 Hey everybody, today we are debating biblical kinds, speciation, and limited ancestry, and we are starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for another epic debate, as we are very excited to have this interesting scientific origins debate, the kind of classic, broadly speaking creation versus evolution, but want to let you know we are thrilled to have you here folks. If it's your first time here, consider hitting that subscribe button as we've got a lot more debates coming up. So for example, tomorrow we have, does physics point to theism or atheism? That should be a fun one. And then next week, Bernie or Biden, that will be another fun one, more in the political arena. So I want to say though, today's format is going to be pretty simple. What we're going to have is roughly 12 minute opening statements from each side. And remember, this is a lion's den debate, which we haven't done for a while. It's basically two on one. However, the advantage is more in that you have, you could say like more minds at work being able to represent one side, but they nonetheless get equal time. So in other words, we're going to try to keep it such that Adam, who's representing evolution will be getting about the same amount of time in presenting today or talking today as standing for truth and raw Matt. So in other words, standing for truth and raw Matt will be splitting time, roughly speaking. And with that, do want to let you know for the Q and a, if you happen to have a question, feel free to fire it into the old live chat and then I will try to pull out each question. And if you tag me with at modern day debate, it makes a little bit easier for me to make sure I don't miss any questions. Following that also super chats are an option for the Q and a as well. So for example, if you want to make a comment towards one of the debaters such as insulting standing for truth, fair game, all you have to do is do the old super chat and they would of course get a chance to respond. Someone also mentioned though, if you have a super chat, you will also have your question pushed to the top of the list for the Q and a we just ask, of course, though, that you actually be your kind, friendly selves for that. And whether it be a question or comment. So with that, we are going to have standing for truth and raw Matt will be going first. And so want to say thanks before we get started, though, thanks gentlemen for being here. It's a pleasure to have all of you standing for truth, Adam and raw Matt. My pleasure. My pleasure, James. I love this channel and I enjoyed discussions and debates and Adam's a really cool guy. So we've had discussions before I've had Adam on my channel. He's debated. I can't hold in a couple of times. So I'm really excited for this. Thanks for doing it. Adam. Small pleasure. Right. Cool. All right. So we will get the ball rolling with standing for truth and raw Matt. Thanks so much for being here. The floor is all yours and I've got the 12 minute timer set for you. Awesome. Okay. I'll kick it off. I got my timer set as well. 12 minutes. Here we go. So let's begin guys by asking ourselves this very, very important question. Would God have created Adam with two identical versions of DNA and Eve the same way? If this was the way God chose to do things, Adam and Eve would have created clones and this makes no sense. God said, be fruitful and multiply not be fruitful and clone yourselves. What makes the most sense both scientifically and theologically is that God created differences from the start. This is the created heterozygosity hypothesis. Adam and Eve would have had within their DNA the genetic potential to produce every shade of skin that exists on this planet or known to man. This means that another question we should ask and this is a question I will ask Adam. Where does genetic diversity come from? As with the evolutionists, I debate fail to realize and even acknowledge is the major difference between my view and their view. This understanding is important just so we don't talk past each other. I explain the vast majority of nuclear DNA differences, not by mutation, which is how Adam here will explain them, but by pre-existing or created diversity. This one genetic difference has massive implications for the timing as to the origin of species. If you're trying to explain the origin of species just by mutations, then the evolutionists and Adam here would be right and you would need millions of years for all these differences to accumulate. If the differences are there from the start, though, the simple operation of recombination and gene conversion and other such processes can produce visible variety in a single generation. After understanding the differences in explaining genetic diversity, between evolution and creation, we should also be asking the very important question, what directly records a species ancestry? As Dr. Nathaniel Jensen points out, the answer is DNA. Sperm and egg don't pass on a fossil or a bone. They don't pass on geography or rock. They pass on genetics and traits. And so if we want to find out the history of humanity and the origin of species, this is where we must look. We have clocks in our DNA, for example, that go back just 6,000 years to Adam and Eve. The creationists are winning the debate and we are winning the debate utilizing genetics. The entire junk DNA paradigm has been overturned. Orphan genes show limited ancestry. I would love to start the discussion by asking Adam here how he explains this incredible class of taxonomically restricted and essential genes. The chromosome 2 fusion has been overturned. The alleged site where the fusion supposedly took place actually represents a highly organized and functional gene. Endogenous retroviruses, ALUs, and other classes of retro transposons, and even pseudo genes are consistent. With this model of created heterozygosity, since we now know they represent functional DNA elements, not mistakes, not the remnants of ancient viral infections, but functional DNA elements. How does Adam explain the incredible dissimilarity between chimp and human-wide chromosome? I'd love to get into that topic. How does Adam explain just some of the hat-map data that tells us the human genome is young and shared blocks of DNA are large? This means the genome is young and there has not been enough time to scramble them to randomness. How does Adam explain all this? These are all questions often ignored in my debates, more answered but answered incorrectly with rescue devices. Evolutionists invented the out-of-Africa population bottleneck that reduced the population of that time to just 10,000, some even say 2,000, in order to explain low human genetic diversity, the low genetic diversity, the mitochondrial DNA, and the wide chromosome DNA variation all demonstrate irrefutably that we came from not just a small population, but a population of just two. Adam and Eve, I can go on and on and on. I mean, what type of selection can Adam present us? For example, that will select away so many deleterious mutations that are pouring into our genetics and degenerating our information systems. Most mutations are unselectable and invisible to selection and artificially contrived rescue mechanisms such as synergistic epistasis, mutation count mechanism, they've been falsified. Can Adam answer any of these questions? I much prefer discussion. So in the discussion portion, Rahmata and myself are happy to go over DNA barcoding and how this proves, without a shadow of a doubt, limited ancestry and biblical kinds. We're going to talk a lot about biblical kinds. So I'm looking forward to that. The evidence, though, that evolutionists typically use are no help to universal ancestry, since both models can account for the data. The origin of species and the topic of ancestry is a question as to the origin of traits. And the origin of traits are encoded by genetics. Classic textbook examples of universal ancestry include homology, the shared structures seen in the biological world, shared four limb structure, for example. But what we know, we know human engineers design in homologous patterns, vehicles from Asia, North America and Germany all build cars with headlights in the front, four tires, doors on the side. Across the globe, we see shared designs and even shared blueprints. What about the so-called existence of transitional forms that I almost guarantee Adam's going to point to in his opening? Well, that is those animals that seem to blend the features of two very different species. Think of a military vehicle that blends the features of both a land vehicle and a vehicle built for the ocean, for example, an amphibious assault vehicle. This would be the perfect example of a transitional form according to Adam here. When in fact, we know this is not the case. This amphibious assault vehicle was built and designed this way. What about the groups within groups patterns evolution has pointed to as evidence for dissent with modification? Nested hierarchies in DNA anatomy and physiology are also predicted by creations based on the design model. The classification of life can be compared to the classification of modes of transportation and how different companies manufacture cars based on their similarities forming hierarchies, which is exactly what the evolutionists will point to in the biological realm. Evolutionists will point to the groups within groups patterns as irrefutable proof that Matt and myself will not be able to point to a line drawn in phylogeny, but we're more than happy to do that in the discussion. The most important thing to take from that is that these groups within groups, nests and hierarchical patterns in the classification that emerges is hallmark of design. We can see that in designed modes of transportation and these patterns are simply reflective of God's hierarchical nature. God created life in hierarchical patterns in the same way we design things with these types of patterns, modes of transportation, for example. So I'm looking forward to discussing differentiating evidence with Adam regarding universal ancestry and limited ancestry. Brother Matt, you can take it away. We've got four, just over four minutes. All right, sounds good. Okay, I'm gonna, because of your name, Adam, I'm gonna go with skin color. I think skin color proves that the biblical creation model while invalidating the out of Africa theory, because I don't think anybody would disagree that black skinned people having an African origin. Well, if that's true, and that's the El Haplo group root, where all humans came from, then that would mean that the entire world today would only have black skinned people in it. I'll explain. Basically, you see that skin contains melanin, which is governed by either dominant or recessive alleles and genes. Now, if you carry a mix of both dominant and recessive genes like brown skinned people do, then you contain the ability to produce all of the skin colors we see on earth today. But if you only carry capital letters that code for black skin, then you can only ever create more dark skinned people just like pale skinned people only carry lower or recessive variants. So they can only ever create more pale people. So now you can see that the problem with the out of Africa theory, the biblical model states that Noah, who was a Middle Easterner, landed on Mount Ararat in the Middle East. Well, what color are Middle Easterners? Well, they're brown. It's the only skin color that can code for all of the skin colors we see on earth today. Thus, by invalidating the evolutionary out of Africa theory, it proves the biblical account. Did you know, Adam, the name means red skin like Native Americans, which is brown, that's what Adam was. And think about it, Neanderthal DNA isn't even in Africans. That also destroys Africans as being the first humans because Neanderthals are considered in the evolutionary model to have evolved into modern day humans. So that also invalidates it. But there's more. They've also validated the dispersion of humans coming from a small group of people. Matter of fact, secular scientists themselves have determined how long ago humanity could have started from just two people and to make the current 8 billion on earth today. They discovered that every race of people could have started in 1180 AD. That's even, that's profound. That's not even what our model says. Ours even goes back further. So if the secular science agrees that our model easily accounts for the 8 billion people today, then that's just even more evidence for us. And how fast humanity can diversify. We posted a video on it if anybody wants to watch. It's only a few minutes. I think it's called the study confirms biblical model. Anyway, and Jensen also wanted to do his predictions because evolution believes that out of Africa is the central hub because they looked at the diversity there and they found more MT DNA mutations. So Jensen predicted that if our model was true that there would be more mutations in the African people based on how often they have children. They have them much more often and there's more mutations because of that. And he predicted one mutation out of three generations. And his prediction came true. So, this is probably my time and I'm good. I'll give it over to Adam. Thank you very much. Go ahead Adam, the floor is all yours. Do I have screen share going on in a minute? I am ready for you. So whenever you're ready to flip it on. Is it ready? Is it on? Yes. Yeah, smashing. Right, thank you very much for that opening. Thank you James for hosting this debate. Thank you for standing and Matt for joining me today. Right, so let's begin, shall we? My talk is gonna be quite an interactive one. So you two will be getting involved with this. I hope you're ready. One thing I will say is that for your opening just then I understand the topic is biblical kinds, limited ancestry and speciation. I've got a bit of speciation in there but a lot of it was just attack and evolution theory. I didn't hear much about the kinds theory if I could put it that way. So I'm hoping when we