutral platform what don't you get about that the other thing though is when people just like i said today when someone was like mods do your jobs in all caps and you know you imagine if you saw them in real life they'd have like white foam coming out of their mouth and they'd be like so that is where i'm like okay stop but general balls i could just use this thanks for the support james and all those in chat that understand our efforts yeah i i totally appreciate you you mods rock and the craw daddy zero two nine says he loves wiener schnitzel i'm so glad for you friend and sage ohio good to see you and then that's funny brandon early and says get a mannequin put a face on it and then uh you can you can destroy it and that would be fun a suplex and then eric craw daddy says i'll be the top choice on facebook i don't mess it i i try to not message on facebook i i try to avoid facebook all together believe me it's not as bad as twitter twitter oh my gosh twitter is like you guys you don't need me to tell you this do you like twitter is the most unhappy angry grieved and by grieved i don't mean like grieving in the sense of having lost a loved one that would be like a normal and healthy and reasonable and uh maybe even like uh yeah so it's a very natural thing what i mean by grieved is purposely contriving grievances the people are like oh i've been so wronged by this or oh this huge corporation has done so much wrong against you know x y and z and sometimes it's true i'll admit that like i'm not saying by the way i'll tell you an interesting stat so i am in work psychology you could say that's my field there is actually research that it's not a huge difference it's probably not as big as you think so it actually might in a way go against your beliefs there is a small correlation such that government offices and CEOs of like big businesses they are you could say within those positions people with more antisocial tendencies are disproportionately represented now there's two ways you can look at that because that's just a correlation by itself like you can't this isn't an expir this is an experimental experimental type of data one is you might think well maybe it's that antisocial people seek out positions of power which is probably the case and the other in fact there's actually evidence that antisocial people tend to be more you could say kind of philistine or materialistic so they they definitely do want kind of like power and you could say the more based or primal desires the other thing though is like well there is evidence that in power positions that there is evidence that power corrupts like we do see like people in significant leadership positions even in experimental data we see that people will be more likely to start acting on ethically for real there's like data to back that up so and I'm like really I wouldn't say that unless I for sure remember it so and when I say data I mean like peer review journal articles so that's basically the only thing I'm gonna in this case site so it's like well it could be both it's probably bi-directional in terms of the way in which it works such that both it's almost like this model there's a model in organizations and it's let me remember what it's called attraction selection I think it's asa it's this idea of attraction selection attrition but in in this case it's not quite so basically just the attraction part fits namely that people who are high in antisocial tendencies tend to be more attracted to those power positions and then bi-directional in the sense that once they get in there they become even more rotten but anyway thanks for letting me nerd out tell you another interesting stat and this is something that's been replicated over and over despite the interesting the interesting stereotype because you see like let's say Bundy or other serial killers who were really intelligent and those are always the interesting stories right you might think that people who are higher in antisocial tendencies or who are maybe even have like let's say antisocial personality disorder you might think well like oh I bet they're probably like either average intelligence or maybe even a bit more intelligent and maybe just because you know in movies too you know so movies because a dumb serial killer isn't that scary it's not a threat so movies not surprisingly they use Hannibal Lecter he's like this professor who was like and not just a professor because frankly not every professor's you know smart but the idea is he's a professor and he's brilliant in the movie so he's like prolific he's published like all these master pieces and and he's also I mean you can tell even without that you could tell that he's brilliant because of just how clever he is in the movie he knows what he's doing he's very competent but that's scary but a serial killer who's stupid isn't as scary because well geez I mean they really can't pull off the deed if they're stupid but the research shows that people who are higher in antisocial personality or also just antisocial tendencies they don't necessarily have to add the personality disorder tend to actually be less cognitively gifted in other words that they tend to be dumber it's a small correlation but it's a real correlation and it's consistent but anyway pretty juicy and fun stuff I if you guys like forensic psychology I could share like some juicy little interesting things like