get to the discussion phase we'll actually start to address the main topic of the debate. Right, so this is gonna be in my slideshow and as I mentioned, it's quite interactive. We're gonna start with a game. And this is one that Kent Hovins does quite frequently when he's in debates. One of these things is not like the other. So I want you two to confer with each other. I will allow you to take some of my time. And I want you to decide the next four little quizzes. Which one is the odd one now? So this is your first one. Any ideas? I see a mysid on the bottom right or perhaps a version of that on the bottom left, a hyena, a cheetah upper left and upper right hand corner. It looks kind of like a raccoon. I forget the name of that. That's not, it's not a raccoon, but it's a mix. What am I looking at? So what do you think guys? Which one's the odd one out? What do you mean? Compared to what? Like, exactly. I want you to look at these and decide which one's the odd one out. Well, I was on mute. Well, when we get into the discussion we're gonna have to look at the blueprint because we're looking at genes, traits and genetics. That's what's inherited sperm and egg atom. So in order to determine what's related here and what's not, that's what we're gonna have to get down to. That's when we can discuss things like DNA barcoding that actually does demonstrate biblical kinds and limited ancestry. So just looking at the appearance. This all leads into, I'm sorry, this all leads into a point I'm gonna make later. It's just a case of give me a guess as to which one is the odd one out. Let's go with the upper left hand corner because everything else, if you just wanna go on morphology then the cats have a retractable claws, nothing else in that one. So. Okay. The odd one out here is the muslit which is the bottom right hand is cane fall and the other three are phylethorms. The next one. Any ideas? Well, once again, like I'm not going to just look at the visible appearance, the anatomy. I have to look at the blueprint. I have to look at the genetics to determine the odd one out. It would be like asking me without, by removing the labels of a Honda Civic and a Hyundai Elantra, hey, which one's the odd man out? Well, they both are very similar in appearance. We have to open the hood and we have to look underneath. We have to look at the blueprint. So I mean, I like the game, it's fun but I'm not gonna answer just based on anatomy. The whole point of this game was to lead into an actual point I was going to make. I'll just run through these quickly then. So the odd one out here is the 10 reckoned bottom left which is actually supposed to be more closely related to elephants than it is to the hedgehog in the top right there. These four here, we've got four reptiles and the odd one out is the top left which is the Tuatara. It is not a lizard and the other three are. Changed a couple of them here. We've got four lizards and the odd one out would be, I'm hoping you two would know this one. If you didn't, it was the gecko. The gecko is the odd one out here. So there's a reason I bring all this up because there's a way that we decide what species fall into what groupings. It's something called taxonomy. Let's try it ourselves, shall we? So we've got four creatures here. We've got James the human left. We've got a monkey. We've got an amphibian and we've got a lady bird. Now if I were to ask you to group these based on traits of these animals, you could come up with a number of things. The first thing that might stick out to you would be legs, for example. I imagine James has legs. He can correct me if I'm wrong. Monkeys have legs and the lady bird has legs. Now the lady bird has six legs so it's probably more related to James and the monkey and the amphibian doesn't have any legs. So what if we do compare them by legs? Then we have the amphibian being the out group, the odd one out and it would look a bit like this on a schematic diagram. But obviously there are issues here. Legs come and go relatively easily. We see this in a lot of species today where the legs go without much difficulty or arrive. I mean, look at millipedes, for example, loads and loads of legs. So what we have to look for when we're trying to place animals are shed derived traits or shed derived characteristics. These are things that are usually quite heavily conserved in animals. And those are the ways we try to group animals into the big tree of life as we call it. So here are a few more traits for these four animals. We've got legs, vertebrae, fur, jaws, lungs, the fore chambered heart and a tail. Most of these are quite heavily conserved. Ones that aren't are things like legs, tail and fur. Not quite so heavily conserved, but the vertebral column, jaws, lungs and fore chambered heart, they don't disappear very easily or arrive very easily. Like the feathers of a bird, as far as we can see, it only evolved once. It's so specific that once it came in, it only really happened once and it stuck with that monophyletic clade of birds. So if we were to take a lot of these features and sort of add them all up, it would be what we call numerical taxonomy. If we go specifically for the ones that are conserved, that is where we come to cladistics. And if we take that all into account, this is what the tree eventually looks like. So if we just did it with legs, it puts the Amphisbanion as the outgroup. If we count up the shed derived traits and look at them, look at the San Napomorphis, which is another word for it, then we come up with a more reliable tree. And that's how we think animals tended to evolve. But you could just say, well, yeah, like when you mentioned cars, oh, they could just be designed that way. Well, is there another way that we can look at these animals and see if our tree that we've arrived at, we've shed derived traits is accurate? And genetics, that's it. So we can back this up with genetics. So if we were to look at these four again, it agrees with the plan that we've laid out with shared derived traits. And genetics connects all animals, not just animals, but every domain, every kingdom there is. Everything has genetics. And everything has the same genetics made up of the same things. And the genetics we find for the vast majority of the things out there match up pretty much spot on with what we find when we compare the shared derived traits of these animals. That's great, you know, but what do we do with it? We can make predictions. We predict things such as the sorts of traits we would expect ancestral species to have. We can expect what sort of habitats they live in and the lifestyles they live. And from the genetics, we can estimate a time of divergence where we would find them. Now, the greatest example I think of this is tiktalic, which they predicted where it would be. They predicted when it would be and they predicted what it would be. Purely from things like genetics and taxonomy. And they found it. They went out to Ellesmere Island quite a few times because they knew if it would be anywhere, it would be there. And they found it. It is a circumteridion with a neck and wrist bones. So, kinds, the main point of this discussion. I've given you what I think happens. What about kinds? What does kind do? Well, surely this is what the kinds proponents would say about the four creatures we've suggested. The ladybirds, James, the monkey, and the amphibian. They would all be part of separate trees. Part of the creationist orchard or the kinds orchard. It doesn't line up with what we find using taxonomy. It doesn't line up with what we find in genetics where everything is connected. What predictions would kinds produce? I've told you about one of the predictions of evolution, which is the tiktalic and many, many other transitionals that we've found. What predictions, I ask of you two, does the kinds model produce? And I'm gonna give you a quick analogy before I finish. Picture it like this. Life is this puzzle here, this dog puzzle. And all the little bits fit neatly together. That's how an evolutionist, as you call them, looks at it. You've got all these separate bits, but they fit together into this great big tree of life. The kinds says that those joints don't exist. They don't give a reason why. They just say that that piece of the puzzle, which should fit to that bit, doesn't fit. And then they don't explain why and start to attack the evolution theory, which is what happened at the start of this debate, where the people are supposed to be positively affirming the kinds model, just spent the entire time attacking my model. And lastly, if we look back at this example from the start of my slideshow, the evolution theory gives us the names Gakota and Tuxcaferra, because we find the shed drive traits and the genealogies of these creatures, and we can group them. The kinds model doesn't have it. Might as well scrap the entire system and begin again. So I would like the straw mats and, why did I think of that? Straw mats and Standing for Truth, I've combined them there, point went out. To give me a new model, because they have to start from scratch. Instead of attacking my position, I'd like them to propose their own. And I'd like to recommend this book on the right, it's The Variety of Life. It's a brilliant book for this sort of stuff on clodistics and taxonomy. I'd also recommend reading Raw Mat and Standing for Truth and Jason Ezard. It's their book, Hundred Falsifications for Evolutionism. It's a good bit of homework for anyone who wants to look into facts, checking and sourcing. I think it's a good bit of homework for that. Thank you very much and I hope for a fruitful discussion. Excellent, thank you very much from Adam. We will now switch back into the dialogue boxes. So if you have a question folks, just a quick reminder, feel free to fire that question into the old live chat. And otherwise we will go right back into the conversation mode right now. So thanks so much and the floor is yours everybody, whoever would like to take it as we go into open discussion now. Yeah, I can definitely start. I do wanna thank Adam for his presentation. It was fun and then that's why I always enjoy discussions with you because like I said, you're fun to talk to. So thanks for that. I do wanna ask you a quick question though just to clarify, just cause I think you were misrepresenting our opening because biblical kinds would indicate a limited ancestry as compared to a universal common ancestry. So both madam myself gave a number of differentiating ways that we can determine if all life on earth is universally related through common descent or if limited ancestry exists as we would say because a lot of what you pointed to was nested hierarchies, right? So whether we look at anatomy or morphology or even physiology, Adam, both models will predict the exact same thing. So we based on the design model will also predict nested hierarchical patterns, these groups within groups patterns we see. But the model that I briefly touched on was the created heterozygosmy hypothesis which does make predictions, but the big difference just so we're not talking past each other Adam during the discussion, can you reiterate what the big difference is between my view on genetic diversity and then your view, Adam? You, from what I can see, the big difference is that I look at it as if there are no limits to the genetic variation we see. So there are no limits to the tree of life and the way I see your position is that you have cut off points where things are no longer related. Well, no, I explained that because if we're looking at the origin of species and we're looking at the origin of traits, well, evolutionists like yourself assume that mutations are the source of all variety. So then you're gonna reject our model which suggests that Adam, even in the original created kinds were front loaded with genetic variety. So that was technically my question. And just so we're not talking past each other and we're going over predictions and the two models, the big difference between my model and your model is that we explain the vast majority of nuclear DNA differences, Adam, not by mutation, which is how you explain them. So we just don't want to talk past each other, of course. So if you're looking for a barrier and a line drawn in phylogeny, I touched on a number of things in my opening, right? Orphan genes, which are taxonomically restricted in essential genes that I believe does demonstrate limited ancestry. So we can't look at these nested hierarchical patterns that you point to. We have to look at the blueprint, something that can distinguish between the two models. And you mentioned like conserved genes, for example. Are you familiar with DNA barcoding? And it's conserved traits, not conserved genes. So, for instance, the heart is a conserved trait because it's not gonna go anywhere anytime fast as opposed to say legs, which snakes lost or lizards are losing. Right, so I wanted Matt to jump in here just so I'm not taking up all the time, but we do look to something called DNA barcoding and new research using DNA barcoding has actually demonstrated Adam, and you might be familiar with this new research, that 90% of all life has the same level of genetic diversity, meaning almost all life on earth is the exact same age, which would be consistent with our model. And it has to do with something called DNA barcoding. Matt, did you want to? Is this will be a way we can determine what's true? Limited ancestry and biblical kinds or universal common ancestry? Yeah, sure. For instance, when we're standing back and we're looking at something, we would expect that something that has physical features like a primate to match us more than something like aquatic life. So we would expect the genes to be more similar because that's required for us to have these features. So we have to dig a little deeper and that's what's great about this DNA barcoding because they look inside the mitochondria and they found that all life on earth has the same 34 genes in the mitochondria. One of them in particular is called this CO1 gene. And when they look at it, they find that it's highly conserved and it's always passed down in specific lineages. It's called selective sweep the guy, I think Paul Herbert who invented it, he's a Canadian. And what he found was that when a, for example, when a horse, a new species of horse pops up, it's going to have the CO1 gene that its parent horse had. And so when it speculates, every single new species of horse will also have that CO1 gene. And they're gapped by little barcoding gaps and they're single nucleotide variances that we can see and line up. And they've tracked those and they can differentiate. You'll like this for your snakes, for example. They can find a new snake species and they can tell how often they speciate. So we use this same model to determine what a kind is. And we can place these within kinds. One of the best ways of doing that is in 2005, a guy named Vincent Savallian, I think that's his name, he stated that in order for any two organisms to be deemed the same species, they must share 88 to 98% of the genetic code of the chosen CO1 mitochondria gene fragment. So we're using this in conjunction with orphan genes and other things to determine what a kind is. So if you haven't heard of it, obviously I don't wanna jump into studies talking about it. I just wanted to explain kind of what that gene is and why it's highly conserved and why it's always passed on. How would you demonstrate created heterozygosity? I think in my opening, I explained it really good with the skin color variants because the created heterozygosity model says that the variants within what we see in the world today should have existed in the first people and we should see loss or dead ends. And that's what we see. We see like more haplogroups in the first group of people and then we see less today. We see more blood types than the original people. We see less today. So we see things. That's why we like the genetic entropy model, for example. But again, I'm taking standing for truth's time. Sorry, man, go ahead. But the thing about the position that you take, the pair of you, I assume take, is that everything went through an identical genetic bottleneck around 4,000 years ago, is that correct? Right around that, yeah. So you'd expect every single creature to show genetic bottlenecks at that point. Yes. And do you think? They do. They all line up in a new study that was done in 2018 and it was actually done using these DNA barcoding. And what's great is the clear genetic boundaries that they found weren't expected. And here's the thing, the genetic bottleneck didn't just exist on land life. It existed in aquatic life too. Matter of fact, the person said, in regards to it, he said, all species show the same lack of barcode diversity. Although it's easy to imagine that humans passed through a bottleneck 1,700 years ago, it's hard to believe that the exact same thing happened in all species. Did herrings really pass through an equally recent population bottleneck and anchovies too? They were perplexed by that because a worldwide cladoclasmic bottleneck wouldn't kill all the aquatic life at the same time. So what if I brought up, say for instance, cobras. Now they tested the mitochondrial DNA for cobras, a variety of cobras, and the divergence time that they got from measuring the mutation rate was over 10 million years. That's incredible because reptilian MT DNA mutation rates are extremely fast. So they're some of the fastest, but most likely what happens in these studies is they use a phylogenetic method. So they equate it back to the fossil record rather than just using direct observed mutation rates. But we don't like just looking at the overall MT DNA and I'll tell you why. Because when they looked at the MT DNA sequences overall, just standing back and looking at all the 34 genes and all the mutation rates in it, they found that domestic dogs and gray wolves differed by 0.2%. But when they compared wolves of the same group in the same lineage of the same family, they found a huge 4% difference between the same population. So they found that it was kind of inconclusive. That's why they found a new way to do it, which is going inside this specific gene, which is highly conserved. The other MT DNA was too diverse, they found to be specific. So that's what's really good about the DNA. Well, when I brought up the cobras, they didn't use phylogenetic analysis to come up with the mutation rate. They just looked at the differences between known animals. They did similar things with, for instance, the Y chromosome in us. The lowest estimates for what they dog, Y chromosome, is about 60,000 years. And it's generally believed to be around 200 to 300,000 years ago. And there was a study by Chinese scientists a few years back where they took two people from the same family to Chinese men, 13 generations apart. So they knew how many generations were between them and they measured the differences in the nucleotide, nucleotide submissions in their wider chromosome. And the rates that they came up with was consistent with the other results we've had, in which dates us back to 200, 300,000 years. How would you explain that? You mentioned that the snakes is the differences between species. We were looking at the trio methods when we come up with mutation rates rather than between species. So that could have been some of the difference. But I'll look at your study to see what you mean. I can come up with example after example after thousands of examples where the genetics just doesn't match up. And if you talk about the mitochondrial eave, the mutation rate that I assume you're talking about from the Parsons paper, that was the mutation rate taken from a single Russian family. Everything else, even the authors of that paper agreed that the estimated, most recent common ancestor for much chondria is a minimum of around 90,000 years. Well, that Parsons study was done in April 1997, if I can remember. And what happened is it was actually re-evaluated the next year by Gibbons and she not only got the exact same thing, she got even less of a mutation rate dropping it down to 6,000. And that was published in Nature's Journal. And then what happened is the FBI actually picked it up and they still use it to this day. So they believe in the mutation rate so much, the FBI use it as a forensic. When the mutation rate does not, it doesn't give the exact year that it came, put it this way, mutation rates differ, not only between species, but within smaller populations. Well, that's what Jensen's doing. He's making predictions on mutation rates as well. He challenges anybody. He'll take you right now and go and pick an animal in the wild and predict its mutation rate. He says he can do it and no evolutionists can. So why then? Because it's the same process you wanted to, can I just finish this point before? Yeah, yeah, take your time. So the same method by which they came up with a 6,000 year number is the exact same method that they tested on the Chinese men where the date for divergence for the Y chromosome was about 200 to 300,000 years. It was the same method. They took it from the same family and tested the mutation rates between individuals. And they came up with the rate that gave hundreds of thousands of years. Why is that wrong? But the mitochondrial Eve one is correct. Go ahead, Stanley. Yeah, so I was just gonna ask you. So for that one, I mean, we'd have to, like for example, as Matt iterated, Dr. Nathaniel Jensen is making very specific predictions on mitochondrial DNA in people groups. For example, the Coisson people groups where their mitochondrial DNA rate has not actually been measured, right? Because we have measured mitochondrial rates as you're talking about here. And in non-African people groups, I think I misspoke there. And in African people groups, like the Coisson peoples is who he's making predictions on. So have you or are you familiar with any papers or anything that's making very specific and precise predictions on MT DNA mutation rates in people groups that have not yet been measured? On groups of people that haven't been measured yet. Is that what you're asking? Yeah, because Dr. Nathaniel. No, no. Okay, so because yeah, when we use the empirical method and trace the mitochondrial DNA or even the Y chromosome DNA back to two common ancestors, we're just using as Matt said, we're using the empirical method, right? Pedigree based studies. And Dr. Nathaniel Jensen came out with a paper recently where he looked at the Y chromosomes. I'm not too sure if you're familiar with it, but he pointed out that if humans have actually been around for several hundred thousands of years or more, as the evolutionists would say, they should have accumulated eight to 59 times the amount of mutations that we actually currently observe in Y chromosome DNA sequence. But the researchers in that current study, they empirically demonstrated that we only observe about 4,500 years of mutation accumulation in the paternal ancestry contained obviously in the record of the human Y chromosome. And Dr. Jensen invites anybody to respond to that paper as well as make future testable predictions on the Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA just as he has. Right. So I still don't understand what you obviously have a problem with this study by the Chinese authors who looked at the pedigree and found a mutation rate consistent with 1,000 years difference or ancestry. Why would that be a problem? Oh, well, you gotta remember that the Y chromosome, according to evolutionary mechanisms, is degraded. It's always been degrading and they don't consider it the same as the X chromosome at all. So they have a different assumption going into it. So by going into it with the assumption that the Y chromosome is degrading three times faster than the X, the mathematical assumption and the model from it are all over. The discrepancies match based on what's going into it rather than just going, oh, well, this is what we see based on the trio study that's really not what's happening because of the fact that they think that the Y chromosome is evolutionary falling out. They said, I think that in what, 100,000 years, the Y chromosome will be completely gone. They believe that's how fast it's degrading from the populations. Okay. If I could, could we move on more specifically to the concept of kinds? Yes, and I think that's a great topic just so we don't stay on one thing for too long. I did want to ask you, I guess, regardless of our disagreements or differences in opinions on when this Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA ancestor existed, I am curious, because you seem open-minded. Why then, based on genetic data, Adam, if we're looking to the Bible as our starting point and we're looking at human history and limited ancestry, when we actually do focus though on the variation of the Y chromosome that we're talking about here in the world today, and the fact that the Y chromosomes have very little variation, not to mention every single human being on the planet is 99.9% similar, right? That's why the evolutionist had to invent the out-of-Africa scenario, and the same thing goes with mitochondrial DNA, which does suggest we came at least from two ancestors. Regardless of our disagreements in when, how come that isn't convincing evidence to you that maybe the genesis account does have some validity to it? Take your time. Because every bit of evidence out there doesn't accord with it. Everything. You've given one example, which is mostly the mitochondrial league of example, where it seems on the surface to line up with roughly 6,000 years. So that's one big example of cherry picking. If it weren't just one example, you wouldn't be talking specifically about that one example. You'd be saying, this is the pattern that we see. This is the trend. But no, you bring up one specific example, because that's the only one that lines up with how you want the world to be. Well, no, I was looking at the entire genetic structure in humans as a whole. That speaks to us of a literal Adam and Eve. I mean, that small DNA compartment microconjure. If I could jump in there, I've given example where mutation rates witnessed between Chinese men dates the Y chromosome at several hundred thousand years. So that's not the whole human genome, because that goes against your point, and that is part of the genome. Well, and that's why I countered that with the new study that Dr. Jensen has put out that I'll send to you. It's very new. And he's looked at that study as well as other studies on different Y chromosome mutation rates that points still to a Y chromosome variation. And origin of 4,500 years. But I mean, like you said, maybe at this point, we should just go. I was just kind of curious as to what might convince you of limited ancestry, at least in regards to humans. So if you want to move. In order to convince me, you'd have to show me something that would convince me. If I could move on to kinds then quickly. Sure. What was that I was going to ask? I had a question in my mind. It was, oh yeah, here we go. So we're here now. Say you had a time machine and you zoomed forward in time, assuming the earth was still around at this point, fast forward 100 million years. What do you think life would look like? So if we fast forwarded 100 million years from now, well, I think that's actually a good question because based on mutation accumulation, right? I mean, we know we inherit about 100 new mutations per person per generation. And based on the known functionality of the genome, most of those are deleterious. So if I were to look 100 million years into the future, I would see extinction because that's exactly where we are heading since there's no type of selection that can remove all these deleterious mutations. You said that most mutations are deleterious. Yes. That's not true. Well, it is true because- Most of them are neutral. Well, I mean, according to the assumptions of evolution, most would be neutral, but that's just because evolutionists assume that the majority of our genome