that but let's see if jesse wouldn't like it that's right thank you for saying that in haxt and then I'm catching up with chat it moves it moves fast let's see thanks for your kind words about the channel Chris oh and Hannah Anderson good to see you Bruce Wayne good to see you cd glad you made it and oh I've got to catch up crawdy at ease 029 you can email me or you can just message me here I'm open to being if you have a question it's good to ask ask me here for real and the chat is actually the best and most direct way to get an answer from me because I'm really behind on email right now and I'm sorry about that but it's just been nuts here mark great says you're an excellent monitor thank you for your kind words mark seriously that means a lot and I'm encouraged by it let's see Resort of course isn't that CEOs and such have f you money so they don't have so much sensitivity as a result I don't know what the reason is the one study like the research that I remember I don't know the author's names but basically the authors the experiment was it wasn't because of wealth you know it could be like that's one way in which you'd like have power right but I think it was more just that they had like more decision power as leaders in the group but hey maybe um that could be and then cry daddy I do not run the discord and I'm never in there and I I'm sorry it's not that I don't like it I do like it it's just that I'm really um I'm a boomer I don't know how to do it but catching up a chat uh let's see manic pandas thanks for your support wick look wick liovan thanks for your support and then amazing chris gammon good to see you man thanks for dropping in and then interest species I have asked that person if if uh if I could give their email away because it's like I knew it was there like work email and he said um he's like I don't really know if I want that email to be given out but here's interest species what I can do for you basically if you give me your email via twitter I can say hey this person said she's like uh would like to debate you and then you know maybe he'll get back to you so I hope that works as best that I can do I asked and so yeah yeah we're pumped slam our end good to see you as always and raw nakedness chatting it up glad you guys are getting along and then best in shows is james how about a third debate of darth docans versus t jump I would love it seriously I think darth wouldn't do it he doesn't want to do it um because he doesn't want to do it if I'm the moderator but maybe if converse is then Thomas McArthur thanks for coming by says hi James from Scotland I am on my night shift again man we're glad you're here Thomas that's cool man I'm glad you're working hard over there and I'm glad that this channel is available to you while you're working man I hope I hope it's entertaining and fun and spices things up for you man and yeah we are pumped though Cheryl good to see you as well and Christopher Hatch and then cd is like putting these weird squirt uh isn't that one of those words that people don't like squirt or uh kind of like moist people get all triggered by it uh it's funny that that's like a thing that is like people have a real thing with that like it's it's something that if you just said it to like people in Texas who had never been on the internet um that's I just did to my classmates once and they'd probably been on the internet before that they for sure had but the idea is it's like it can't be the case that people have just heard that they're like kind of like oh okay they're copycats right you know like well maybe they just heard that there's that some people are grossed out by the word moist so they're like well I'm gonna pretend I'm also grossed out by it in order to control people and that's my theory so pretty cynical but let's see I am excited though Shasta X good to see you again so let me tell you about this folks I am pumped that tomorrow tomorrow's epic debate leave a like there too okay I just put the link for tomorrow's epic debate if you have not hit that like button both here as well as that tomorrow's debate or you could say discussion be sure to as that helps the stream we're excited for that and I'm pumped you guys tomorrow is seriously going to be off the hook so if you haven't already liked that believe me you'll want to it's going to be amazing and we're pumped about it and then oh that's right I've got to I got to take the word rain checked out of them that um because it's not rain check baby it's happening 618 is there good evidence for god and then 619 that's what I put okay well fair enough all right oh here we go all right but yeah you guys pumped so I want to say thank you everybody for all your support I'm excited I'm trying to think of something cool we can do for the modern a debate big change coming up up we are approaching 50 000 subs so we've got to do something cool so I'm thinking about like what what cool things could we do this might be the first time we use the hot tub and what is it the hot tub and bath stream category on twitch you for real you don't want to miss it it's going to be epic so I'm really pumped about that and then Thomas mick arthur says thanks for the shout out again last week uh like last week it was always a great show my pleasure Thomas and we're always glad to have you here thanks for coming back I'm excited about it you guys as uh it's fun it's cool to