is based on evolutionary leftovers, junk DNA, genomic fossils, but that's actually a direct prediction of the created heterozygosity hypothesis that would suggest that the vast majority of our DNA, our DNA elements, for example, ERVs, ALUs, and these other classes of retrotransposons would be functional. And that's exactly what we're now seeing. That means the more functional the genome is, Adam. Can I just ask you quickly that, did they make that prediction before we found that out? Yes, intelligent design advocates have always predicted genome function increases in levels of genome function. That's why the evolutionist community attacks the findings of the ENCODE project because Adam, the ENCODE project has shown that most of the human genome is functional. And not only that, but functional on many levels. I mean, we have layer upon layer upon layer of programming within the genome. Are you familiar with all the known functions in these retrotransposons and in the endogenous retroviruses and pseudogenes? I'm not familiar with every single one. Yeah, so Dr. Nathaniel Jensen in his model of created heterozygosity, and that's why I asked you to clarify your understanding of where we explain the origin of the vast majority of genetic diversity, for example, in the nuclear DNA because it's two opposite expectations and predictions. I mean, how much of our genome on a percentage wise both protein coding and non-protein coding, would you say is functional according to your model? According to my model, I don't know. I don't know the number, unfortunately. It is very low, like I've debated PhDs on this and they have to assume junk for one, in order to counterbalance the mutations that are building up in the genome because they need to assume that they are neutral, that they're not actually damaging the genome. But even if, and it's funny because the evidence suggests that we have a genome of function, but even if just for sake of argument, just to not discuss this topic forever, even if I said, okay, let's pretend that the genome really is 90% junk. That still means that's 10 new deleterious mutations that are pouring into the genome per person, per generation and most of those being unselectable because natural selection, Adam, only acts on the most detrimental of mutations and the most deleterious mutations, but it does nothing against the nearly neutral mutations. Those are invisible to selection. So my answer to your question, if we were to go 100 million years into the future, it's a very simple question. I mean, life would not exist. And I guess you would have to explain how natural selection can keep life in existence for that long. Go ahead. You talked about genetic entropy. Now I looked up genetic entropy and the only places I could find it on Google Scholar were creationist sources, specifically from John Sanford. And all the examples I see are very specific species, specific examples, mostly humans. Now the problem with humans in the natural world is that we've sort of done away with natural selection. So yeah, deleterious mutations are more numerous than beneficial ones. So over time, if there is no selection pressure, you'll have more of a buildup of deleterious mutations. However, natural selection in the wild, assuming that it's able to do what it needs to do, will prune the wild populations of deleterious mutations and keep the positive ones. So that's how you maintain populations. That's what natural selection does. It gets rid of the bad and it keeps the good. What's fit for the environment that the creature is living in. That's how populations are sustained and that's how they have been sustained. Right, I really appreciate that response because you made some good points. I just don't think that you've addressed the nearly neutral mutations that would build up because the same thing goes, and I don't want to take all the time. I know Matt has some good examples of genome degradation and health, for example, is kind of his specialty. So I'll let him take over in one second, but I do want to point out the fact that, yeah, in humans, obviously you're admitting that we are degenerating, but you are saying that it's due to a lack of natural selection, right? Which makes sense, but it would come down to, let's say, animal populations. It would still come down to genome function as a whole because even in animal populations, they still have to assume that the majority of the genome is junk in order that the junk areas can absorb the mutations, making them neutral. But the fact is, I mean, you have to address it, the evolutions has lost one of their favorite pieces of evidence, which is not only junk DNA, but also the presence of these ancient deactivated viruses that they say are in the genome. Because rather than being functionless, vestigial remnants of our past, these retro transposons as a direct prediction from our model, turn out to be functionally integrated into the amazingly complex regulatory genetics in genomes of mammalian genome. So that means that total functionality with all these DNA elements, DNA sequences will speed up and make the degeneration problem that much worse in humans and in animals. Take your time. I am very curious because you keep saying that intelligence I'm predicted. Who predicted it and when? So there have been predictions in the past. I can get you a specific name, for example, Dr. Jonathan Wells has made those types of predictions. Dr. Nathaniel Jensen has in print right now new predictions that the vast majority over 80% of our genome because ENCODE, they did what's called biochemical tests. So Dr. Nathaniel Jensen predicts that using genetic knockout tests will reveal exactly what types of functions these DNA differences have. Because if we predict that the vast majority of DNA differences are actually functional, Adam, that would be evidence for that exact hypothesis. We're seeing that with the overturning of the junk DNA. I mean, what was called junk DNA, we now know can modify the way chromosomes, the packages of DNA, are organized. And then what that does is it changes the way the DNA functions. It's DNA function on multiple levels. I mean, how do you address all that? Non-coding areas of the genome do exist in large quantities. In fact, it's one of the ways that you get de novo genes, which explains orphan genes. So for example, a study recently looked at crests, several species of crests, and they found that these lineage specific genes are what they call orphan genes. They're actually just mutations of non-coding DNA that didn't do anything in other species of crests. Right, and that's the assumption, so. No, it's not an assumption. Well, no, I understand that the explanation for these taxonomically restricted and essential genes is de novo gene synthesis. I'll address that in a second, but I wanted to point out that if the genome truly is junk in the non-coding region, most of it has no active role. But then the ENCODE project has revealed that over 80% of it is actively transcribing to RNA and the evolution say, well, that's just biochemical testing. But my question to you would be if it truly was junk and there was no useful activity there going on in the non-coding regions, why, Adam, would the cell even bother with it? Because wouldn't you agree that that activity that is discovered would be just a waste of energy and resources and natural selection, which we were talking about earlier, should have eliminated that junk long ago, according to evolution. How do you answer that? I would have to look into it more. I can answer off the top of my head without sounding like a complete dump. Right, I don't know. That's okay. I'm interested. I do want to pass on to Mario because his expertise on health and genetic degeneration, I wanted him to at least point out a few examples. I would like to just interject something here. I would like to eventually get back to kinds because we keep drifting back to evolution stuff. Your idea is to disprove evolution. No, it's not disproving evolution because I know that the assumptions and basic worldviews of evolution, it's hard to put themselves into the mindset of a creationist because what we're saying is that the vast majority of DNA differences were the result of divine creation and evolutionists says it's mutations over time. That means we have two very different expectations and predictions on ancestry. You would expect a genome of junk, evolutionary leftovers and genome of fossils. We would expect a genome of function and DNA elements. That's what's going to help us determine whether or not everything's related or whether or not limited ancestry according to the Bible is what's true. And that's exactly what we're pointing out here and demonstrating. So what could you explain then why every creature, if you test them genetically comes up into this well-defined tree? Right, and that's a good question. You're going back to the nested hierarchical patterns, the groups within groups patterns that we see in life. And as I pointed out in the beginning, the design model predicts and expects the exact same thing. That's why we have to look at differentiating evidence, which would be function. How do we test for ancestry? It would be function, a genome of function versus a genome of junk. But like you said, let's go more into kinds and more expectations of speciation from say the original kinds. Because I know that's what you want to talk about, and I think that would be enjoyable for the audience. But can we just reserve just one second for Matt to jump in and maybe talk about genetic entropy, and then we'll go right to kinds and definition of kinds and things like that? Yeah, that's absolutely fine with me. All right, I'll just get it over with real quick. A perfect example is a video that I made which shows Neanderthal. It shows that they have less overall genetic mutations in their entire genome, and today we have a lot more. We also have something called the MTHFR gene, and it's broken anywhere between 40 to 70% in almost all people on Earth. And it's that gene determines on how well you methylate and how well your other genes work and how good they are. So it kind of shows a genome collapse by looking at that. But that doesn't really have much to do with kinds. This is just an overview of showing that the genome was kind of crumbling and breaking down. We see gene loss. We don't see new genes arising in our genome going up. We see it going down in all life. So I will just put a point on that. We do see genes arising. I mentioned the Cress earlier where they identified many non-coding sequences becoming de novo genes. So we do see increases in genes. We also see anatomical increases, which are results of genes. So for instance, dogs. More primitive dogs, wolves and huskies don't have puppy dog eyes because they lack two muscles around the eyes. Whereas more recent breeds of dogs have these muscles. And that is a result of mutations that came about to benefit dogs that live with us because we love puppy dog eyes. I think that's a beautiful example of evolution and action that happened during human history. But these de novo genes that are arising spontaneously kind of out of nowhere that really are considered junk DNA are actually functional elements. So we can't just say that these are randomly arising, but yet these de novo genes are absolutely required for functions in the body. If they were just, that's what makes the orphan gene so fascinating is because they're lineage specific. So it also helps prove our model a little bit because they are taxonomically restrictive genes, but they're also functional elements with standing mentioned earlier. The fact that genes become active from non-coding genes, I don't see how it proves your point. I don't see how it lines up with it. I like your point on orphan genes, Adam, but we would just have to see actual papers that are showing a non-coding region of our genome suddenly popping up and having an incredibly functional role because if you look at the one on Cress, it was quite recent. If you look up Cress de novo genes on Google Scholar over the last, I think it was 2016, if you look it, there's about 500 de novo genes that come up from non-coding regions. And we have looked at many papers, I just wanna put this out there is that in what you're saying, just to reiterate, these orphan genes were created supposedly from just random mutational events in the non-coding regions. And they've now co-opted function in the protein coding regions, right? Is that how you would explain the orphan genes? We see the non-coding regions. The reason we didn't see them before is because they were non-coding. So we didn't know what we're looking for. But when we found these genes in this certain species of Cress, we looked back at other species of Cress and checked for that same sequence and find that it's a non-coding region of the DNA. Well, I'm assuming you'd think Cress would be within the same kind, I am asking. Well, and I'm just saying, I'll give you plenty of time. Just saying that because evolutionists reject this concept of engineered design in biological systems, when they see the presence of these taxonomically restricted orphan genes, they have to come up with a way as to how these cleverly designed DNA sequences were somehow randomly generated in very recent evolutionary time. And you look to de novo gene synthesis, my response to that would be that it's based more on a circular argument because evolutionists say, okay, de novo gene synthesis must be true because why orphan genes exist? And orphan genes exist because of de novo gene synthesis. So I don't know how many... There are various methods for de novo, not de novo genes, orphan genes. You've also got things like fission and fusion of genes. You've got gene duplication and exon shuffling off the top of my head. Right, right, but a lot of times in these papers, for example, one that I myself are really familiar with are the so-called introduction of new orphan genes in fruit flies. Matt, did you want to touch on that real quick? Because orphan genes, you must understand for one, could be lost as well, and which could explain why you're seeing some in some species in the same kind that other species in the same kind don't have. Did you want to touch on that real quick, Matt? Yeah, real quick, they took fruit flies and they looked inside of their orphan gene status and they wanted to try to get them out. So what they did is they bred fruit flies, a specific species of them, to have zero orphan genes in their bodies just to see what would happen. So they bred them entirely out after maybe 10 generations or so, completely gone. So the flies were living without any orphan genes in their body. Okay, I just want to make a correction. I said 2016 for the Crest papers, actually 2011. So if you wanted to search on it, it's a paper from 2011. Could we move on to kinds then? I don't know how much time we've got left. Yeah, let's do that, because I did notice even in the audience, you know, they're saying what's a definition of kind and I know that you've asked that many times. Yeah, I think that's a great way to start. I would love to hear your definition of kinds and be able to apply it suitably. Okay, so I would say that my best definition of kinds would be groups of living organisms, Adam, that belong in the same created kind, if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. So I think if it comes down to inference, for example, we can infer with pretty good certainty that Adam, that dogs, wolves, coyotes, and foxes all go back to an original ancestral gene pool. But we cannot scientifically infer that dogs, wolves, pine trees, and banana plants go back to an original ancestral gene pool. I want to make one last point and you can talk as long as you want. Just like Matt iterated earlier and explained about the DNA barcoding and the CO1 gene in the mitochondria, that research demonstrates that 90% of all life has the same level of genetic diversity, meaning almost all life on Earth is the same age and came into existence, while in our model, according to the flood, at the same time, that DNA barcoding puts a line in the phylogeny, which is exactly what you'd be asking for for times. Take your time. So your definition put simply is if they descend from the same gene pool. Is that correct? Yeah, that's good. How would you demonstrate that? Good question. So we would use, as Matt kind of talked about earlier, the DNA barcoding. We can use that. We can use, it's a variety of things. It's a trio of things. We can look at orphan genes. We can look at taxonomically restricted endogenous retroviruses, DNA function, and most importantly, we can actually look at species and we can look at their speciation rates because Dr. Nathaniel Jensen has made very specific predictions on speciation rates and we can see if that fits empirically with the original kinds coming off of the arc. Just 4,500 years ago, we didn't look at it. In order for that to work, you'd have to know how many kinds came off the arc, wouldn't you? Right, right. So I mean, well, we can do... So that's circular reasoning there. You can see how many speciation events you'd need according to how many kinds came off the arc in order to find how many kinds came off the arc. Well, the thing is we would have to make hypotheses, for example. So if we look at, let's say, the cat kind that came off the arc of the dog kind or even the bear kind. If we go back to this idea of preexisting diversity, this means, and I think after we talked about it for a while, you understand it now, this means that God created Adam and Eve and the kinds with differences within themselves, okay? So that hypothesis can apply universally among species. So if we take the cat ancestor aboard the arc, okay? Let's say that cat ancestor was front-loaded with a whole bunch of functional DNA differences that creation, these front-loaded functional DNA differences has led to the origin of species. Noah brings aboard two cats, Adam. And now we have everything from tigers to house cats to jaguars and in between or with dogs. Noah brings two dogs. Now we have everything from wolves to coyotes to jackals to foxes and in between and ultimately the domestic dog. But you've got no evidence to say that that's what happened. It's just a post-op rationalization. Even though we find that genetics says that we have common ancestors for say, cobras 10 million years ago, that's all within genetics. No, and that's a good point, but I'm just explaining how it's possible to get all these numbers of species and how we can explain the, because if we look at, for example, we've got kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species, okay? So we would say according to the biblical view that God created kind, which would be more so for the family level, you know, not species or genus, but family. Now I'm showing you how that's possible to get all the ancestors and all the species from some kinds on the arc. Now we make predictions to see if this lays out, because a hypothesis without any testable falsifiable predictions would be failed. It wouldn't be science. So that's why we've made, we can look at snakes. For example, I know Matt's got some numbers on that. We can look at birds, we can look at lizards. I don't want to take up all the time. Matt, if you want to take this next part and go into the actual speciation rates of snakes, which is kind of that's Adam's feel or birds, for example, and go over the hypotheses there. I'd love to talk about snakes. Sure, all right, then we'll just go with snakes. Well, I guess we'll go with a couple of different things at the same time. If the speciation rate of snakes shows that it's about 1.2 per year, and we extrapolate that back about 4,350 years, somewhere around there for Noah's arc flood, we should see a round of variety of snakes which is associated with that type of speciation rate number. But if evolution was true, even going back one million years would have somewhere around one million snakes, even though that would be even more because we have to account for some extinctions. But I mean, snakes are found back 167 million years and snakes are very hardy animals, they do really good. Matter of fact, even if you go back to the fossil record, the evidence of intermediary fossils between these snakes and lizards are just really aren't even there. All of a sudden we just have snakes and then all of a sudden there's just lizards, lizards that are snakes that don't have any anatomical features as the snakes. So the snakes appear randomly and then all of a sudden their speciation rates don't match the pattern of how many snakes there should be in the world today if their speciation rate that we see today doesn't match up at all. Our model fits much more clear with what we see. Okay, I remember reading this, I think from your 100 plus falsifications evolution, the 1.2 figure. Now I tried to look up that source but I couldn't find that figure. So if at some point you could pass that on to me. That is, I don't even remember what group of snakes it was from. You mentioned there are no intermediary snakes but I could name a few. Tetrapodophis, which was a four-legged snake. Najash, which was a two-legged snake and you've got the Anelidias. Anelidia, I can't pronounce some of these but it's a snake with a jaw like a lizard. And that's the same with the Konioffis, which again is another snake with a lizard's head. And these are all roughly around the time that they were supposed to have diverged from lizards. They still are lizards. That's, I mentioned this in my opening. You have to scrap the entire idea of taxonomy because it just doesn't work in your model. Snakes are lizards but I'm assuming you don't think that. Even though genetics and clodistics puts them in the same group, snakes are a type of lizard. So we have in the fossil record snakes with legs, snakes with lizard like jaws, snakes without the ventral scales. So one of the more defining features of more advanced snakes is the single scale down the body. We have snakes alive today that have cylindrical bodies with scales all around without the ventral scales. There are plenty of examples of intermediary snakes. Well, did you realize though that that goes actually contrary to what snakes need to be in your fossil record. The oldest snakes that go back 167 million years ago, they found four different varieties and none of them actually had legs. So if they evolved losing their legs, we would see that transition. We see the opposite. We see snakes with no legs and then all of a sudden some snakes that have just hind legs and then all of a sudden one variety that had some vestigial front, little tiny remnants and then back to no legs again. So that's the opposite of... I mentioned at the start of my talk that there are some features of animals that are very easy to lose. Fishes and snakes lose eyes and caves. Legs are one of those things that just so happen to be one of those things that are easy to lose. Yeah, but they... I have the idea of sister species as well. So when the snakes start to diversify, there'll be loads of different groups of the snake-like lizards going around. Some would lose legs quicker than others in different environments and you'd have this whole... I mean, you have it today. We have lizards today that have no legs. We have lizards that have two front legs and we have lizards that just have stumps where their legs should be. They're very easy to lose. Yeah, but the very first snake that you find in your fossil record goes back... that has any back limbs is 20 million years. But yet the oldest snakes when supposedly split from a lizard have no legs at all. That go back to 167 million. And I'm pretty sure I mentioned tetraprophodis. I think that was at least 100 million years. Najash as well was ancient and that had legs as well. But the oldest four varieties, again, didn't have no legs. There was nothing there. And that's the oldest and deepest part of the fossil record, which should have the highest amount of vestigial leg bones present because they're the first transition from a lizard, but there's none. You say the first transition from a lizard, the first known one, there would probably be a lot of populations of lizards before that had started to lose their legs. Just because the first example of a snake we find doesn't have legs, it doesn't mean that they didn't evolve. But let's get back to the main point. Are snakes part of the lizard kind? No, because we find that on the DNA barcoding level, they are separated. We find them, they have different barcoding gaps and any barcoding gap that is too large will place them into a different family. Now, DNA barcoding is the first time they've ever been able to use it on a species level. So that's all they use it on, but it works in larger conjunctions. That's why that guy in 2005 determined if the gap is above a certain amount, what was it? Yeah, there it is. If the gap is anywhere between underneath 88% of genetic code variances with the mitochondrial fragment, then it's a different kind. It's a different species altogether. Yeah, throughout this debate, I've not mentioned, I don't know much about this DNA barcode. And I realize it's been mentioned a lot of times. And for the most part, I've tried to just avoid it too much because I don't know much about it. What I do know is that snakes, when compared to lizards genetically, fall between, they're close to the iguanas. I showed you the picture earlier with the gecko being the out group. The gecko is further related. A snake and the iguana are closer related than either is to the gecko. Do you think that geckos and iguanas are the same kind? I would say no, because some varieties of geckos don't even eat food. There's one variety that doesn't eat for like its entire lifespan. It just absorbs things through its skin. And it seems to me as though they're very different. I seem to get the impression that you think that because there are differences at the gene level or behavioral level of animals, that means they're different kinds. Well, remember for us to be related to an aquatic species, there would have to be a lot of, not only just the same genes, but the same function of these genes. That's why standing for truth is saying that the function is what matters. That's why the selective sweep gene is so important because it does the same thing in every species. So when it's passed on, you can find this little teeny little bit of difference between species, but a big difference between kinds. So that's what's really fascinating to us. And Adam, that's why it's okay if you're not up on the DNA bar coding, but in order to draw a line in ancestry and phylogeny, where nested hierarchical patterns exist in anatomy, genetics and physiology, it's going to take and require some type of differentiating evidence. And this new study and the analyses they've done in bar coding, in DNA bar coding really has revealed gaps, huge gaps in these species and in families. And it's consistent with limited ancestry, special creation and biblical kinds. So that's kind of the point of the DNA bar coding. If you want to respond to that, that's fine. I do want to ask you a question afterwards about more so speciation rates according to the evolution model, but you can respond to that first if you'd like. Yeah, again, I think if we have another discussion, I'm going to look up this DNA bar coding and come up with it because that seems to be what you're falling back onto now and if I can't address it, then we've hit a bit of a standstill on that point as far as I'm concerned. I do want to ask is what kind does tiktalic fall into? I don't know if anybody's ever tested it just because it never popped up on the radar. It can be tested if there's enough genetic evidence or material in the bones. For example, they've tested denisovan and neanderthal and compared it to human beings. So if they're able to extract it from denisovan, then I'm guessing they can do it from tiktalic. I just don't think that that's been on anybody's radar. I don't think you're going to get much genes from tiktalic. And