have people here from different walks of life different places on the planet literally it's funny that that's something that you maybe would have said like in a sci-fi movie or like star wars you would have heard they'd be like yeah people communicating like simultaneously from different parts of the planet and that's where we're at folks that's how cool it is Dave Hill says I think they're mostly making a big fuss over nothing I agree Dave we should just say moist moist moist moist moist and they're gonna have to get used to it interspecies says oh also if I did manage to find someone to do 2v2 would you be able to get that person on the opposite team yeah I can find you two non-vegans um there are only some people that I'm gonna go with though like as your partner interspecies to be honest like um here are people that I would be more like open to one you boy Isaac I'm open to him two vegan gains three cosmic skeptic I'm open to others so like Dr. Avi uh Avi I'd be open to him but those are like some of the examples just so it's like if if it was somebody like please just don't don't pull somebody off the street and it's like you found some guy who's like never debated before you're like hey you want to come on here with me and he's like sure and then it's like gosh like believe me the audience can tell they're good at that believe me I pulled plenty of guys off the street and you know seeing that the audience knows better so but germs good to see you says tomorrow will be moist it's it's going to be moist and juicy there's no doubt about it but let's see that's what of course is okay nasty guy reservoir you gotta stop being nasty and then Colorado biker is good to see a Colorado biker I just moved and I was moving those towers you gave me if you ever need them for real let me know I can totally uh drop them off down there in Denver I I do intend I like to use them um I would like to use at least one of them but I've just been sold behind and and it's um it's hard but slammer ends is a few more likes anyone slam is right it's a great idea to hit that like thanks for your kind words Andrew seriously we totally appreciate you means a lot and then Chris go thanks for coming by is this hot tub is lame now it's all about wearing a chicken Mac and pecking the mic like Amarot that sounds pretty hot HAWT I mean put that in chat Brandon Arlene says James I pulled plenty of guys off the street coons I think you're trying to make it sound like something totally different nasty guy but let's see and then reservoir says 50 subs can we get to the bottom half of the James and his cam instead nasty guy reservoir you're going to jail man Chris go good to see you and then interspecies says all right no problem but you've thwarted my plans of finding a random vegan in the soy milk section at Walmart to debate with that's where you'd find them I like it but yeah so thank you guys for all of your support seriously I love you guys it's already 9 30 here so it must be probably later where you are unless you're in California but yeah you guys I am pumped tomorrow's going to be epic so if you haven't you can set a reminder on the debate so you click on it and you click set reminder and then it'll like give you it'll be for sure giving you a reminder that way you're like oh yeah that's right that the huge Matt Delanti versus Dr Kenny Rhodes debate is happening today on whether or not there's good evidence for God it's going to be cool we are pumped about the podcast folks did you know that every debate that we have here on modern day debate ends up on our podcast called modern day debate it does and we're excited that it's growing you guys it's honestly it's just encouraging like the average downloads are growing all the time and I'm like that's so cool that people are finding this useful because you know when it's like ah I was like I should I keep putting them you know should I keep uploading them because the first ones you got like 75 or I don't know probably less than that like six downloads and now though I'm so excited though that it's like I think the average is like I don't know 1400 something so that's encouraging did you not know folks that we have a podcast if you're one of the people listening here we're pumped about that and Colorado Bikers if you want to donate those towards towards someone that needs them please do so give them a charity or something got five more from Equipment Decommissions thanks for letting me know that I will keep an eye out for that I have a tanner a friend named Tanner who might be able to use them for real and then slammer and says yep it's late good night and thanks thank you so much slam and good night as well and then let's see Thomas McArthur says 430 here James in Scotland I go home in one hour wow you're a hard worker they truly the graveyard shift it that's right I forgot because I was when you said it earlier I was like oh yeah it must be like 11 or 12 and it's like no dummy if he's in Scotland that's right you've got to be like 430 in the morning wow well you've hung in there way to go man so thank you guys thanks everybody we hope you guys have a rest a great rest of your night that you have an enjoyable rest of your night relaxing that you get rested up for tomorrow's big event thanks everybody and keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable take care and we're pumped to see you next time amazing