that's the problem is that it's, what's inherited sperm and egg as I iterated a few times? It's genes, it's traits, it's genetics. That's why when we're looking for an answer to ancestry, a fossil is not inherited at them. Geography is not inherited, it's genetics. We have to look at the gene level and that's why we look to DNA bar coding. That's why we look to DNA function is key as well as certain taxonomically restricted genes, including the endogenous retroviruses and other things like that. But we have discussed that in great detail. So just according to your model though, when it comes to speciation, what would be a prediction or expectation that you would have regarding speciation rates and speciation events? Like does it take millions of years for speciation events to occur or can you go into that a bit? Speciation takes as long as the environment inquires it to because speciation tends to happen when a new niche is opened or a niche is vacated by another creature. So that's what the whole basically punctuated equilibrium thing was all about where not much can happen for a while if the environment's in a pretty stable condition, but if something big were to happen, say a volcano were to go off and radically change the environment in some near vicinity, then you'd have a lot of adapting to do. Now adapting a lot of times can lead to speciation. So it's not a constant rates thing. It's very much dependent on what's happening around these organisms at the time. Now would you, but would you say that the average speciation events, speciation events sorry, would take millions of years? Like on average according to the evolutionary model because obviously according to our model that's completely different expectations and predictions because we're expecting all these species in just a few thousands of years and you would be expecting all these species in hundreds of thousands to millions of years. It's not something you can really put an average on because it can depend on a whole host of factors. Generation time can be a factor. The rate of mutations in certain parts of the genome because the rates differ across the board that can be a factor. The speed at which organisms diversify it could be not down to genetics if something reproduces or not. It could be down to size of the organism. Do you think you're gonna get a great dain to mate with a chihuahua without artificial insemination? If humans disappeared and every breed apart from the great dain chihuahua disappeared would they be the same species? I'll start again real quick Adam. If humans died out say coronavirus kills us all. Right. And every dog breed apart from the great dain and the chihuahua survived, would they be a new species? No, no, because you could like you said artificially inseminate them. Yeah, but we're not, we guys, coronavirus wiped us out. Artificial insemination doesn't happen anymore. Yeah, no, they would be because there you go. We go back to DNA barcoding. We go back to, we have to look at the blooper. We have to look under the hood. I can't look at a Civic, an Elantra, Jetta and a Chrysler 200 and determine where they came from, who engineered them without looking at the bin number, the blueprint, the details, the engine for them. The big difference, the big difference with cars is they don't have shared derived characteristics, which is how systematics works. Because a car, you can put anything on a car because they're made by people. We know how cars are made, we make them. We know how organisms come about, they reproduce and like to go for genetic recombination. So they can't just add a spoiler. They can't add a boom stereo in the boot. They're restricted to what genes bring about. Cars, we make them, we change them. If we would put cars into a systematic diagram, if we would try to make cladistics out of cars, depending on their features, it would be a mess. And that's why you cannot compare the two. Well, no, it wouldn't be a mess just as I demonstrated in the beginning that it just so happens to turn out that designed modes of transportation that humans have designed and built, they do naturally fall within groups, within groups nested hierarchical pattern, whether you like it or not. And those patterns at them can be seen both at the visible level and at the blueprint level. And according to our model, if God created us and made us in his image, then we should be able to get a sense or an idea for how he created life based on the things that we create. And I'm almost done, I didn't interrupt you. We create modes of transportation and you can see this with sedan, that's UVs, vans, you can go all the way to airplanes and boats and the materials that are used, they fall within groups, within groups patterns. And evolutionists often do say that cars don't reproduce. Well, for one, that's a misunderstanding of the design model and the predictions that fall from it. And two, adding reproduction adds complexity and that actually is no help to those that hold to universal common ancestry. Take your time. So if we were to try to look for the snappomorphies, the shared drive characteristics of vehicles. Say for instance, we've got a bicycle. Bicycles don't have engines through that. So your typical pedal bicycle. Cars have engines. I assume you'd say then, well, not just cars but lots of vehicles have engines. You'd say that an engine would count as a shared derived characteristic. Well, no, you can make a list and compile and classify all modes of transportation that are powered vehicles. And then you can have a separate class or a separate group or category of non-powered vehicles which bicycles would fall into. But even if you look at the, if you look at the microscopic level, if you look at the materials used, the metals used, you're still just like in DNA, you're still going to find nested hierarchical patterns. I mean, this is just a fact. You can't get away from it. That's why we have to look at Adam differentiating lines of evidence, DNA barcoding, DNA function, orphan genes. The number of DNA differences. But the thing, and we can go back to that, but I don't want to just go too far away from the species thing. So I was just trying to clarify some things just to make some points on the speciation. I didn't finish my analogy. So I'd like to go. Okay, okay, finish it. Yep, go ahead. So the bicycle, the pedal bicycle does not have an engine. Hold on, excuse me. The bicycle does not have an engine. So if we were to make a big clader gram of vehicles, bicycles would be in the section where the engine wasn't a shared derived characteristic. My uncle put an engine on his bicycle, a pedal bicycle, and zoomed down the road. So that shared derived characteristic is no longer a shared derived characteristic because somebody put it on a bike. That's why the systematic diagram for vehicles would fail because it would be a complete mess. Anyone could put anything on anyone. A rabbit does not grow feathers. You can't just, nobody just puts feathers on a rabbit. And that's why there's this big difference because it's all about inheritance, things you inherit. That's why I think the car's example fails completely. Well, see the thing is just basic observation on modes of transportation. And I understand that, you know, evolutionists don't like the fact that modes of transportation without even meaning to do so, they do actually fall within nested hierarchical patterns. Maybe you can point out some inconsistencies just like I can point out some inconsistencies in the phylogenetic tree of life. Cause although there are nested hierarchical patterns in life, both on an anatomical level and in a genetic level, there are inconsistencies. That's the whole point of, you know, incomplete lineage sorting, depending on what gene you're looking creates different types of trees. You can look at convergent evolution. You can look at many different types of inconsistencies in the phylogenetic tree. But according to our model, if we do predict some type of nested hierarchical patterns in DNA and in anatomy, it makes sense. Because even if we look at, let's say, humans, pigs, mice and ducks, okay? So we would say they are all land-dwelling, but we would also say that they are all of separate kinds. But since Adam, they are all land-dwelling, they are going to share similar nested hierarchies or designs. There's always going to be some type of hierarchy. And like I said, I've said it many times before. That's why we have to look at a line of evidence that is going to be able to differentiate the two models. Is it okay if I go to the speciation question or did I take it? Yeah, I just want to once again say, I don't like the use of the word prediction because nested hierarchies have been known long, long before any of these people in the intelligence line movement came out. It's like me going to a football game, watching the game, coming out and saying, I bet Lionel SC is going to score three goals after having just watched him do it. It's not a prediction. It's an ad hoc rationale. One thing I wanted to say before, I'll give you a chance to respond standing for truth, but I just wanted to quick jump in and say, first, I forgot to mention at the start, folks, that I've put all of our speakers' links in the description. So highly encourage you, if you're listening and you're like, hmm, I like that. Well, you can hear plenty more by clicking on those links that I've put in the description. Also, just want to let the speakers let you guys know that maybe pretty soon we'll probably go to Q&A. So I'll kick it back over to you, standing for truth, if you want to respond. But maybe I would say if you guys are ready, especially because if I remember right, Adam, you might have to get up in the morning or you want to get to sleep by a decent time. Unfortunately, I don't work at the moment because coronavirus won't let me. So I'm unlimited in my time. You bet. Okay, gotcha. Well, I'm pretty unlimited on my time as well. So if you guys want to go for, we can go longer than usual if you guys want to go for another 15, 20 minutes and then Q&A. Yeah, maybe do a strict 15 minutes of discussion more and then Q&A. I would like to go all night, but I've put my kids down for a nap for the debate. Once we come up the two hour mark, they're probably going to get up and that's going to be an issue. Barge in there. My daughter who's four, if you want to debate her out and we can set that up. Very sassy. All right, thanks very much. Go ahead, Steady for Truth. Okay, awesome. You know what? I am tempted to go into like conversion evolution and all the detailed inconsistencies and lines of evidence that show a lack of uniqueness in the phylogenetic tree, but it would probably just take up the rest of the 15 minutes when I do want to get to more of I think an important line of evidence that can show biblical kinds in regards to speciation. So let's say we moved it to species, okay? We do make predictions, very specific predictions, not only on the DNA function, for example, but also in mutation rates, but also, and you can see these imprint on them, but also on, like I said, speciation rates. So even if we look at the 30 or so species of cats alive today, well, just to keep it simple, that would make prediction. It would make a prediction that cats, for example, have been forming at a certain number of species per year, or it takes this many years, for example, to form a new species on average, according to our model. And that's why we've made very specific predictions on speciation rates, that species are continuously forming. And you admitted that the evolutionists can't really make those types of predictions, but the thing is we have, we've made them on birds, for example, and you can look, and we've got the numbers here, you can look, there's about 11,000 or 12,000 bird species alive today on the planet. So Dr. Nathaniel Jensen has made a prediction that if we take this observation and predict that since the time of Noah's Ark, there's been about three to four new species on average per year, we should be able to see new bird species forming today. And that prediction works out because if you see, so let's say there's 11,000 bird species on the planet today, that's about 4,500 years since the flood. And of course, if you do the math, that's 4,500 years since the flood, three or four bird species a year would actually work out perfectly if you do the math. And those predictions are in print. But we've actually seen just this past year on the Galapagos Islands, Darwin's Finches, for example, they've been studying for a number of years. New species, Adam, have actually been observed and those results have been published and those species were formed in exactly the same way that Dr. Nathaniel Jensen predicted that they would be formed. For example, shifts from heterozygosia to homozygosity and then this subpopulation of finches broke away, it was a breakaway population, they've become genetically distinct enough to be considered a new species and that was observed in real time. So three to four species a year to account for the 11,000 species in 4,500 years is not a huge stretch since predictions are coming true on it. Take your time. What about the sphenodon of which there are only two surviving species? So there's two species today. How many speciation rates? What's the speciation rate of them? So are you gonna, is the bird, but before I answer that, is the bird species prediction, is that consistent? Cause it sounds like you just wanna jump to another. In order for your conclusion to be valid, every single kind, as you want to call them, has to be consistent with that model. Right. Okay, so we'd have to look at the amount of species. So you're saying there's two of these species? Yes. Well, we have dead ends of branches all the time, just because some new species pops up like a chihuahua and then we'll die out and that's incorporated as well. It's just, there's gonna be dead ends of branches all the time, but we're just talking about the overall speciation rate. The overall speciation rate? Yeah. Of everything. The wolves are speciating at a pretty constant rate. And then we take that back. That's what we would go by because wolves are the heirloom variety. We don't wanna count dogs because they're like sheep. They're the domesticated form and we're putting them in homes and we're breeding with them. So it's a little bit different. I like the wolves. Are you taking extinction rate into account when you've come up with these? No, because of the mere fact that most of the extinction is more happening recently with deforestation and how much we're messing up the environment. But since our model only goes back 4,300 years, there are gonna be dead ends to branches, but we're just taking the overall, how many exist today, what their speciation rate number is and then going back throughout the flood time. Without knowing the extinction rate? Right. So you don't know the extinction rate, so you're just gonna assume that they didn't happen. Oh no, because the numbers still line up with what we're saying. So yeah. How do you know that if you don't know the extinction rate? No, there'll be definitely some dead ends and extinctions, but I mean, overall, it's not gonna really equate because that's why we see a little less snakes than there should be, right? Because remember in our speciation model, if there's 1.2 a year, that means there should be about 5,220 snake species. You just said everything lines up. Right. And now you're saying that there's less than you'd expect to find. Right. And yet you still haven't given me an approximate number of the extinction rate. There's a lot of vagueness around what you're saying. Yeah, but you see that the vagueness is there because the numbers are so trivial, we're only losing a couple thousand snakes. The numbers are your whole argument. How can numbers be trivial when your entire argument is this times this equals this? Because the numbers are, again, they're very trivial. They're very small. The mistakes are just a little bit as where the numbers for evolution are huge. There are hundreds of thousands difference as where ours are a few thousand at most. Your whole argument is we look at the number of life today and we times that by this speciation rate, which we don't have any historical evidence for. We just go on today's rate equals number close to, I imagine you say completely accurate to the date of Noah's flood. Your whole argument rests on numbers and yet you're leaving numbers out. Correct. Well, again, well, how about birds? They've tested birds, right? They found that it's what 3.3 new species of bird per year in Google and type up how many bird species there are. Do you think that number is consistent for 4,000 years? Yeah, the numbers are right in line, but if evolution was true. What do you mean by in line? The numbers should be around 15,000 bird species around the world today. Somewhere around that from the Ark, right? If Noah brought some birds on. And how many are there? Did because he released a dove. So we know that birds were on the Ark. So if evolution was true and it was splits between dinosaurs, there should be hundreds of thousands of species. Hundreds of thousands. So how many birds are there alive today? You said 11,000. Google says around 10,000 species, if you pull it out. You said you predict from, again, that word predict, from Noah's flood, there'll be 15,000. Correct. So it doesn't match up? No, it's a little bit higher, actually, but I bet you go find more. So it's two thirds. That's a significant amount. Well, Google says 10,000. You can assume maybe there's some that haven't been described. I mean, you could say roughly 11 or 12,000. It does line up to, and Matt's question has to do with if birds evolved from dinosaurs millions and millions of years ago, and yet all we see is between 10 and we can put a higher number on and say between 10 and 15,000, which is more consistent with young earth creation, speciation predictions. How do you explain that? How do you explain that, Adam? I don't want you to go past the fact that you start an argument saying that we expected this number of birds and that's how many birds you have. Now you're saying, I'll be expected this, but we only have two thirds of that. It's very, it's being very vague here. And what I said earlier, it has to be consistent for everything. Well, absolutely everything. And you still haven't given me extinction rates. So when I brought up the sphenodon, which only has two surviving species, does that mean there's only been a speciation rate of one every 2,000 years? I'm not sure on those snakes. Sorry, I, that's not a snake. What, oh, what is it? It's the tuatara. Tuatara, damn, I, yeah, those are specific. When I was looking for the speciation rates, I went to the general overboard, like all snakes, all bats, all lizards, all birds. And because Noah brought more than one variety bird, obviously he didn't bring the hawk and it speciated to all different things. He brought multiple, it says the hawk, the raven, the dove, there's multiple different varieties of birds that were on that ark. So that's why the numbers I think are going to be higher than the 10,000 what Google's talking about. I think they'll find a lot more. But you said that the maths agrees with you. And then when I push you on what the extinction rate is, you say you just don't know. If you want to operate in the field of maths, then you need to know the numbers. I'll add that for you then to my book. How's that? I'll find out the extinction rate. Okay, when you've done that, I'd like to see it. Okay. Essentially, what we found out here is that you've taken a couple of examples, say for instance, birds. You've said we have this number of birds and we'd expect that because we believe that he had hawks and doves on the ark, which you haven't given evidence for, why he brought specific ones on. I mean, he says the dove, but didn't say anything about a hawk as far as I'm concerned. Eliminated the need for an extinction number, which can vary, you've eliminated the possibility of variety throughout. You've said we have this mutation rate now, but that it doesn't exist in the past 4,000 years. There's all sorts of number factors here that you're missing. Well, I didn't catch that last part. You said the speciation rates. You said to me that you assumed that the 1.2 speciation rate was consistent for 4,000 years. Right, that was on the snakes, correct? That was just what I could find. Oh yeah, snakes, yeah. 1.2 snakes, yeah. Yeah, I was trying to just find overall snakes. I wasn't just trying to find a species, a specific one. I wanted, I would like to know like bats, for example. Bats are categorically much easier for people to find because their iguana was worth money. So they want to find out, well, how fast do these species grow? What's the biggest and most amount of money we can find? So they found 1,240 species exist. And speciation rates seem to be like three to five years on average. Will we extrapolate that? Do you agree that speciation is dependent on the environment? Yes. And if the environment changes quite a lot, then you'd expect the speciation rate to change. Yeah, sure. So in the space of 4,000 years, would there been enough environmental changes to drastically change the number of speciation events? Oh, it drastically changed the human. Well, remember, before the flood, we believed that the environment was different. So speciation rates number were higher. Yeah, we're talking after, we're talking after the supposed environment. Right, right, exactly. So it was more consistent after. That's why everything dropped down dramatically and life expansion. And then all of it kind of plateaued and remains the same. Like humans always tend to live, or should around the same age, unless there's a mistake or some disease, humans should be living around the same. But before that, it was much easier. So taking bird examples, you'd expect the speciation rate of birds to change over 4,000 years. I mean, but not much, really. Just the same, really, as humans, I would imagine that the more species there are, the more they diversify and then the more species they would get from them, obviously, because the numbers are gonna be growing. Yeah. Okay, so an overview of what we've discussed, the birds. 15,000 species is what you'd expect. We have 10,000. You admit that speciation rate can change. You don't give an extinction rate. I don't understand how this is an argument for you. There are so many missing pieces to this puzzle. Okay, let's... I don't understand how you can bring it forward. Let's take, for example, then, that this extinction level was quite high. We can erase the 5,000 and we're back down to actually 10, what the actual number that we do see is. I extrapolated 15,000 because I thought there would be a lot more based on there's being more burned kinds in the ark. So that's why I... You haven't established how many kinds there are for a start. I guess that's another number we're missing. How many kinds are on the ark? Right, it's okay. That's when we get into the DNA bar coding for the birds. We're gonna have to find out exactly how many birds were on the ark and that'll be good because now we can differentiate. We're gonna be able to see that the hawk is a different kind of a bird than a dove and the dove is a different kind of bird to a crow and a raven. They were mentioned throughout, I think Joe mentions the hawk and the raven. It says that in Genesis it mentions the dove because obviously it was released by Noah. So we can, we get it, but they weren't specific. They didn't say we brought this mini on the ark. I wish they would have, they would have made our job today a lot easier. But I didn't know that we'd be, they probably didn't know we'd be getting questioned like this. Yeah, the whole, again, it comes back to DNA bar coding and that's another impasse. Well, how about invert a vitro fertilization? If you could take a lizard and fertilize it with a snake, that would show us that they are the same kind, but that doesn't really happen. Same thing what happens with chimps and humans. I mean, there's a guy named Ilya Izonoviev or something in Russia. He was a Soviet biologist and he was a world famous for artificial insemination. And in 1910 he was given permission by the World Congress Zoologist that said you can make a human a hybrid. Now he's world famous. He was the first person to create a horse zebra hybrid. I think it was called the Zorses. And he can do anything with them. He said if anybody on earth exists that can make this thing, it's me. So they wanted to create a new soldier, a super soldier that was a mix between a ape and a man that they could give a gun and go kill people. So he did this for a year. As a matter of fact, he took three female chimpanzees and artificially inseminated them with human sperm, bypassing their outer egg and directly into the zygote. He failed on every experiment he did. Are you saying then that, you mentioned in vitro fertilization, are you saying that kinds are creatures that can't reproduce with each other? Yeah, that would be the separation. Yeah, exactly. That's one of them. So that defines kinds for you, the lack of ability to reproduce. One of them, yes. Yeah, ours is- Do you agree then with standing's previous definition which was descent from the same gene pool? Right, well, that's what I mean. If the same gene pool would be for a snake and a lizard, then they would be able to, in vitro would be fertilized and we would have to now say, okay, they are related and now we have to- The ability to reproduce is depending on similarity between genomes. We know that genomes diverge as the generations go by. So eventually, they will not be able to reproduce. So therefore there would be different kinds. I didn't get the question, sorry. So you said that it's down to whether they're able to reproduce. Right. And that coincides with being in the same gene pool. We know that gene pools change over time between generations between people. So over time, gene pools will diverge. So eventually they won't be able to reproduce anymore. So there's a contradiction in your, because they'll be from the same gene pool but they wouldn't be able to reproduce anymore. For example, all humans are able to reproduce because it's mankind. It's the overall. If we were related to apes which are in the same species according to evolution then we should be able to, in vitro, force a hybrid out of the two. Same thing with what we do with donkeys. We can hybridize something out of them. We can cross all horses because all horses are related. But if dogs and seals were related, then we shouldn't be able to cross them to some degree and get some kind of an offspring. We can hybridize them. We could, in vitro, we can pass up the form of the egg that might make it impossible for under normal circumstances between the two mating. Did you know there's a theory that believes that pigs mated with chimps to create humans? That's the newest theory in evolution right now. I have not heard of that. And I don't even think I should need to comment on that. That sounds, apparently, ridiculous. And I don't know where you've got that from and I don't know why that's being stapled to evolutionary biology. I've never heard of it. I've never seen it in the literature. I don't know where you've got that from. But, Genome to Change. If I could make a suggestion just so we have enough time for a good Q&A. James, could we maybe give Adam a couple of minutes to wrap everything up and then give me and Matt just two minutes to wrap everything up and jump into a Q&A? We usually jump from the open conversation given that, unless you guys had wanted closing statements, we could jump right into the Q&A because right now, the stream, I'm really thankful and surprised we've made it this far because my connection over here has been really weak. And so, thanks so much for everybody listening. So, it might be better if you guys are ready to go into the Q&A as I'm hoping that we get to finish this stream without having the stream drop. Thoughts on that? Oh yeah, yeah, absolutely. Oh, thanks for your patience. I'm honestly so relieved. I thought for sure this is gonna be a goner. So, thanks so much of you. I've kept an eye on the live chat and I appreciate so much that a lot of times, and I appreciate also people kind of helping by just kind of letting people know like, hey, refresh the page and that sometimes helps. We usually don't have a rough connection, but you know, you never know what's coming. So, we're gonna fly through these questions. Don't watch it over us, James. I'm excited. It's been a great stream. Thank you so much for our speakers who, as I mentioned, linked below and let's jump right into the Q&A. So, thanks so much for your super chat from Terry James who says, how does the creation model explain why whales have digits and sharks don't? Matt, you can take this one, brother. Sure, I mean, they're just an entirely different kind. Sharks are not related to whales whatsoever. So, there's going to be some different anatomical features because they are outside of each other's family. I mean, I know that people believe that a little tiny, what is that? That mammal that turned into a whale over time. I know that's the theory of whale evolution, but I mean, that's not exactly what we see. So, I know that little diagrams exist where they point to it and they show, look, these are the steps that had happened, but that's been overturned multiple times. I just, I mean, sharks all have cartilage. They don't have bones, not a single variety of actually shark does. So, that's why they don't get calcification. That's why they don't get nanobacteria in their joints. They're just entirely different. Gotcha, thanks so much. Appreciate it, flying through. Next up, appreciate your super chat from Steven Steen who says, wow, amazing and unrefutable opening by Standing for Truth and raw Matt. I think if you, don't, don't. Is that a question or? No, don't take the bait. He's a troll. I hate to do that, he's taking the truth about that. Steven's the master troll and we appreciate it. Go back to your spot onto the bridge, mate. Thanks for your super chat club. Thanks. They said, Adam, please give us a specific example of evolution that has or is being observed in humans. Not something that has to be taken on faith. Also, do you have evidence that we are currently evolving? Sassy club, thanks, and Adam, the floor is yours. Something that's currently evolving in humans. Well, I mentioned earlier, we aren't really beholden to natural selection at the moment. There's no real selection pressure on us as far as I can see. I don't know, we're probably evolving to be more chair shaped, probably. I don't know. Gotcha, thanks. I'm sure there's something out there that I'm more into my snakes than my humans, I'm sorry to say. Gotcha, and Terry James, thanks for your super chat. Just saw that fly in, we're gonna get to yours as we keep working through. Let's see, we have anamorphic mind. Thanks for your super chat who says, Adam wins again. How does he do it? Thank you, thank you. Got a fan out there. Next up, let's see. Steven Steen being his trollish self says, sorry, Adam, raw Matt and standing for truth are clearly just smarter. I can't tell you how that. I can't tell you how Steven to make us look good. If you regularly watch, you know Steven Steen is pretty full of it, appreciate it. Let's see, we have Terry James who asks, standing for truth accepts the paper's conclusion that the animals are recent but rejects the 200,000 year date as an assumption. Sounds like cognitive bias. What do you think standing for truth? That DNA barcoding was taxing, that thing was had nothing to do with dating, that's why. That study had nothing to do with it. They weren't looking for dates. It was all based upon speciation. They were trying to find what animals were related. So basically it says that if you read through it, the study noticed that they were looking for nuclear genomic analysis to acquire slight DNA changes, meaning they didn't focus on determining age at all. It had nothing to do with the study. Again, they assumed it using, I think like four things. They used history, linguistics, paleontology and anthropology, you can look it up. They assumed it. They even say the word assume directly in the study. So. Gotcha. Thanks so much. I also just realized, thanks for your correction Caleb. Caleb just let me know that the person I was originally calling Colubb is actually Caleb. I'm sorry. Okay. Shocking times, suck yourself. What was the skit? I can't remember. It's like a legendary skit with a substitute teacher. But anyway, thanks for your super chat from, let's see. Steven Steen, who says impressed with the depth of biology knowledge from Mara Matt and standing for truth. Thanks for that. I like your fans here. This is crazy. I'm not used to being, getting good comments. But he's a troll. So. I'm sorry. Sorry man. It says a lot on it. Yeah. Don't get used to it. Brandon Ardeline. I mean, hey, who knows? Maybe he meant to. He says, curious how flawed human anatomy fits into create the creationist model, such as wisdom teeth, vestigial organs, oh gosh, laryngeal nerve. Hopefully I mispronounced that. Flipped retina, exposed testicles, et cetera. Yeah. That's just a misunderstanding of, you know, biology and anatomy and function. I mean, 100 years ago, I think they had a list of over a hundred vestigial organs. Now we know every single one of them, including the appendix, has a function. And now they're taking that vestigial organ argument and they're applying it to DNA. And you can see that with the so-called genomic fossils, shared mistakes that they look to write the pseudo genes. Now those are all being proven to be functional DNA elements, important in our immune system and in sustaining healthy life processes in the cell. So all those things he mentioned have been overturned. Of course, there's been some degeneration and in entropy since the fall, but everything was created perfect and we see evidence for that every day. Thanks. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Shadow Dancer 3531 who asks, Adam, how does natural selection, which is innate and not conscious, choose selection? Example, the cockroach hasn't evolved in 300 million years. Why? Why don't we have 2,000 lens like the cockroach? 2,000 lens like so many little bits in that. I wouldn't say the cockroach hasn't evolved in 300 million years, is that what they said? Natural selection is an environmentally dependent thing. So if you're a wide ranging species, a species that tends to live in vast areas, there's not many parts of your region that are gonna be too disrupted at any given time. So species of larger areas are less likely to change over time because the areas where the environment does change, maybe that part of the species will just be wiped out and the main bulk of it will carry on forward. We see a lot of species that don't change very much. They do change, but just not very much because they're quite wide ranging and they are exposed to the great environmental pressures. The animals that tend to evolve the most are, say, island species where they get washed out to an island of a completely different, well, not completely, but a largely different environment and they adapt quickly to change and they change quite drastically. I do want to point out before I forget, I mentioned a four-legged snake earlier, tetrapodophis. It was 120 million years. I think I might have said that a bit wrong earlier, but that's 120 million years if anyone wants to fact check that. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Next up, appreciate it. We do have Steven Steen with another super chat. Man, the guy's just, he's persistent. You have to give him that. He says pip, pip, cheer me up. How much money has he got to give away? I don't know. Well, I can tell you, he always makes sure that he, for his super chats, he always checks $1.99, so a dollar and 99 cents to save that cent on each one. TwitchLokens16, thanks for your super chat, says poop hawks are on their way. I'm confused by that. I think we owe a lot, James. Gotcha, thanks for that. That's a universal confusion there. Next up, Terry James, thanks for your super chat who said, why would animals of the same kind produce sterile offspring such as the mule? Standing for truth? I mean, okay, these are animals that have, they're just in the speciation ability. I mean, yeah, they're going to be some cross species and there's gonna be some hybrids, but this doesn't fall out of our created kinds. Of course, horses are gonna bring forth horses and some of them are gonna have bad sterilization process. It just goes along with our genetic entropy model. Matter of fact, it shows it even better because unless that first one is born with a brother or sister to even mate with, they don't even exist. They can't even pass the next stage. So I don't even know how to answer that. Do you, standing? No, I think you nailed it there. I mean, if they're losing the ability to reproduce and we're seeing sterility there, I mean, that's certainly consistent with the fall. I mean, you're losing the ability, you're losing information, you're degrading. So we lost James. Okay, back. Thanks so much. Next up, Terry James, thanks for you. They asked, nice try. This is a response to one of your earlier responses. And I think it was from Rahmat or standing for truth. They said, nice try, but why does one aquatic organism need digits and the other doesn't? In particular, whales and sharks? I wouldn't have to say need is the question. Why does it is a little bit of a different answer? Like for example, you can look at a megalodon shark. It's just the size of a whale and the whale has the bones and the shark does not. It's not saying like, oh, it has to have it. They just do because they're different life forms. It doesn't mean they're related. Matter of fact, it shows how separate creation actually is. It's just a defining feature of them. I don't know, what do you think, standing? Yeah, I would say even a lot of those features that they would look to, like even like the so-called hind legs on a whale. I mean, we know that there's a function for everything in our anatomy, everything in our genetics. Those so-called remnant hind legs, we know are used for reproductive purposes. So, yeah, certain things in anatomy they may point to that they believe proves descent with modification actually supports the design model when you further research it and look into it more. Gotcha. Last up, thanks for your, Caleb or Colubb, as I like to call him. Thanks so much. You got a critical there, Adam. They said, insufficient answer, Adam. I think what they mean is the answer that Standing in Wormat just gave was insufficient. In that digits for whales are a derived characteristic. Back when sharks were around, there was no such thing as digits. Digits didn't really come round until the sarcoptoridgens that came up onto land. And when they evolved to move back into the waters, the whales, they developed flippers. And inside those flippers are digits because they were already there. Well, it's just like the... You've got to wrap up sometime just because, forgive me, but I think given that it was a critical super chat for Adam, we'll let him have the last word on that. I think that's fair. Oh, we do have, here's Standing for Truth. And Matt, if you wanna respond to one, we did have a super chat. Thanks, Ryusenski for your super chat. Appreciate that support. They say, to Standing for Truth or Matt, how many hours of research have you actually put into studying evolution? Or instead, did you only put all the time into studying the counterarguments to justify your beliefs? Thanks. Good question. I think both of us were evolutionists. I didn't even know what Young Earth Creation was until a few years ago. Right, and I put a great deal of time into studying evolutionary theory. It's what I was taught and accepted in school. And that's why in a lot of my debates or presentations, I'll touch on some of what they say is their best evidence, like nested hierarchical patterns and things like that, because I think to go into a debate or discussion, say me being a creationist within evolutionists, I need to understand their position in order to ensure that I'm not arguing against like a straw man. And they have to do the same, but I find that a lot of evolutionists don't quite understand or stay up to date with creationist arguments and literature. Gotcha, I wanna say thanks so much, everybody, for being with us today, especially sticking with us as the stream has been a little bit up and down. Hopefully at least the audio has made it through. I think it's frozen a bit on the video, but it sounds like generally the audio made it through, which is great. I wanna say thanks so much for being here to our guests. The debaters, the guests are the lifeblood of the channel. So we can't thank them enough as it's just a joy to get to listen to them. Thanks so much, guys, for being here. And thank you all as well. Thank you, standing, thank you Matt, and thank you, James. Absolutely. With that, we will wish you well, folks. If you are around tomorrow, we'd love to see you with the new topic we've never had debated, whether or not physics points to ever... No, I'm sorry about that. Whether or not physics points to theism or atheism, that should be a fun one. So thanks so much. Miles Davis saw your question in the chat. Email me at moderndaydebate at gmail if you would like to come on for a debate. Ideally, if you let me know what topic and position you take. That's an open offer to anybody. We might do a little bit of vetting just to try to see if you have one. Hopefully you're not crazy. Two, hopefully you're also, in addition to being friendly and not too wild, hopefully we can find somebody who is decent audio. That definitely helps. And then stuff like that. So thanks so much, folks. We love hanging out with you. Hopefully you see you tomorrow and have a great rest of your night. Keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable.