 Hey everybody, today we are debating the origin of species and we are starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for another epic debate as this is going to be a lot of fun, folks. We have two very experienced debaters, they've been here many a times. And this is their third debate, the end game debate, the best two of three. It's going to be a lot of fun, folks. So we are really excited about that and want to let you know if it's your first time here, consider hitting that subscribe button as we have a lot more debates coming up. So for example, you'll see at the bottom right of your screen this Friday, Jonathan Sheffield and Matt Dillahunty will debate whether or not the Gospels were actually authored by Jesus' own disciples. So that should be a lot of fun this Friday night. We hope to see you there, folks. And also want to let you know, though, for our guests today, I put both of their links in the description. So that way if you're listening and you're like, hmm, I like that. You can hear plenty more by clicking on those links in that description box below. Also, what we're going to do is have a kind of a formal but mostly informal type of format tonight. It's mixed where it'll start with seven minute openings followed by open discussion for about 50 minutes and then Q&A. Of course, that would be right after the three minute closings that each of them will have. For the Q&A, if you have a question, feel free to fire it in the old live chat and if you tag me with At Moderne Debate, it makes it easier for me to make sure I get every question in the list. Also, Super Chat is an option in which case you would not only have the option of asking a question during the Q&A, but also making a comment toward one of the speakers. Perhaps you want to make fun of standing for truth's appearance if you've ever seen him in real life. Anything you want, folks. So we do ask them for real. Okay, I can tease them, but it's okay, but we do ask that you can lightly tease them. That's all right. But you'd be your friendly, regular selves. So with that, we want to let you know we are going to jump right into this. So thank you both very much for being here. It's honestly a pleasure to have both of you here. Thank you for coming back to spend time with us. It's always a pleasure to be here, James. You know that I love our formal informal discussions over here on modern day debate, TM. I concur with that, James. It's always a blast. Thanks for giving me the opportunity today is as usual to discuss this topic with Erica. Thanks for doing it. Hey, same. Same at you standing. You know, I love our chats. Absolutely. So with that, we'll kick it over to Erica. Thanks so much. The floor is all yours. Erica. All right. Let me share my screen. This is always kind of an ordeal, huh? All right. Let's see. Okay. Can you guys see my screen? I can see it. Yes. You just give me the thumbs up when we're ready to go. James, are you, for some reason on my end, James, what you just said that I couldn't hear anything. You're a little muffled. You're like really silent. Oh, maybe that is because of the screen share. I don't know. Oh God, the screen share is so powerful. It takes away the voice. This will be ready in three, two, one, and they can see your screen right now. Okay. Excellent that I'm going to go ahead and begin. So on the origin of species, evolution by natural selection. This is my little title card. I hope you guys like it. So understanding our world, what does that mean? Well, it's all about parsimony. So every relevant field supports the origin of life having occurred around 4.5 to 4.8 billion years ago, and evolution by natural selection being responsible for modern biodiversity. This is supported by morphology, paleontology, genetic statistics, physics, geology, chemistry, and those are some of our more heavy hitters in that aspect. So I figured, you know, my case, the case that I'm making for you today is precisely that, that life began some 4.5 to 4.8 billion years ago, and that since that point, it's been evolving and changing. So I figured we're going to start with the abiotic stuff and maybe make some comparisons along the way. So first of all, evolution obviously requires time. A very ancient world is necessary for evolution. In fact, the theory was conceived after the earth was discovered to be quite old. Darwin had the pre-Kipi of geology with him on the Beagle, rather. So how do we know that our world is 4.5 to 4.8 billion years old and how solid is that science? Well, first we have to ask a question or rather make a comparison. So young earth creationism requires that the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old and evolution requires lots of time. The molecular clock suggests around 4.1 billion years. So radiometric dating, this is solid as a rock. And it's essentially rooted in a firm law of physics. So this is the radioactive decay law. Basically, when we're dating rock, we just look at a ratio. It's a simple ratio between the parent's nucleus and the daughter nucleus. And depending on which one you have more of, you can give a general idea of the age of the rock because things decay consistently. They don't change in meaningful ways in nature on our planet. So a bunch of creationists back in 2005 and a little bit earlier decided that they were going to disprove radiometric dating and they couldn't. They had to admit that a young earth position cannot be reconciled with the scientific data without assuming that exotic solutions will be discovered in the future. No known thermodynamic process could account for the required rate of heat removal, nor is there any known way to protect organisms from radiation damage. So this is the radioactive decay law to the left and to the right. I've got this, this class of you guys have probably all seen this before. I've talked about it here before. Of what would happen if we tried to compress or cram in 4.8 billion years of radioactive decay into about 6000 years, and it would be a bad situation. According to the equation, basically at the time of Adam and Eve 6000 years ago, the earth would be around 70,000 degrees Celsius for every square kilometer. So you can check that there's a little source at the bottom there. But also $257 billion depend on the fact of radiometric dating working. Here's a paper from the University of Durham. It essentially talks about how chronometers are very reliable and precise. They can tell you the depositional age, oil generation, you know, things of this nature that require the geologic column and of course evolutionary theory, both of them corroborate one another to be factual. So I very much doubt that this is usually what I point to when people, you know, sort of point to conspiracy as something that's keeping young, you know, why you see down, which is that it's a lot of money to be to be rooted in something that isn't certain. So Young Earth creationism requires a separate ancestor for the kinds of animals and definitely requires a universal common ancestry. We can look to statistics for this one. I've also shown this here before these are two excellent papers that basically just do statistical analysis on common ancestry versus separate ancestry. And these quotes to the right are very powerful. They the first one says quote we overwhelmingly rejected both species and family separate ancestry due to infinitesimally small p values. The data sets reject species separate ancestry strongly, essentially the the odds of getting this data set and having separate ancestry be the reality is, it's about the odds of picking a specific atom in the known universe which is to say very small. And then the second one we have that you know they we demonstrate rather quantitatively as predicted by evolutionary theory sequences of homologous proteins from different species that converges we go further and further back in time. It says it's time that researchers insisted that doubters put up test alternatives to evolution. I have a feeling we're going to be talking about nested hierarchies today, because no standing has a response to that and I hope we can get into that later. So Young Earth creationism also requires that humans are somehow unique from the animals, including the apes. And of course evolution requires that humans are animals and descend from an ancient hominoid. So we we know that we know that we're apes we know that we're animals we know this by our morphology because every category that we use, or rather the criteria that we use for various categories to cram other animals into them we match all of the ones that land us as catarines that land us as hominids etc etc. But we can also of course look to genetics I use this slide every time because I think it's so important. When we align genome side by side between humans and and the nobos or chimpanzees we find they're 96% similar with whole genome or around 99 for for coding base pairs. And interestingly enough, when you compare a chip to a human or and also to a gorilla they're more closely related to us. The way that we do this is through comparative genomics which is basically a souped up version of a paternity test. So Young Earth creationism typically requires that no transitional forms exist that bridge the gaps of major groups, whereas evolution requires lots of transitional forms, particularly bridging those major groups. I know we're probably going to be talking about this as well as it does have to do with that nested hierarchy, but to be clear, obviously there there are transitional forms. Evolution makes a prediction basically can we show a gradient from from more basal ancestors to more modern ancestors through geologic time. And the answer is of course that we can. Oops, that's in the wrong place. Here are a couple of skulls right I show this one every time as well because it's also very powerful. All of these skulls are found in you know generally different geologic layers and you'll notice that they have small morphological differences, which is called geologic time and that geologic time is backed up by the great metric decay law rather. We do the classic comparison of humans and how Australopithecus africanus and aphorensis are indeed very intermediate in both their knees, their parabolic palates their inline big toes, their pelvis is their friend Magnum, etc, etc. And what we see we see morphologic change through geologic time we see the emergence of pectoral muscles the nostrils moving to the top of the head. We can see it with whales modern cetaceans are the only organisms that have an inner ear structure known as the involucrum, and the only terrestrial animals would find it in in the fossil record are very coastal organisms that through geologic time in the same location slowly become more aquatic they get shorter more more awkward limbs their nostrils move to the top of their head. And yet still when we look at animals like Dorudon which is you know markedly a citation a whale. We still see that has a little bitty pelvis little bitty knees and a little bitty feet. So evolution, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Because of the nature of natural selection much of the genome in any given organism is non functional and littered with the remains of ancient viruses, accidentally preserved with the genotype. So life is chock full of these redundancies and mistakes. And a classic example would be the gulogene or vitamin C gene which is broken in all of the haplarines. We can talk about endogenous retroviruses and to jump back to this slide right here, because young earth creationism suggests that the human genome is at least close to 100% functional, whereas evolution suggests that lots of junk DNA and other elements indicative of retrofitted exist. And one of those of course is endogenous retroviruses I know we're going to be talking about this. These are little bitty ancient bits of DNA lodged in our genomes now we know for certain that they they are indeed viruses because when you transplant them in at least in their whole form from one animal to another you get a zoonotic effect. They become pathogenic. So these are some papers where we can talk about that later I'm sure we will. I wish you're 99% of our ear bees with chimps in the same exact location and the mutations are all the same as well. Or we could talk about the functionality of the human genome or indeed any any animals genome, none of which are fully functional they've done knock out tests on mice, you know, hitting out half half of the entire genome and still they're able to reproduce and have produce babies, etc, etc. This paper in 2017 puts a cap on human functionality at around 25%. I look at this I screwed up all my slides they're all mixed up, but here's some birds and transitional forms that are also quite neat. So, to finish this is what I've got to say. Here's some listed facts and their implications. Radiometric dating exists and confirms an ancient earth statistics make separate creation very unlikely morphology genetics and paleontology are humans are animals apes and not physiologically unique in any major way behaviors of course a different story. Most of the genome is junk and transitional species exist and bridge gaps. Thus, young earth creationism is entirely unsupported and at least what we've talked about specifically here and evolutionary theory is entirely supported. So that's all I got. Yes. And I didn't want to interrupt or anything. My timer did say just over nine minutes. So I'll put, which is fine. I always say take your time. Oh, you guys would have stopped me. Okay. You know what? You were on a roll. We didn't want to stop you, but I'll do nine minutes as well on my time. I did lose track of time. Sorry about that. And to be fair to our dearest friend standing for truth, I do have to mention really quick. And standing is that, let's see, that must be your PowerPoint. Okay, so you're already showing, but I do want to mention just so people know that dearest standing for truth is not moving the goalposts, the subtitle for tonight's debate. But I told him I said, standing, that's just not going to work. Because he was like, let's do this totally long title, man. And I was like, we're just going to keep it origin of species. But the subtitle admittedly is limited ancestry versus universal ancestry. So with that, the floor is all yours standing for truth. Awesome. Awesome. Thanks so much. Give me one second here just to make sure everything is good. I'll start my timer in three, two, one. Okay, awesome. Thanks for doing this, Erica. Thanks so much for that opening. You know what? The molecular clock she talked about is the direct way to test for age and contrary to what she said in her opening molecular clocks go back just 6000 years and not millions and billions of years like she insisted. She looked at dating methods, of course, and went over a number of things indicating old age. Of course, we're going to stick with that, which is direct evidence, for example, genetics. That's what's inherited sperm and egg. But briefly, I do want to touch on the dating methods that she talked about there, including isochron dating. Even that relies on at least one or more unknowable assumptions. Some of these assumptions being about initial conditions, constancy of rate, for example, and a closed system. Even isochron dating will require an unassumed history. That's pretty obvious. What she said about rate project not having any explanations or evidence, that's not true either. For example, a number of lines of evidence do indicate that rapid decay has occurred in the past. For example, byproducts of radioactive decay include helium, fission tracks, and radio halos. This is observable evidence in the rocks that nuclear decay has occurred. She looked to fossils quite a bit there, but fossils cannot establish genetic relationships. Similarities in fossil organisms, for example, may not always be due to common ancestry. So I just wanted to touch on a few things there. As you can see here, debate with Erica Chapter 3. I enjoyed the first two, so I'm looking forward to this one. Tonight, we are debating the origin of species, universal or limited ancestry as James reiterated there. In Erica's previous debates, including the two with me, she focused heavily on genetic related evidence to demonstrate universal common ancestry. Genomic comparisons, chromosome 2 fusion, for example, endogenous retroviruses, which she touched on there. Pseudogenes, for example, so I'm happy to discuss any of those. I have no problem with this as it is in our DNA where the question regarding ancestry is answered. What directly records a species ancestry? Sperm and egg do not pass on a fossil or a bone. They do not 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 can look at dogs as a basic example as to why genetics is so important in determining what is related and what is not related. Dogs of all types make it clear that morphology, anatomy, and bones in the dirt can oftentimes fail us because there is often more diversity within a species than between a species. This makes it difficult to classify animals by their physical traits alone. Therefore, the best way to determine ancestry is by looking at the genetics and that which has passed on sperm and egg. This is the only direct measurement of ancestry. And she talked about, she showed a couple of papers there based on statistics that limited ancestry can't be true. But those studies are all based on the assumption that creationists don't predict the necessary hierarchical patterns. And those studies have never been done based on a starting point of created heterozygosity. So that negates all those studies. Creationists and evolutionists have vastly different explanations for the origin of genetic diversity. I will only briefly touch on the created genetic diversity hypothesis. And we'll do so by asking, would God have created Adam and Eve with two identical versions of DNA and Eve the same way? If this were the way God chose to do things, Adam and Eve would have created clones. 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 DNA differences from the start. This is the idea of created heterozygosity. Adam and Eve would have had within their DNA the genetic potential to produce every shade of skin that exists on the planet or known to man. If these studies she talked about had the assumption that both models predict nest and hierarchical patterns, they wouldn't have come to the conclusions that they did. Evolutionists explained the vast majority of DNA differences as a result of mutation and this is the way that they look at it. This one genetic difference and starting point leads to vastly different expectations and predictions on DNA function and speciation. Every single one of Erica's genetic related evidence for universal common ancestry that she pointed to in her opening here have been overturned and I'm happy to discuss every single one of them. The lines of evidence Erica uses are evidence for this model of created heterozygosity. I'm glad she brought them up. Since both creationists and evolutionists expect nested hierarchical patterns in anatomy, physiology and genetics and we both expect homologous patterns and we both expect types of creatures that can best be explained as mosaic or in a sense transitional. I can demonstrate that the function of DNA can differentiate between the two models. Pseudo genes are functional DNA elements and not mistakes. The ERVs that she pointed to here are functional DNA elements and not the remnants of ancient viral infections and the chromosome 2 fusion has been overturned for a number of reasons that I will discuss here with Erica. She also talked about the guloseudo gene, which can be explained based on mutational hotspots, which is what evolutionists look to to explain some of the data as well. Here are some papers. A lot of evolutionists, even Erica, will say it's just a few functional retroviruses or retro transposons, but we can see paper after paper retro viral promoters in the human genome. Large scale discovery of insertion hotspots and preferential integration sites of human transpose elements, regulatory activities of transposable elements from conflicts to benefits. Intronic ALUs influence alternative splicing. You can find paper after paper after paper. Nests and hierarchies of course are the products of design and humans build in homologous patterns. Here are the questions I have for Erica. I want her to begin the discussion by answering these questions regarding the chromosome 2 fusion. This is extremely important. As you can see here on the slide, Kenneth Miller has said that if we do not find evidence for a chromosome 2 fusion in humans, an evolution is wrong and we do not share a common ancestor with the chimpanzee. So if there was no chromosome 2 fusion, well, as per the title of the debate, looks like limited ancestry is what we see empirically. So therefore the discussion must start by Erica answering these very critical questions and simply not ignoring them. These are the questions I have asked of her in our first debate and from my recollection I received no answer. So we know the fusion site is a functional element inside an RNA helicase long non-coding RNA gene. Erica has issues with this, but this is the least of her problems. Why is the telomere region so degenerate and small? Where do we find the necessary disabled second centromere, the cryptic centromere? And most importantly, chips have very distinctive and exceptionally large satellite sequences at the ends of their chromosomes. Where are these large ape-specific satellite sequences in the reputed fusion site? You have my permission, of course, to take your time answering these extremely critical questions uninterrupted when we start the discussion. Since your theory hinges on the fusion event being true, then you should obviously know how to answer these questions. Another question I'll have for Erica is we know that ERVs, which she touched on in her opening, are in other classes of retro-transpolt zones that accomplish many crucial functions in regulating gene expression, differentiation, development, and even cell stress responses. Does Erica have any real empirical evidence, maybe even a technical paper that actually demonstrates a non-functional DNA element that she points to, such as an ERV, a pseudo-gene, an ALU, for example, going from non-functional to something critically functional in the genome? And I do not want her to simply invoke co-option with no real empirical evidence. I have just over a minute here, I'll go over a couple other questions. Human chromosomes, for example, are made up of relatively large linkage blocks. An analysis of these original text strings tells us that the genome is young. Why? Because the genome has only been partially scrambled. Crossovers and gene conversions should scramble all linkage blocks quite quickly in an evolutionary time frame. This is a big problem for evolutionary theory. How does Erica explain this? A near-fully functional genome turns these nested hierarchies into design hierarchies. Therefore, Erica has to fight the evidence, as you've seen in the opening, for genome function, including the results of ENCODE, which suggests that over 80% of our genome is indeed functional. We can discuss the grower paper that she uses in the discussion portion if she'd like, but my question would be, if less than 25% of the genome really is functional, as Erica suggests, why would the cell bother with it? Why would the cell bother with so much junk? Such an activity would be wasteful of energy and resources, and would have been eliminated by natural selection long ago. We are all set. Thanks so much for that, Stanley for truth. Now jump right into the open discussion. So thanks so much, and the floor is all yours. Oh, wow. We do have a lot to discuss. I'm excited. I do want to touch a bit on, before we begin, as we tend to touch on this topic. One, I would like to see a source for saying that molecular clocks don't go back further than 6,000 years. I would be interested to, yeah, I would be interested to see that. I suspect it's Nathaniel Jensen, which we'll talk about that for sure. I'm sure, yes, I'm sure we will get into Nathaniel Jensen. I also wanted to ask what unassumed conditions your, your, actually real quick, because you did bring up Nathaniel Jensen there. Why don't you explain why you believe Dr. Nathaniel Jensen is in error regarding his, regarding the mutation rates that he has derived and used to show that mitochondrial Eve goes back just 6,000 years and why chromosome Adam actually goes back just 4,500 years to why chromosome Noah. And I just want to point out, we can talk about the decay rate. I do believe because of the title of the debate, it's detrimental that you do address the questions regarding the chromosomal to fusion. I agree, although I will, a couple of things there, one, I do agree, but I, as, as for instance, Kent Hovind has always pointed out, evolution does require a lot of time and I find that, given it does quite frequently in these conversations boiled down to how old the earth is because the mass created heterozygosity is, is quite strange if you really are working with a sort of progressive creation in a 4.5 to 4.8 billion year old earth, which is why I bring it up because I find it to be very glaring for creationism as a whole. And that's why I would like to discuss that sort of sort of. Evolutionists will say that time is the hero of the plot, so that's why you'll look to the dating methods, for example, an isochron dating. But to be honest with you, time is actually the enemy of the plot because we see that genetic changes down, for example, we can see direct evidence in our molecular clocks that only take us back max 6,000 years. So before we get to that, let's discuss the, you're the one who brought up Dr. Nathaniel Jensen. So what do you believe about Dr. Jensen's mutation rates, which I'm saying directly prove a young genome of 6,000 years, what do you believe? I think, I think, yeah, I think well, I mean, you know, if we were doing an order it doing it in order, I think that normally since it's a back and forth that would be sort of we address my question first and then move on but I think I found a decent way to tie this in. Because if I remember correctly from Nathaniel Jensen's book Replacing Darwin, one of the reasons why he invokes the mutation rate that he invokes that is to say a constant one completely ignoring time dependency slow down or the hominid slow down is because and and this is almost, you know, this is paraphrase but this is verbatim the concept is because he says that since evolutionists can invoke constancies right in the speed of light and in radiometric decay. He should be allowed to do the same thing for mutation, which of course those those three concepts are completely divorced from one another natural selection or any kind of selection doesn't work on on inanimate objects that don't. So we have predictions on natural selection and how much natural selection would have to remove because universally mitochondrial DNA clocks and the Y chromosome mutate fast they mutate quickly evolutionist. There's no, there's no mutation rate that can be slow enough for evolution and 250,000, you know, year ago for, let's say why or mitochondrial E Y chromosome Adam, there's there's no the mutation rate that slow enough to account for that but we just use a numerical method and that's why Dr. Nathaniel Jensen in, I guess, as an objection to what you're saying, he has made testable predictions on the rate at which mitochondrial DNA changes in non African people groups for example the coys on people's do you have a prediction as to how fast the mitochondrial DNA would mutate or change in people groups not measured yet. Well, I'm certainly not science. Yeah, I'll be the first one to admit that I'm not a geneticist you know I have no idea the precise number made a prediction from the evolutionist community on how fast mitochondrial DNA mutates in non African people groups, for example, the coys on people's because I pointed to non African people groups and said okay, as support for the mutation rate that I'm using. This is exactly what I predict these people groups will mutate. Yes, I believe that there have been quite a few predictions on on mitochondrial mutation rate, but the thing is is that there's community now that's wrong. Well, I would find that surprising I don't know if, if, like what those papers would be off the top of my head because it's so well understood in the community of genetics and mutation rates change. How come Dr. Nathaniel Jensen's predictions are working so well because they're not they're working within his own framework. If we if we go back into his act if I'm if memory serves and you can correct me if I'm wrong because you're the one who's probably read the book more recently than I have. But if memory serves, he he near the end of the book he actually ends up taking several different species not just humans and he's trying to figure out what the predicted mutation rate using evolutionary theory would be and what using his type of very, very constant mutation would be. And I think it was either three or four out of the seven he actually got while tweaking the mutation rate to be constant, which it's not. In fact, I have a paper. They would take me a minute to pull up because it's in my history from today, but I have a paper that that shows very handily that mutation rates don't just vary through time, they vary by population. Not very much mind you, but but that right off the bat deep six is Jensen's idea of using a single constant mutation rate. Now he does tweak. He's not using a single constant mutation rate so he's looking at the mutation rates in humans, for example, and making direct predictions on human people groups for example on African people groups such as the not African people groups like the coys on people's their mutation rate hasn't been measured. So he made predictions on that. If you look at various animal species. All right, that was one point. So let's go back to Erica. Since you did interrupt Erica. So I do I just don't want Erica to go on a team. I just want to we promise we'll come back. We'll promise we'll come back to you. We already let you was already generous to let you make one point while she was talking. So we'll come back to you once she finishes her point. I promise. Take your time. It's totally it's totally fun. I because I do go on tangents. I fully admit to that. I get excited with myself and I want to take these rabbits. We're both I want to give you uninterrupted time just to go over why you believe his mutation rate in human people groups on the mitochondria is inaccurate go take your time take your time and then I'll give a rebuttal after. Yeah, so, so I'm just going to give you one very simple thing that I've that I've just said which is that uses a constant mutation rate for humans. Human mutation rate is not constant. Like I said it varies within populations as well as through time and as well as across species. So while I understand that genes and use different mutation rates for different species. He uses a single uninterrupted mutation time to go back and get the numbers that he requires. And to kind of add on to that, the whole concept of the hominid slow down hypothesis right which is that in both humans and in chimps and bonobos mutations are occurring slower and slower is mapped on the why chromosome that we have been dying to talk about for so long. So, so, but the second part is is that if you know Jason has made a prediction about the voice on people. We've been waiting for his, his, his definitive voice on paper results for quite some time now. And if I remember correctly because I've my, my close YEC friend who I used to get coffee with had a copy of replacing Darwin. It was about when those papers were going to come out when we used to get coffee six months ago rather nine months ago, and he was like, it should be any day now and here we are still with no paper, no results. Nothing with regard to something definitive that that matches his claim and it just makes me wonder why but to definitively answer your question, human mutation rates aren't constant. I've been thinking since mitochondrial Eve and whole backwards span, you know, movement backwards with to 6000 years for white chromosome and mitochondrial Eve is incorrect. That's all I have to say on that. Awesome, I appreciate that. So I'll just respond by saying once coison people give us their blood and their DNA, we can test that of course, Dr. Nathaniel Jensen is not just going to go over and do that himself but the prediction, it's a novel prediction that that's in print. So people that say, just real quick, people that say that creases don't make future testable predictions that future observations can confirm whether they're true or not is just false. And remember the mutation rate is constant. Yes, the only thing that is different is generational times between different animals. That's why Dr. Jensen says you can point to say a fox and I will predict how quickly their DNA changes and that's something that evolutionists are not doing. When it comes to mitochondrial Eve, for example, the papers that he has looked at, for example, the mutation rate used in, I believe it's the Parsons paper was actually so good that it was adopted by the FBI. You might even be aware of this. And then many of the subsequent papers that he puts in his end notes of replacing Darwin. Following the Parsons paper, there hasn't just been one paper, for example, have actually confirmed, they corroborate that mitochondrial Eve lived just thousands of years ago. And this even accounts for heteroplastomy, I'm sure you know what that is, and somatic mutations that people like Evo grad like to complain about. So many studies have looked at the D loop region that's highly conservative course in the mitochondrial DNA. And those are 100% germline mutations, given, of course, that they are multi-generational pedigrees. Trio studies are the best way to determine a mutation rate. Now, I don't want to bore the audience here, but they can look this up themselves. And these studies actually line up perfectly with other studies of mitochondrial DNA. So there are mutations in this compartment of DNA, of course, that are heteroplastomic. You've probably heard of this. They'll drift to fixation. But regardless, all the dates themselves are in agreement. So unless you add in evolutionary phylogenetic assumptions, or archaeology-related assumptions, all the papers corroborate on one. And then take all this taken into consideration, he has actually made testable predictions about non-African people groups, which evolutionists aren't making. So you can say natural selection. This is a lot of problems. Solves this problem, but without any testable predictions, Erica, it's just not science. So go ahead. Yeah, but the thing is, is that what you just said there was, you know, you made several points, but in the middle, I noticed that you said the mutation rate is constant. I can't stress this enough. It's just not. It's not in populations. It's not across species. What's your testable prediction? I'm not going to make a testable prediction. That's great. He's entitled to make that testable prediction. In fact, I very much commend him for making it. That's very gutsy of him to put that out there, knowing that mutation rates do vary. Now, I want to make a prediction of my own here. You mentioned that a lot of his mitochondrial DNA, I imagine they were more secular papers, have been corroborated by other studies. One, I would be interested to see those studies because my prediction is whatever studies they are, they have to do with mutation rates that are occurring right now. The whole crux of the issue is Nathaniel Jensen get his number of 6000 years by taking a current mutation rate and tracking it backwards. Now, that's not how mutation works. Like I said, we see it, you know, differences in mutation in populations, species and through time. So the problem with that becomes, can he provide any kind of reasoning for why he thinks that the mutation rate in humans should be constant without invoking the old well evolutionist do it for the speed of light evolutionists do it for that decay, which are, of course, as I know you would agree, are very different from biology. So that's my whole problem with him, you know, we could, I mean, I noticed that he does account, he does account for those because mutation rate was one mutation rate to get that 6000 years the mitochondrial DNA human mutation rate is what he tracks backwards to get 6000 years for mitochondrial Eve. And interestingly enough, as I know you've seen from Evo grads blog, which I do recommend that everyone check out he goes very in depth into replacing Darwin. When Jensen's methodology was applied to chimpanzees and bonobos, the prediction that he was supposed to get using a constant a constant mutation rate for for chimps and bonobos and what their differences would be was completely off base, which proves my point, it's there, they are subject to the same hominid slowdown hypothesis that humans are subject to. So, so using that constant mutation rate on a species that at least to our current knowledge and with regard to the sex chromosomes in particular is mutating faster, you run into problems, constancy is very much out the window when it comes to genetics is is is something that I've learned at least in the past two weeks of spending a lot of my time reading up on it but again I'm not a geneticist okay that's okay that's why the mutation rate that he's using in non African people groups are leading to testable predictions it's it's now revealing genetic signatures in the mitochondrial DNA as well as the Y chromosome once we get into that regarding the history of civilization which evolution is wouldn't even expect to be there but that's why he's looked at African diversity for example so there's all types of rates there's all types of considerations that he he needs to consider even in the voice on peoples for example in the African people groups there's more genetic diversity so he looks to not just explanations from the UN data on as you know about on when people marry but also goes into different rates of gene conversion there's all kinds of chromosomal recombination different historic population sizes these are all factors that are considered in these predictions it just so happens to turn out that the mutation rate derived in in all these papers and using the empirical method does take mitochondrial back to 6000 years and he can consider somatic mutations hetero plasma he looks at the D loop for example which yes and it goes back 6000 years and he's making testable predictions which you have admitted based on your assumption of evolutionary deep time that these predictions have not been made so the creationists are the ones doing the science and the evolutionists are the ones that are just coming up with rescue devices as well so to be clear though so again you've you've listed a ton of different factors that genes and has taken into consideration all of these varying factors that he's going down his list and checking off and saying alright we're including this in our empiricism except for the fact the enormous glaring hole in the entire thing which is that he uses a constant data for humans that's the problem you can include 100 million different factors but if if one of the biggie the biggies is incorrect and is incorrect on its head, then, then the data's out the window, you know, it's it's just not viable at all. It's great you know that he has reasons for for that he uses triads rather than diads and he makes sure he's using his germline mutations and looking at the D loop of a single paper mind you. But, but again, I cannot stress this enough and you haven't provided anything to me here that suggests that I'm incorrect in what I'm stating, he's using a constant mutation rate, humans don't mutate constantly, like at a constant rate rather. And that's why no size fits all that's why he needs to look at generational times when it comes to species, when it comes to African people groups we need to look at population history, for example, we need to look at genetic processes such as gene conversion, recombination. But that's why he's actually made a testable prediction not only on people groups human people groups, but also species. And the point is, is that based upon the actual empirically observed mutation rate. Yeah, you have to say that these mutation rates have changed throughout history or natural selection has been faster in the past, for example, because there is no mutation rate that's slow enough for deep time evolution to be true. But the thing is, you can say those things all day, but without any testable predictions that flow from those explanations and those rescue devices, it is not science creations are the ones that are making the predictions. Dr. Jensen is making predictions on non African people groups. He's making predictions on hundreds of animal species. For example, he's making predictions on the stamp of civilization in our genetics, and they are working so well and evolutionists can't explain why. Evolutionists when they do these analyses, rather than using the actual observed mutation rates, the empirical method, like we're talking about here and you just admitted it, they have been compelled to use hypothetical, and you're proving this, hypothetical mutation rates that are about 20 fold lower than what's actually observed. And then they base this based on archaeology or certain evolutionary assumptions. But guess what? No testable predictions. It's not science. That's the problem. So, but the thing is, though, is, is I'm again forced to repeat the fact that mutation rates vary, yes, through time, but also across species and also across populations within species. So, Jensen's not taking that to at least my knowledge maybe he's done something since then. He's not taking that into account at all. And very much. Yes, I will 100% say that when devising things like phylogenetic trees, mutation rates are looked at in the context of how they've slowed down through time. But keep in mind that doesn't help Jensen's case because he's still using a single mutation rate for all humans since the dawn of time whenever that may be. But the problem is, it's very from population to population. He agrees that humans mutate differently and species may mutate differently and there's different generation times and population histories. That's why he's making a prediction on an African people group who he is saying has a different population history because he's saying that those coison peoples are mutating faster. Maybe there's faster rates of gene conversion, but let me ask this. So humans, though, overall do mutate fairly consistently. That's why he's able to make these testable predictions that evolutionists are making, except for in Africa. And that's why he's got different, different factors that play there. But why, let me ask this. Why, if it's so inconsistent, for example, is so different in the past? And we should look at these phylogenetic assumptions. Why is the FBI using those Parsons rates in forensics? If it's so, if it's so. Because the mutation rate that's occurring now is to a degree very accurate for the people that are here, particularly as I know the, or as I don't know this for sure, as I very much, yes, the FBI is doing. How they're using it, I would wager, is very dependent on the ancestry, perhaps the gender or race of the particular individual that they're working with, because there's variation in the human population. So I would need to see, I want to see, one, I want to see when Nathaniel Jensen is finally going to show us the results of this paper. I have no idea how far he is on it if he started it. He's already shown results. I can send you those. Well, I mean, yeah, please do, you know, but the fact of the matter is, like, and now that we've covered Nathaniel Jensen, hopefully to your satisfaction. I don't think you answered it satisfactorily because you've admitted there's been no testable predictions, which means the evolutionist explanation is not science and yet not only the Coison people prediction he's talking about. No modern human lineages do trace back their genetic differences to ancestors who lived only a few thousand years ago in the mitochondrial DNA and in the Y chromosome. Then the history of civilization must be recorded in both DNA compartments and yet you can see a couple papers, one based on population genetic history. You can see that these genetic signatures in the Roman empires, the Mongol empires, the Americas just to be sure that we are actually being revealed. But the evolutionists don't expect those because guess what the last 4000 years of human history would just be a tiny little blimp at the end of a needle compared to the whole history of deep time evolution. So if you want to give those over to Erica, a chance to respond. Yeah, if Erica just to be sure that if you want you can ask questions regarding standing for truths, opening right after you give answers to those questions or objections that you know games you know I'm easy whatever I mean if standing wants to take the conversation in whatever direction that's fine with me. But what I do want to make sure we talk about here today is radiometric decay. The reason why is because as you're proving here genetics which is the direct measurement of ancestry goes back to just 6000 years ago and 4500 years ago for the Y chromosome and testable predictions are being confirmed based on those hypotheses. So yeah you want to go to indirect evidence because the direct evidence is not in your favor but of course we can go to the indirect evidence that at a time. But you even admit it with the Parsons papers because that's the empirical method that's the observed mutation rate, then you say oh it's been so different in the past but then no testable predictions can flow from that. So I'm just saying you can. I feel like you're not hearing. I feel like you're not hearing me here. I'm saying that no, I don't think Jensen is making accurate testable predictions with regard to the human mutation rate and the origins of humanity, whether or not his technical papers are being used by the FBI or not, I know nothing about those papers, but I suspect if we went and we looked into them, they probably have this is just my speculation. They probably have nothing to do with the origin of humanity, or anything to do with with the very fact that human populations change mutation rate, I would wager that what it actually has quite a bit to do with is his methodology with regard to to acquiring pedigree data. Now I don't know that for certain but again I want to be very clear to everyone who's listening here. Nathaniel Jensen is not making accurate predictions because he is using a constant mutation rate for all of humanity, which by the way as I said many times before. That's ridiculous because African people groups are part of humanity and he's not using a constant one second for that prediction. So why are you making things up. Alright, no more points from standing for truth until she gets to answer this one as well as the one that she was actually making when you interrupt it. No sure and standing you know you can you can get a bit agitated about it that's fine but the fact of the matter is I can provide like in just in a quick Google search, dozens of papers that should be technical literature for why the mutation rate varies, or we could just pull up the fact I mean you know we can play the games of authority all day long, but the fact of the matter is a great many are great volume I suppose of the predictions that have been made by evolutionary theory have come to fruition, including mind you, the great majority of the ones that have to do with anthropology. So, so again, which predictions have come true so I don't want to because you made a claim which ones on mitochondrial DNA and mutation rates for example, and genetic signatures in both mitochondrial DNA and white chromosomes on which predictions are you referring to. So standing standing I feel like what you're asking for here is you're asking for me to provide a prediction that evolutionary theory has made. You just said they've made predictions using your using your mutation rate is this constant. Okay we need fewer interruptions from standing for truth. No, it's fine James I mean I get what he's saying. We're having just a back and forth discussion. Yeah I get what he's saying. There are disproportionate interruptions from standing for truth and so. Hey I don't take it personally you know if I can't get. You can interrupt me at any time as well Erica but I'll go uninterrupted. Yeah if I can't if I can't get riled by Nathan Thompson I'm not going to get riled by you standing. As long as it's equal I'm fine with it. Yeah yeah absolutely. I mean I feel like I guess honestly I'm not really sure what kind of predictions you would expect evolutionists to make like to make a clear comparison. I feel like what you're asking is quite similar in concept to when when those who accept evolution say okay well what would you expect from a transitional fossil and then typically you know what Christianity gives either an answer or they don't. So I'm I guess I'm not sure actually can I interrupt you just for one I just want to make one point. Well but I want you to answer my question while you're after I let you go here I want you to make the claim that they're making predictions so I just said what predictions were those and now you're. Yeah but you want them with regard to mitochondrial DNA which considering we're using a constant mutation rate for the population that is here right now. And I'm going to answer your question right here right now. You are asking for a prediction on how mutation rates change on on whatever the mitochondrial DNA, and even the hominid slowdown hypothesis, even if we could make that prediction, we wouldn't know our results for hundreds if not thousands of years because the change in rate is rather slow now and keep in mind this is falling in line with the hominid slowdown hypothesis which suggests that it's getting slower exponentially. We see this in bonobos and chimps and we see it in humans less so with gorillas so so I'm feeling like to be very clear I'm feeling like the predictions that you're asking evolutionists to make couldn't come to fruition until both of us are dead. And that happens often mean Darwin himself has made those predictions you're talking about different factors in the history of humanity or the history of other various species that have changed the mitochondrial DNA molecular clock and it would have to be changed for this for the slower for deep time evolution but we're just looking at it and to be clear this is very analogous to saying why don't we see big evolutionary changes today in like and usually people what they want to see is the big you know the the the sexier I just wasn't really and see you interrupted me there and it's okay it's okay it's just a back and $4 because I just wanted to point out that I'm starting to gather. Do you not believe that Jensen is using like secular mutation rates to come up with his his predictions. I know I know he's using a singular secular rate from sores et al and I know for a fact that in that same paper everyone out there go look this up I'm saying this with emphasis because I know it for a fact. Sores et al's paper the one that Jensen sites notes that mutation rates vary. So, so I don't know why Jensen being being the fantastic geneticist that he is missed that you get what I mean. I feel like you're not hearing me as well because I've already said in a nutshell he's considered hetero plasmid he's he's considered somatic mutations he's considered germline mutations for example there's already agreement between two mitochondrial DNA rate sets that exist for example the D loop the coding region, which we know is germline. And then the second set looks at the entire mitochondrial genome and Jensen took a look at that data, and it came out as the same as the D loop results so these are all corroborating with each other, which has now led to predictions on non African people groups, as well as predictions on the history of civilization regarding genetic stamps. Right so to so two things on that though two things on that and I'm and now that we are we're both healthy in our interruption is not normally I'm not I'm not too big on it but you know that's where we're having a passion discussion that's okay. So I want to hear this from from you now are you suggesting that the paper that Jensen pulls from from sores et al supports the notion that there is a single mutation rate that can be used for the mitochondria. So if the paper that you're referring to is he is that paper the one that's considering looking at hetero plasma and possible. Jensen get his mitochondrial mutation rate from it's it's listed in the book and then in the footnote or whatever and then it's also listed on evo grad site you can pull it up and see the one I'm talking about there. Is the one he's is that paper are you telling me right now because because you know I really want to know for certain what you're asserting here. Are you telling me that in that sores paper sores himself agrees with Jensen's conception that there is a single mitochondrial mutation rate that can be used for humanity. That's a good question but the thing is you're assuming that he's only looking at one paper. I'm just asking that particular paper because he cites sores et al which means he's citing sores et al for a reason in that paper. Do you think he's honestly representing sores et al and I'm asking this because because I know the answer. Do you think he's honestly representing sores et al in in pulling a single human mutation rate for the mitochondria from that paper I think it's 2009 I'm not positive. So if that's the paper if he's actually just looking at the rate at which the mitochondrial DNA mutates per generation. Then yes that is exactly what Jensen is looking and considering in that paper he might conclude different of course mutation rates. A lot of these papers are written by secularists and evolutionists so therefore they're looking at ways of explaining the empirical data they'll look at. So then it's not corroborated by a secular source then because if Jensen is looking at if I want to write a paper on how big the average cow is and I go and I look at at a paper and I see that this person has this big long list of data for cow sizes and I see that look the average cow size is 300 pounds right and I walk away from that but then when someone else goes and looks at it they see that the average size for a cow is being 300 pounds is for a single year. Then you're not representing the data properly because you're only taking a piece of it. What I'm asserting here is that Jensen is pulling a mutation rate that works from for him from secular sources and that what he's not doing is considering it in light of all of the rigorous methodology that went into not just finding that mutation rate but all of the other mutation rates. So that's that's that's my point now may may I suggest I want you to have the last word on this I want you to have the last word and then I would like to move to different topics since we've been on this one. Yes, yes I agree I was about to suggest that to and you know what this was a good back and forth I've had fun there's no there's no animosity as well. Standing please I get past that I don't get mad. No it's because I think we're both the same we like to address every single point so I would just say that you know there is agreement in all these different mitochondrial rate sets that he's looking I know that he looked he considered the I believe it was the March Stone Kings lab 2016 mutation rate where it looked at the human mitochondrial I believe was the germline transmission bottleneck and that can be used so he'll use these as indirect measurements of mutation rates and then he'll consider hetero plasma and then find a similar mutation rate as well but my last word on that would be like with the mitochondrial DNA and even with the Y chromosome which we know that mutates faster there's only a few mutations that separate the mitochondrial DNA differences from the mitochondrial E sequence and there's only about 300 DNA differences that separate the Y chromosome from the Y chromosome Adam sequence so with the Y chromosome you just need a faster mutation rate and boom there you go and with the mitochondrial DNA there's only a few that are separating the E sequence anyways so it seems more consistent with our model but of course I understand what you're saying if you want to say something to that as well you can and then we can go to the question you have. Yeah, I just have a problem with the constant mutation rate that's the long and short of my problem with Nathaniel jeans and as a whole. Yes I do like to harp on his weird method of getting the African generation time, but I don't, I don't, that's not my biggie. So I would like to ask you a question I want to dig into heterozygosity a little bit and I want to dig into your, your statement from your presentation where you say that create that both camps, both younger creationists and and evolutionists both predict nested hierarchies, because to my understanding that is completely retrofitted in mostly in jeans and work but I've heard other creationists say it too. But the idea that nested hierarchies are something that is predicted by creationism to me as a wash I've never seen a source older than like 2015. So why do you feel that you can say that both camps predict that when what it seems like what's happened is that there are such there's such a wealth of transitional forms now that gracious now I have to say well okay, there are some, but we predict that too. So, take take that away let's run with that. So do you have two separate questions like why would we predict mosaics and also why would we predict nested hierarchies. No I'm saying do you have any evidence that anyone did predict that. But what Jensen saying in his book, I mean a lot of this, it would just be I think nested hierarchical patterns have probably been known since Darwin's day so a lot of a lot of this is retrodictions, but our prediction is based on the design model if God designed life, and you've heard this before I guess for the audience take what would we predict and assume he did. Well if he created us in his image of course, then we can get a sense for how he may have designed the biological world based on the way we design things and see that nested hierarchies in in DNA as well on a mitochondrial level nuclear DNA level even you can see just based on modes of transportation you can see that they all fall within nested hierarchical patterns and I think it's just common sense that from both models we'd expect we'd expect more similarities in a human and a champ in DNA in morphology in anatomy and physiology than we would with a human and a fish, for example so those groups within groups patterns. For the most part would be expected on both sides now there are inconsistencies of course that we can look to just like you could probably point out inconsistencies in the design modes of transportation hierarchy but that's why there's convergent evolution in complete lineage sorting for example lots of traits evolution but for the most part that's what we see is nested hierarchies go ahead. Okay so so Darwin predicted transitional forms in fact he did so with quite a bit of kind of sorrow because in at his time there pretty much were none paleontology was not a huge boom until unfortunately hit the later half of his life and he actually did live to see Archeopteryx with the graphic I get wretched from the ground so he was he was validated in that aspect. But do you see why I have a bit of a problem with the retradiction idea being you know because I think it's more of a philosophical standpoint like where creationists have kind of been like okay well you know we've got a lot of this stuff going on we've got to do something with it you know and we might as well call for a nested hierarchy. And from that point I would say and you know this question was coming where do we draw the line between organisms that are connected by a nested hierarchy like wolves and dogs or organisms that are not which as creationists propose and as I'm sure you propose or I'm not sure which are that you still propose humans and chimps so you know why why do we have have you had time to kind of look into that because I know we've been kind of doing a back and forth on on videos on on that. So I don't want to jump you on it if you haven't had the time to look into it. Of course I have and I think those are good points. I believe that Morrison gish they predicted like nested hierarchical patterns in DNA believe it was in 1985 I've got a paper here somewhere else and morphology and anatomy of course that was predicted long ago by by Darren I just think it's it's obvious because I feel like some evolutionist will think that like you're supposed to have humans which are just completely unique and separated by all types of species right equally distant from say chimps as they would be with fish so certainly these groups within groups patterns I think common sense could tell us are expected but of course there always are is lack of uniqueness in the phylogenetic tree that's why there's those certain things that I that I talked about when it comes to the transitional forms a few mosaics that you can look to Tiktolic or you can look to Archaeopteryx even the reptile like mammals for example but the majority does prove the rule and you've heard it before for the audience sake I mean if we want to build let's say a military vehicle that's built you know for the environments between land and the oceans what we would build something like an amphibious assault vehicle or even a crossover SUV so based on the design model these things are expected now you're right you're right we have to differentiate between the models by looking at a way that can actually draw a line in phylogeny or where do we is that pretty much your question now like where do we differentiate between ancestry well yes and and as you know I've been I've asked this question many times before and and there have been many attempts to to answer it's not my question it's it's a very specific version of Aaron Ross phylogeny challenge mind you specifically looks at humans and chips I don't want anybody to think I'm taking credit for that because I'm not a valid question it's a good question yeah but but my thing is is like I have a problem with that because that means that genetics and the nested hierarchies that we see in genetics are completely indistinguishable if you're looking at these at these two models right it's it's completely indistinguishable to tell which is which unless as I know you said in your conversation with conspiracy cats unless we're looking at the completeness or lack thereof or rather sorry functionality or lack thereof of any given genome and I don't want to go too far down and code just because we talked about it so much last time but yeah go ahead yeah I was going to say I did take your advice and I looked into what they the work that they were doing on those knockout tests because you posted a question to me you said okay well if we know that most of the genome isn't functional and in conventional geology and code nonwithstanding usually what I have heard at least on in textbooks and things like that functionality means that it that it impacts phenotype so share transcripts transcription outside of the realm of encode is not typically considered functional and so you asked me we were talking about knockout tests for mice because I had said to you well you know they do these big knockout tests in mice where what they do is they they artificially go in for the audience's sake and they knock out a bunch of genes pump pump pump pump like that and then they see what happens you know can the mouse still reproduce and they do this usually in vitro so it's like can the mouse still reproduce does it have normal arms does it have a normal tail and I looked into it and they managed to the extent that they have gone to is they know they can knock out half the entire genome of the mouse and of the what is considered the junk DNA and it's it is still like running around doing its deal well yeah and that's a good I wasn't going to point to function just yeah we could talk I was going to point to something else as a way to draw the line but since you did bring that up yeah I would say I do have a study here where what they did was they knocked out junk DNA of a mouse and you're right there were some experiments where the mouse offspring were just fine but they've also done multiple experiments to see if they corroborate that but what they found was that I believe there was some long non-coding RNA gene knockouts that actually showed lethality that were associated with the development I think it was tissues such as the lungs the heart the testes even the brain for example and even when they knock out certain classes of retro transposons in the mouse embryo the mouse embryo when it's when that jumping gene is turned on the mouse suddenly dies which shows the importance of certain in various classes of retro transposons but what I said in the previous debate as well was that many non-coding RNA genes even pseudo genes are only expressed under certain conditions that are not unfortunately are not available in lab type settings but redundancy I mean even if you're seeing some genes that are knocked out in the mouse is just fine I mean redundancy is an amazing thing I mean in computer code redundancy is highly beneficial how does evolution explain redundancy for example natural selection sees the long term that's what natural selection sees the short term so how does natural selection help evolve something like redundancy in the genome well yeah well conceptually and I don't know I wouldn't I would need to take some time to look into the technical papers on this but I can answer you from a from a from a conceptual standpoint which is your right natural selection works works in the short term in fact there is nothing there is no kind of gene that that you know is partially really naturally selected and I want to explain what I mean by that yeah it's either bad and it's selected it's kind of fickle I suppose but I would encourage you to look into the concept of precursor mutations because I think they have quite a bit of bearing on co-option they're certainly not the same thing but essentially the idea of a precursor mutation is that you you know I can't remember who did it but that there's one guy who has like this classic example of the mousetrap where he removes you know most of the parts of the mousetrap for it to be a functioning mousetrap and he's like it makes a really ugly tie clip. So the idea is that every single stage in in the concept of precursor mutations if you're trying to get a complex structure or behavior or length of gene of DNA whatever but every sort of subsequent step is useful in some way. You get what I'm saying so this is and I know this has been done to to quite a bit of success with with the flagella but I don't know if it's been done with what you're talking about here so I would love to look into it. I very much imagine it's going to be the same type of scenario. And I would love to look at those papers too just to kind of go down deep in it you know I want to see how much of it is empirical how much of it is philosophy because I think for evolution accounting for you know DNA repair and the redundant mechanisms for example that we see in the genomes. Those redundant mechanisms as it looked like you agreed with requires forward thinking when we know that natural selection works in the short term so it's like there's so many things in the genome that evolution would have to account for. I'm willing to look at those papers but you're looking at self organization you're looking at the communication between the cells with other cells. Yeah I mean with that though you're talking about about the evolution of sort of complex behaviors and what spurs that I was interest I heard an interesting I was listening to an interesting podcast the other day that covered how behavior. Behavior always comes before morphologic change and I and I believe that that is is sort of amplified even to a very small degree. But yes I will have to swap papers on that look a bit more into it. I did want to make one little point about drawing the line and phylogeny I showed yes please I showed because I noticed that you and I'm glad to hear that you're well informed on the chromosome to fusion. So I showed the quote by Ken Miller who said that and I'm not saying that every evolution has to agree with that but he did assert beforehand before they discovered what looks like a chromosomal to fusion that if there was no fusion. There was no ancestry with the great eight family with the chimpanzees for I know you think humans are eight so with the eights with the chimps and other primates but can you present a reason to why we're not. Well I mean I'm being I'm being hypothetical obviously we're talking about that right now but in a moment. I would just say if I could demonstrate that there was no chromosomal to fusion which is why I asked you some of those important questions then just like Ken Miller said no chromosome to fusion then no no ancestry with with chimpanzees and I think that I'm comfortable. Yeah I'm comfortable with that well the thing is the thing is is if the chromosomal to fusion isn't a fusion than the alternative hypothesis would then subsequently be looked at which is that the other hominoids gained the chromosome chromosome pair which I but to be very clear for everyone out in the audience you can go Yeah because you were there you were in the chat with for my discussion was Steve McRae on this the other day and you guys are respectful I enjoyed listening to that. I have respect for I've actually learned a lot from them I often talk to him in comment section so yeah without any interruptions you know James you don't got to worry. We're just we're passionate sometimes I did want to give you the opportunity to because I watched that entire broadcast I managed to get around to it and I feel like there was a few things that you guys didn't touch on. So I was wondering if you could take some time maybe to because you have spent a lot of time on the chromosomal to fusion. Those those questions I'm not sure if you remember the questions that I asked in the cryptic centromere and satellite DNA I believe. Yes the question maybe if I can find it. Yeah so there the first question would be why is the telemeric region so degenerate and small I did ask that in our first debate I don't know if we got as far enough to get like a solid answer from you and I believe you do have an answer so that's OK. Oh yeah no no no I did not know at that point I had not looked into it very closely. I don't want to do as they say Gish Gallup. So why don't we start with that question you take as much uninterrupted time as you want to the satellite DNA is a very important question that I'd like to ask but let's start with the telemeric region why is it so degenerate and small and then I'll give a response after. Um Ruhiff actually explained this to me in our conversation with Steve for those of you out there in the human chromosome to fusion in the center where where the fusion site is proposed to have occurred. There is some degenerate there are very degenerate telemeric sequences now those telemeric sequences or they usually tap the ends of the tele mirrors. Now the reason why that's degenerate and Ruhiff pointed this out I would go back and rewatch that if you would like to hear him explain it better than probably I will is because you have a gradient on the ends of all of all chromosomes. So there's fresh new telomeres on the on the outermost point then degenerate telomeres because as we both know when when DNA replicates to telomeres relate the telomere sequences really take a beating. And then after that is when you start to have the classic regular chromosomal you know business that chromosomes do whatever base pairs. So degenerate sequences, according to Ruhiff and he sent me some some cool, rather he has some cool stuff on his channel that goes over this more in depth. But the reason is because that's that's entirely expected in fact all of the controversy or all of the criticisms that I've seen regarding that by individuals like Tomkins and the responses to Tomkins they're usually like why would you expect it not to be degenerate in fact if it wasn't that would be quite weird because that would suggest that when the fusion occurred. It completely ate up that degenerate site when the degenerate sites when they're exposed is what causes fusion. Essentially it's like it's like having to explain it like this with when I was talking with Ruhiff and see it's like having two magnets. The magnets the ends of the magnets are degenerate telomere sequences and they want to stick together. But those new telomeres that are on the ends are like putting a cloth in between the magnets so they can't there's there's no real way for them to it's like a weakened attraction that's a very rudimentary way of explaining it. And interestingly enough, I'm just going to kill two birds with one stone here because we talked a bit about satellite DNA. Telomere, telomere fusions which Tomkins objects to the fact that telomere, telomere fusions can happen which is what we see in human chromosome to they do happen and Ruhiff gave me two great papers for that one occurred in, in pigs and the other one occurred in equates. And what we find in both of those is the same thing that we see in human chromosome to which is telomere, telomere stuck together like this, not satellite DNA not satellite telomere DNA. So and I can send you those papers if you would like or I can put them in the description. Yeah, of course, of course, I really appreciate that response that was well said and very concise, you know, for James's sake I did time it was about two minutes so I don't want him to think that I'm going on for too long as well so we'll do equal time here. Actually, before I respond to the telomere one the question has a little different about the satellite DNA because chimps have this very distinctive and exceptionally large satellite sequences at the end of their chromosomes, not the satellite DNA that Tomkins was talking about when the because like you said if this is a telomere to telomere you may you may predict that maybe there won't be that that satellite DNA. So that was a little different question I was asking where those large eight specific satellite sequences in the reputed fusion site. Would you like me to as quickly under 30 seconds explain that as well. Yeah, you know what, take 30 seconds explain that and then I'll try and address both at the same time. Yeah, I figured yeah I figured you could just go ahead and just take a. Yeah, and I appreciate you answered the other satellite DNA objection but this one was a little different. So, yeah, it was my mistake I goofed that up in my head. Yes, so so the ends of the chromosomes like I said earlier that's those are the areas that are most frequently in the chromosome sort of a renovated so to speak if you want to call it that because they just take such a beating and cellular replication or so yeah, replication. I don't understand why, given evolutionary theory and what it says why it would be difficult to to sort of conceptually. What's the word I'm looking for conceptually square those two things together, because according to evolution, maybe maybe it's different with with sort of the creation outlook on it but to be clear. From an evolutionary perspective we expect we expect mutations on those repetitive sequences on the edge of the telomere because they're renovated so frequently. So given the split between humans and chimps was seven ish million years ago. That's quite a lot it's similar to the degenerate concept that's quite a long time to be developing sort of sort of unique sequences in fact seven is seems to me on the totally an anecdotal note seems to me like not that many. I just want to make sure you answer that last one just to because I want you to feel confident in your answer so the question on those very large satellite sequences at the ends of their chromosomes with with apes. So are you saying those are absent in man because of the divergence time of six million years that would have got rid of it. I'm saying I'm saying that if you've I'm saying that if you have to two chromosomes like this right and the ends are constantly changing to a degree right because of cellular replications replication and and repair. And that that lineage continues onward, you're no longer getting the change in those end telomeric sequences, but if they stay separate like they are in the rest of the hominoids, those areas to can still be subject to change in mutation. So I don't know why you would expect it's it's like any of the other pick any difference between humans and chimps, and the reason that it's there according to evolutionary theories because it's been seven million years. And then going to it's kind of like how we've noted that we've had the conversation before how their, their orphan genes that are unique to humans and their orphan genes that are unique to chimps, even though they share a great majority. There's still been time for unique novelties to accumulate. I'm sorry. Okay, so are you saying that those unique sequences that are those eight specific satellite DNA sequences that should be seen flanking the reputed fusion site on both sides, if there really was a chromosome of fusion. After the split between the chimps and human ancestors say six million years ago are you saying the reason we don't find that just I guess yes or no from what I gathered with what you're saying is because of the divergence time there's been enough time. For that those eight specific sequences to be lost is that more or less what you're saying divergence or speciation either if you want to go for divergence you've got 13 million years maybe depending on. Okay, so the reason yes. Yeah, I just don't want to put words in your mouth so you're saying that the reason we don't find those sequences around the reputed fusion site is because of the deep time since the fusion they've been lost essentially for whatever reason. Yes, according to the evolutionary paradigm that Matt that tracks very well with everything else that we say. Okay, okay. I think okay so I wrote down as much as I could from what you said on the telemeters. So I think contrary to what you're saying even the original paper and I would ask the audience to read it. Even even the authors there the researchers they emphasize a level of confusion and on as to why the head to head arrays of repeats at the fusion site there have degenerated so much from the near perfect arrays found in telemeters that you describe right so you can examine the fusion site for yourself anybody can do it. It's an extremely small segment of DNA compared to what should be present. If a fusion actually did occur in the deep evolutionary past I think the site is about 798 bases in size. Now I understand with what you're saying is you would expect it to be degenerate. But even if even if there were two very small size telemeters that fuse let's say we're still looking at about 10,000 bases. And then if it were larger telemeters that fuse and it's an even bigger problem because obviously, since now we are looking at both 30,000 bases in size and yet what we see in this signature is a pathetic 798 bases as the remnant of a so called ancient fusion but I think what you're saying is also weak as a rebuttal because why would both of the fusing chromosomes be degraded to exactly the same point yielding a minimize semi symmetrical fusion. But I think the most fatal blow to what you're saying here as a way to explain why the area so degenerate and I want you to comment on this of course is that is that we see these telemeric repeats these internally telemeric repeats that you're pointing to is if we're saying that it's to degenerate that implies that something's still there so what is it what we see those tell me repeats occurring throughout the entire genome. And these internal telemeric sequences are found to be functional I've got many published papers here that's giving us functions for the site so they're binding to things called transcription factors and what they do is they initiate the process of a gene into RNA and what's amazing is kind of a double way me because that's yet more confirmation of our model because we predict much of the genome as you know and many of these DNA sequences for example, Cytochrome C and other conservative genes have multiple roles and multiple functions that play in the regulation of the cell and many other things of course how do you explain the fact that that region is found throughout the genome. They're not found throughout the genome in relation to fusion they're actually just functional sequences so have you heard of that argument. I want to give you a chance to reply and I think what we might do is before what we might do is go into the closings right after that so go ahead the floor is all yours Erica. Yeah sure sure and standing we're going to have to talk about radiometric decay at some point we that is to me one of the biggest blows to the creation is a model that there is so awesome. I do feel bad I mean if James wants to give us an extra five minutes of discussion to touch to touch on that I mean I don't mind that but I mean it looks like I don't mind after you answer this question and even just briefly touch on the cryptic center mirror. I mean low on time there James I feel like we just started talking if you guys would like to that's okay with me. Yeah standing and I have a good time yeah that that that works five minutes. I'm sure we can at least broach the topic. Let's do this. If you could if you could answer what I said about the telemeric sequences a really quick response to the cryptic center mirror. I can do a quick response to that too. And then we'll give the last few minutes to radio metric dating if you'd like to. Yeah well and in fact I'm not I'm not opposed to forgoing my closing necessarily if we would rather just have more conversation but if you would rather if you want to closing I'm cool with doing closings as well. So it just it totally just depends. Sure you take your time as much time as you need to address the points I made and then we'll just kind of play by your. Yeah okay so one I noticed that you said that the fusion site is small. Compared to what we should expect and I wrote down for on what basis essentially like why what what are we comparing it to what other fusion sites specifically because according to the paper that I can link in the comments the two papers actually one on on pigs and the other one on specifically the zebras it's it's very analogous so and it's again it's a telomere to a mere fusion. So again on finding telemeric sequences throughout the human. The rest of the human genome in areas that aren't necessarily to your specific. I would be interested to see and I would I would predict that they are not found in the same bulk as they are in the center of human chromosome to because there are two things that make the the telemeric sequences found in the in the center of human chromosome to so very important and so very indicative of fusion. And the thing number one is that there's so many of them. And the thing number two is that they they exist there in accordance with the sonotony both behind and in front of the one on top and I guess whatever on top of the one on top and below the one on bottom with with sonotony with the chimp chromosome to a and to be. In fact when I was doing research for my most recent video, I found out that every single gene on the chimp side tracks to human chromosome to from to a and to be if memory serves they track over human chromosome to is a bit bigger. But mostly it's those pesky repetitive sequences that that show up in in most hominoid in most hominoid genomes. So and with regard to the center mirror. Actually, I didn't have a chance to to write it down earlier and screened I watched your I'm not I'm not interrupting I promise you didn't really answer why those internally located clusters of telomere sequences are more common in the genome than just you know where we're looking and why they are now found to be extremely important. But I did because it's context specific the fact that we're finding the telomere sequence in in the center of this chromosome chromosome to in massive bulk in comparison to where we find them elsewhere in in the human genome is very very indicative of a fusion site and that is taken in with the fact that the rest of chromosome to on either side of the fusion site tracks gene for gene with chimp a chimp to a and chimp to be to be clear I'm not saying that they're identical the human the human chromosome to is a bit bigger. But again it's it's those weird indels that make up the approximately 3% difference between humans and chimps. With regard to the center mirror what I was going to say was that I took a screenshot of your conversation with conspiracy cats because I remember this was from several days ago that he had brought to your attention the fact that they there is a cryptic center mirror you just agreed that it was a cryptic center mirror. But for those of you who want to know specifically I suppose the name of it it's q 21 three and q 22 one regions. I don't know why it wouldn't be cryptic if you're if you're sort of fusing to chromosomes together. Would you not suspect that that areas, you know, given it's a central mirror that it's going to be at least partially written over or subject to the same mutations that the rest of the chromosome is is is subject to I don't know why we would we would even be crystal clear. So I hope that at least even if you disagree, I hope that at least you got an answer and answer to each of you. Right. It's not that I disagree that that is the point or the area that they choose to look to because yeah I understand, and you obviously understand that we, if there was a fuse chromosome if to fuse chromosome then you would have to demonstrate. It's not the legitimate effusion site which is why we're talking about the telemeric region, but also located disabled second center mirror the cryptic center mirror I guess you yes. So there is a proposed there is a proposed second center. So I guess my, my follow up to that and then maybe a question to go along with it is that yeah so that 171 base pair repeat that characterizes primate centimeters right which would have to be found. It is that region or that sequence is found in many other parts in the human genome and I'd have pointed out in the past you've obviously watched the conspiracy cats debate which I would recommend anyone watch that. It's too small and too human to be a remnant center mirror but you said that that's expected, but I think, I think the fatal blow to that is that the entire sequence is internal to a functional gene that ancient cryptomere center site. So that means it would be impossible. If that sequence had ever been a real center here but I think the fact that the cryptic center mirror is a functional region inside a protein coding gene, encompassing both protein coding and non coding regions strongly implies that it's a key gene feature and not a defunct center mirrors you're pointing out here how would you respond. Yeah, but why would it. I mean there, again, you can point to the fact that people who you know conventional science, when it proposes the human chromosome to fusion. It notes that there is a there on the center of the chromosome to so the actual proposed fusion site, not even the cryptic center mirror that there are sort of a ghostly trace of a functional gene that DXL 11 whatever I can't remember what it's called I'm messing it up but you know the one I mean. Yeah, the DXL 11. Yes, that's very classic for for the again it's part of telomere family which is very gene family which is very interesting. But for the same way that I would answer that question. Why is it against the rules to have a gene move on to a fusion site or move on to a cryptic center mirror, I would be interested I don't know this but I'm going to want to look into is, can we find a promoter anywhere near the cryptic center mirror because if I remember correctly and the reason I said I'm going to look into it is because I don't. There there's, I feel like I remember reading at some point somewhere that the cryptic center mirror is is the functional gene that's on top of it is somewhat new, at least with regard to. But remember that 171 base pair region is associated with other locations in the human genome that have no relation to a fusion event, and they're functional to the genetics is the point so yeah it's located internally and gene. But it's a sequence itself is functional, just like those telemeric repeat so both of those sequences the telemeric repeats, and the centromeric repeats that you're pointing to as ancient tele mirrors and an ancient centromere seem to be the evidence is suggesting that they're just DNA elements that are found throughout the entire genome so why are you cherry picking that to say that these are the remnants of an ancient fusion event is. Wait a second, I actually did I actually did not know this are you saying that centromeric repeats are found in the cryptic centromere and then you're saying that it's not a cryptic centromere. Right, well I'm saying I didn't know that there, I didn't know there were centromere signatures there, like it, I thought it was it was more of the of a location with maybe a handful if you're comparing it to the fusion site then why I mean my answer is exactly the same for both of those. I would imagine certain that that that centromere the centromeric repeats that we find there are found in larger quantities than they are elsewhere in the genome, because you haven't said anything to suggest that the at the telomere fusion site right that that those those little telomere signatures that we find elsewhere in the genome are in the same quantity, because that's very important question. I think we're both guilty of saying a lot of things so some things will forget yeah those telomere sequences those internally telomere sequences they're found in parts of the genome in a few hundred base pairs and length, even a few thousand and they're for the most part so all different types of lengths of, I guess sizes but they're associated with, with function, you know, they're found at the same size as they are in the different sizes different sizes, but so but not as large none are found quite as large I feel comfortable proposing that am I correct in that. I'm saying not as large I mean the reputed fusion site regions only what 798 base pairs. I'm saying do you know for certain that that the same number of telomeric repeats that we find at the proposed fusion site are found elsewhere in the human genome and are functional. Yes, some are smaller. Some are, but none are none are the same size are they the same. Those sequences that are found there. I'm saying are just found all throughout the genome just like not in the same. I that's what I'm going to assume that that's what you're saying because I feel like I'm not getting a clear answer. It wouldn't be okay with you if we quickly touched on radiometric dating, of course, of course, I, because I don't want to leave anything hanging I don't want you to think that I didn't answer that question. I'm not sure how large the sequences are I'm just saying that there are many other internal. All over the genome where telomere sequences occur in like this and that are functional one last point I wanted to say, in response to your, the centromere sequences is that actually Tomkins pointed this out. And then I'll even give you the last word on the chromosome to vision before we go into the dating. And I want to see your thoughts that centromere sequences are made up of variants of alphoid DNA sequences the class of DNA sequences right there are different variants though of these alphoid sequences that can be placed into different groups or categories. So some types are found all over the genome, while others are specific to centromeres. This is the key issue on what we're discussing here the type of alphoid sequence founded the cryptic centromere site on the human chromosome to does not actually match alphoids associated with functional human chromosomes. So there's no consistency there like how would you, what are your thoughts, like those alphoid sequences I want to make it more clear, found at the so called cryptic centromere type, commonly found in the human genome outside centromeres. Yes, we can just label them as higher order repeats. So, like, what are your thoughts on that. I mean, my question would be, when you're finding these in other locations it's very similar to my question with the telomere sequence, are they found in the same volume. And again, I think this is left out. So that's my answer to that but as a tag on for for those of you watching. Yeah, so as an answer I would just say yes, in the same volume greater volume I mean all all parts of the genome these sequences are found in all different sizes all different quantities they're they're found to be associated with important functions in the genome. That's why Tomkins is saying okay, this area is degenerate with the telomere sequences. Well there still is you know a 798 base pair region there what is it and then he discovered that the sequences are found throughout that I mean I've we've already talked about this but my answer would be size wise quantity wise all different types of quantities throughout the genome but I'm not sure. Yeah, that feels a little bit like like either put a pin in it or or like a cop out because it's like it obviously if we don't know because I don't know, I will tell you right now I do not know the number that is found outside of this telomere or outside of the cryptic centromere. It's something that I want to look into. But, but if we don't know for sure then we kind of just have to say we don't know saying they're found in all sorts of all sorts of different sizes is somewhat irrelevant because what I'm not what I don't know is whether or not finding larger sequences is equally as sort of precluded as as a potential analog as to small sizes like is it the perfect size for a telomere fusion. If I remember correctly and I could be incorrect on this, I'm fairly certain, according to those two papers on telomere telomere site fusions and equids and in pigs. It's, it's quite analogous. Real quick real quick, I did quote earlier from the actual paper of the chromosome to fusion they did ask, why is this area so degenerate. And even if it was too small degenerate telomeres you should you should still see remnant telomere sequences of at least 10,000 798. I mean, in the original paper of finding Lucy Oshelipithecus afarensis they were like, well, you know, why, why is it that the pelvis looks like this I mean if I remember correctly the human chromosome to fusion paper was like either in the early 80s or the early 90s, like to suggest that that I'm not knowing what was going on is is somehow indicative of the fact that now there is indeed an answer to that question. Other other than saying well I don't like like what Tomkins does with just saying, I don't like it because xyz or I disagree because xyz, but I don't think you can just point to a past paper and say they didn't know what it was and use that as as evidence to bolster your point. Well, and I don't want to recycle everything that I said in my response as to why I believe that argument fails we'd probably just be repeating ourselves there and we would be I'm just saying that it's kind of pointless to bring the paper up the fact that the original of the fusion cyber like well we don't know why it's degenerate you know I very much doubt that if I went back and read that paper that they said we don't know why it's degenerate therefore it's not a human chromosome to fusion. I think that like most scientists do when they don't know the answer to the question they say well we don't know why is it like that, maybe we'll find an answer. Okay, even, even in that region even the repeats that are found exists mostly as independent units and not actually tandem repeats, and I believe it's only like 10 intact tta gg telomere sequences and only 42 CC cta a intact reverse complement sequences that exist so it seems like all the evidence when you actually look at it and examine it, and the fact that these sequences as I've stated, are found internally all over the genome, and have its own roles that does seem to false false I understand that when they first saw it they were they were thrown off why is this area so degenerate, right, in a way like you said, when we examine it even further, we see that the evidence does not support that claim as we don't see that we have an answer for the degeneracy it's just there it doesn't hold up doesn't hold up but why not. I've given probably about five or six degenerate degenerate degenerate degenerate sequence specifically. Why does it not, what why is it completely precluded in your mind the number of the magnet example that I gave, when we do find the tips of chromosomes with degenerate telomere regions and then intact telomere regions. Why wouldn't you expect to find degenerate telomeres in the middle. If once you strip away those pristine telomeres it makes it easier to fuse it's like, it's like, they're not telomere sequences I've already said this five times. And even if they were why would both of the fusing chromosomes be degraded to exactly the same point yielding a minimize semi symmetrical fusions I get me that's the philosophy are you are you. Just say though did you just say they're not telomere sequences after saying why are the telomere sequences so degraded. I'm saying that the area that is being claimed that these are the remnants of ancient telomeres is to degenerate now you're explaining away the degeneracy but I'm telling you that they're not even the remnants of an ancient chromosomal to fusion because these are the DNA elements found throughout the genome that's I think just like the sequences I think it's 171 base pair sequences or base pairs that's found at the so called cryptic centromeric site. Those are also found spread throughout the genome I get your questions what's the quantity but those are functional DNA elements as well as my point. I think we've gone to about five minutes so I'm going to give Erica a chance to respond and then we will go into closings. Okay, so and we'll have to do that radiometric decay and other time standing because I feel like you're running from me on it a little bit but we did we did. I'll address it right now if you'd like me to. I've heard enough of that. All right, we're going to go back to you. I'll address it in my close I'll address it in my core and you can you can you can. And then we'll have a separate debate on age of the earth round four. Oh, please. I would love to chat with you on age of the earth. You know, you've heard it today round four is age of the earth in my closing I'll briefly touch on the ice around I got three minutes. Yes, so I will I will, as James said take the last word on this. So what I what I heard was, why is the site so degenerate and then I said well it's degenerate the proposed ideas that it's degenerate because that's what we see in another species XYZ explaining it with magnets. And then you said, but that can't be because they're not telomeres and then my answer to that, of course, is, well, how do we know that why is it being proposed you say well it's because we find little DNA elements that are very similar to what we find at the center of the telomere and then I say, are they in the same number and your answer as you very honestly said and I say very frequently myself because it's so common at least for me that you didn't know what the size range was what the typical size range was for what we would expect to see the telomere site. And then I responded to that by saying if I remember correctly from Ruth's video which is not a certainty while the previous stuff I felt decently confident on, it's fairly analogous to what we see in other organisms. And that's my, my, I do not think that there is anything that that I have not at least provided an answer to those of you out in the audience you can take that as you will. So standing please close close for us and I will give my little closing after that and then we can do Q&A. All right, setting the timer for three minutes for you standing for truth. And I think you already know nothing would give me more pleasure than to cut you off during your statement. James you're, James you're lucky I'm easy going or I'd find you and show you that I can bench press more than you. I like it. The floor is all yours. Okay, awesome. So, with with the dating methods, for example, I know you like to use isochron dating. And for the audience isochron is a graphical plot of the isotopic composite compositions of the sample so it allows an isochron age to be calculated from a straight line plotted through the graph of the results you can watch conspiracy cats debates or his videos and you can see that straight line which is indicative of accurate ages but what's funny is geologists have calculated ages for all the individual samples of the same geologic formation using the same dating method including the isochron and they turned out to be vastly different. And some of these rocks are from the Grand Canyon. They're using it was Dr Steve Austin use three different isochron methods. And also, these dates all disagree greatly with with each other, even when the air margins are taken into account so the three different dating methods give completely different ages that cannot really be explained away and as far as speeding up the decay rate. I've given a few examples with fishing tracks and radio halos and, for example, a helium in my opening, but according to the catastrophic plate tectonics model. The CPT meters per second plate movement would produce new oceanic crust replacing the old one. This new oceanic crust would show the same age through isochron dating since it formed all at the same time. I wanted to address real quick the ability she said, how would we explain away the heat yeah a lot of heat would be would be generated but the massive amount of water that was on the earth at the time based on the flood would shield Noah. And the rate project explains this so they do have the answers and it would also shield the animals on the earth. If you have a mile or more of water of course, we even use water as air probably knows in a nuclear reactor to protect and to shield things. So this would not only shield from radiation, but it would also take up much of the heat. There's also a ton of evidence that at the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep. There would have involved supersonic steam jets that would have taken up most of the heat up into space and more so the rate project that goes over a number of these things but the thing is all these radio isotope methods that are have been long been praised as irrefutable dating of the earth to an old age as Erica talks about here have repeatedly failed to give reliable and meaningful absolute ages for all types of rocks including the Grand Canyon that means these ages are relative and not absolute. I could go on and on I'm probably almost done here but the direct evidence the genetic evidence does show an Adam and an Eve just 6000 years ago I mean this is based on the empirical method there's just so many other things we can probably discuss we'll save that for another day but this flew by. I had a lot of fun. You can have the last words there Erica and I will yes I will I thank you for your closing I will do my closing as well. I'm going to close the genetics concept by just saying I have a problem with doing since mutation rate, look into the source paper. And as far as the white chromosome I just don't see an issue with it. And those of you out there can can be your own judge I encourage you to do your look into it on your own I think that would be good. I have this excellent book here and I was listening as intently as I could but I had a bookmarked and I lost my bookmarks I was leafing through kind of what paying attention and looking at the same time. So it's called the Bible rocks in time I'm a very big fan of it it's by these two I hope that's not mirrored well whatever it's got a cool fish on it so that's a can identify it by two Christian geologists. They have a whole section in here it's like 100 pages long on radiometric dating and they actually have an excellent selection on isochron dating because to my knowledge I could be incorrect on Austin but at least wouldn't wrap when he was trying to date materials. I would appeal to this idea called the mixing hypothesis to go ahead and and be like oh look I'm dating doesn't work. These guys say to sum up appeals to the mixing hypothesis by Young Earth advocates to account for the isochron plot plots fail completely because of the failure to understand the logic and geochemical factors that enter into the interpretation of the diagrams and then as I hope to do in a video at some point they have this incredible list of things that at least wouldn't wrap just completely throughout the window when he was putting those numbers forward. I don't know about Austin I would like to look into it. But but this has an excellent passage at the end of it again these are two Christian geologists who really don't have a dog in the fight with regard to geology they just don't really find the age of the earth very important to to their faith. But they say, at the very worst, all the discrepant ages indicate is that the geologic conditions are so complex that radiometric dating methods are not as accurate as we might like. The fact that discordances do occur from time to time however should grant little solace for proponents of a young earth, for the simple reason that almost invariably the ages obtained by different methods from the same body of rocker on the order of thousands to a few billion years old geochronologists generally do not encounter situations in which one method yields an age of 57 million years from a given rock body whereas an alternative yields 5700 years. Even rock samples with discordant ages are almost invariably extremely ancient and then they do this excellent run down on discordant dates because it turns out a discordant date is very loose because geologists are very honest. So if they have three dates and one is 1.3 billion the other is 1.33 and another is 1.34 those are three discorded dates but you get the general idea that it's at least 1.3 ish billion years old. So I'm going to conclude my statement on radiometric dating with that and hope that we can continue that on a later date. I'm ready for the Q&A I hope I got some questions standing always hogs them. Got it. We are very excited for that. So we're going to run through as many questions as we can folks. This is always fun. Want to say thanks so much for our guest being with us tonight as we go into the Q&A now. Want to remind everybody their links are in the description. So if you're listening and you want more you know where to find it and with that first up Dildo Baggins. Thanks for your super chat. I don't know if it really says that on their birth certificate. But they said did you screen these interlocutors. Obviously an impersonation of Darth my dearest friend and arch nemesis. You're like a school girl. I am talking to Darth on discord right now. I'm trying to talk to coming back on so we're going to see where you're going to get up. Okay ice claw 526. Thanks for your super chat says love you guys. You make my days at work enjoyable. Well so kind. That's very kind. You're not coming at me. That's weird. Oh don't worry. We'll get there. Brandon Ardeline. I thought I was getting off the hook. Thanks for your super chat who said evolution is 100% supported by science. Intelligent design slash creationism is 100% supported by the fact that dying is scary. That's for you standing. That's not for me but I do. I would say that you know creations are the ones making the predictions right now. I guess we'll have to wait for another discussion to really go into more detail on DNA function but we're many predictions on DNA function mitochondrial DNA which we've discussed plenty on. So I think the science is based on you know those who are making testable and falsifiable predictions and creationists are doing it right now. So. Thanks so much. Next up. Appreciate your super try to keep it short James. That was a good that was very good. That was probably the shortest answer I ever gave and I had a lot more to say too. So thank you later. Appreciate that and JB thanks for your super chat who said go to SJ Thomson's Twitter page and vote modern day debate. That's really nice of you. I'm only saying it because he made me say it in the super chat and we all love modern day debate. Ben Riley. Thanks for your kind words. Appreciate that. Ben Riley. Thanks for your super chat who again then you are determined said get Daniel from hard lens media to go against Vosh. I already I've gotten Daniel's email so I will reach out to these guys and see if they're willing to go toe to toe. So thanks for that idea. Next up. Thanks for your super chat. Kakaratt. Let me know if I said that wrong said great practice for my upcoming debate with Hovind. Well very exciting and is that on modern day debate. No. He someone showed me a screenshot of his email today on why he will not return to modern day debate but you know what that's all right. We got no hard feelings. Life is you can't just you know if you get angry if you have a grudge it's only hurting yourself. You have to like let everything go be happy. You're doing a great job James. You're doing a great job. Movie theory. Thanks for your super chat who said standing for truth already won in all caps. Good job standing for truth. That's nice. Your mom sent a super chat. I even paid her to say that too. That's excellent. That's a deadly D one zero zero one. Thanks for your super chat who said G. I always pronounce G. Ensign's G. Jeansons. Nathaniel Jeanson nobody really James close enough. He say he uses somatic not germline substitution rate. Right. So I mean I don't want to rehash and be redundant. We talked a lot about this in the in the discussion portion. So I would invite anybody to watch that. But Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson has looked at a multiple a multitude of studies. You can see that in his book. You can see that in the end notes. He's accounted for a hetero plasmid. He's accounted for that which is somatic diads and triads. So it all converges as well. It all corroborates and most importantly he's made testable predictions. And specifically the one on the stamp of human history is is fruitful right now. You can see that it's working well. He's got a 10 part series. I'd recommend anyone watching it. So that's it. You got it. And let's see. Pepper Dino is doing an after show of which he had said that they sent the link to Erica. So just so you know we are happy to plug any after show for any debate that we have a modern day debate. That includes like the big ones like you're like hey you know this one between you know so and so like let us know. And if you beforehand can give us a link we'll put it in the description for you and we'll do that for either side. So next up thanks so much for your super chat from our dearest friend sphere itself who says Erica is a wonderful at debating so respectful. Hey I'm here to have a good time and and you know engage in some some fun discussion and you know standing and I have fun we get along quite well we get a little feisty but I I think I can count on I can count on one finger the number of bad experiences I've had with with debating on YouTube so That's awesome but let's get real the audience likes when we get a bit feisty once in a while. Hey yeah you know you gotta you gotta you gotta mix it up. And thanks for your super chat Vandalia 1998 they had said could the Y chromosome Noah and mitochondria Eve you say was 4500 years ago be for a local group of migrants and not for the entire human race. Yeah that's that's a good question actually. So it wouldn't be the mitochondrial DNA, it would be the Y chromosome based on the fast mutation rate. Once again Dr Nathaniel Jensen he's he's looked at some subsequent studies I think there's been about four, maybe five know I think there's been about four one in 2009 other in 2015 and a couple more. He looked at some studies based on high quality DNA and showed that Y chromosome Adam is consistent with just 4500 years ago and as we know according to the flood model that would be Noah. So mutation accumulation shows just 4500 years worth of Y chromosome and I don't believe there's any real solid evidence that this was a population of say 10,000 or so. So good question. Gotcha. And thanks for your super chat from sphere itself who says oh yeah James we get it already you're a sexy guy you don't have to prove it every debate. Well that's very nice as I've mentioned I think sphere itself. It's just an alias for Earl the 65 year old postman from Alabama so appreciate that every time. Michael Dresden our regular one of our regular trolls thanks for your super chat said one cannot defend evolution and still be honest. You know what I've heard that I've seen Michael around Michael Michael gets a little vitriolic sometimes I think I if you would if Michael would like to have a conversation with me you know I do try to be as honest as I am capable of I don't believe I've ever at least had a modern day debate light intentionally, but I do get things wrong. I definitely get things wrong. Do not take Michael seriously Michael will say anything and anything so let's see. Next up club or Caleb as he sometimes likes to be called says black rimmed glasses should be a requirement to appear on modern day debate. James we're matched we've been matching the past couple time I don't I don't think I've seen you without the glasses in a while. It's true different debates I don't know guys where I'm well you're wearing well we we're gonna have to put some black rim the hipster glasses on your superhero standing for truth. I'm wearing the same type of glasses right now so there you go. Hip next up James. Thanks for your super chat from corporal anon who says why would creation predict mosaics which agree with evolutionary expectations i.e. tick to lick and not Griffin or mermaid type mosaic forms. A good question I did explain briefly I guess in the discussion why we would predict mosaics you know the majority proves the rule you can point to a few as I stated tick to lick is one of them the one of them and I believe when you actually go into detail on every single one of these you'll find that they are not as strong evidence of the evolutions would say for example tick to lick since that's what he brought up those claim tetrapod trades. That are found they're actually consistent with many living and extinct lobe fin fish species today and also they've discovered in Poland it was a tetrapod track ways that actually predates. Tick tock by nearly 20 million years so I think in regards to tick tock the evidence couldn't be any more clear tick tock was nothing more than a bottom dwelling lobe fin. Fish and it suffers from what's called the grandfather paradox so standing we should have a conversation about those Poland track ways I've had to talk with someone about those at great length before it because they brought them to my attention I didn't know about them and so I did a deep dive on it. We should have a chat about that sometime. Yeah. Yeah. Hey my channel anytime. Gotcha. And thanks so much. Appreciate your super chat from Caleb again says I guess Skyler is I don't know I don't understand this. It's I'm just confused so I might have to come back to that one. I don't want to throw Skyler under the bus when he's not here to defend himself corporal and and thanks to your super chat said why would creation predicts mosaic. Oh yeah. I'll go into it. Ha ha. Okay. Mothra J. Disco. Thanks for your super chat says this isn't really a debate because evolution is true. Erica paid that person to say that one. Every everyone who's nice to me in the comments is a paid show every single one. Next up slam our end. Thanks for your super chat. Really appreciate it said for standing for truth. Do you believe modern humans have Neanderthal DNA and if yes, why would God allow interbreeding were they human when they were human. And also what does Erica think about this. So I guess I'll answer first yes we do have Neanderthal DNA in our in our DNA of course, you can look at our first debate where we kind of discussed a lot of the human evolution evidence and how it fits in our model and we would explain for example, we would explain as inbred subpopulations that broke off after after Babel and I think you can see this. I've got a paper that shows that the Neanderthal was highly inbred had very high genetic load you can see the same in Homo floresiensis was very highly inbred. Actually the hobbits seem to suffer from reductive evolution, and what that results in is reduced body size reduced brain volume, and other pathologies you can see this in the leady so yeah it's a very easy answer we these populations of so subhumans like Neanderthal hobbits of the leady they broke off after Babel they were isolated, they inbred and they experienced rapid rapid genetic degeneration so I think that can explain all the weird looking more logical features so hope that wasn't too long James but on to you there Erica. Yeah, I think it's interesting that you mentioned the leady because the leady has a very ape like basil shoulders as well so I find it interesting that the reductive evolution they experienced made them look more more like chimpanzees. I would say absolutely yes all we we, at least according to my current knowledge we know that five different hominids live hominins actually lived at the same time floresiensis, naledi, Neanderthalensis, obviously sapiens and depending on on who you talk to actually know definitely Dennis so it's I was thinking about some people think maybe I hope again this was still looking around but again it depends. And of course they interpret I mean it's it's very interesting but if you look into the the potential hybridization ability or potential between humans and living members of genus pan you will be unpleasantly surprised because there really isn't a ton that prevents. You know the the fertilization from occurring in fact there's a recent very cool paper that came out in the past six months I couldn't tell you when exactly time has been very much weird void lately thanks to everything that's going on. That talked about how human the human lineage in the pan lineage actually probably interred about until about 4 million years ago. So we're talking, you know the Australopithecines and their sort of version would have potentially been able to create viable offspring. So primates are weird that's the answer. Can I just respond real quick. It was my question. James I don't find you very fair today. They asked for both my question. They asked for both of you though. Real quick let me just respond to that. I've been pretty patient today. Don't blame me standing. I'm all for it. I've never objected. I'll let you respond to this one as long as the short and pithy. It'll be very very short. And we did allow Erica take a few minutes extra honor. We've been easy going tonight I think. I think that those like the curvature that's seen in some of the Neliti bones, the hands the feet the flaring hips this the small brain volume. For example, but the thing is those secondary anatomical features in Neliti are actually not as unique as some of Lucius would say because they're also seen in humans. Modern humans can develop curved finger bones due to heavy use in climbing or from habitual tool use or modern humans with pathologies can have flaring hips for example. And even the reduced body size. So I think reductive reductive evolution can very well explain Neliti. Thanks so much. Appreciate your response. You bet. And Caleb thanks for your super chat who said if evolution could be proven true. There wouldn't be a debate. Yeah, is that one for me perhaps maybe do I get a question. Um, I think I think the very fact no shade on you standing but I think the very fact that we're still having flatter debates speaks volumes about that statement. Yeah, thank you very much. Next up Brandon Ardeline. Thanks for your super chat who said what was God thinking when he was coming up with the design for the each. I don't know how to pronounce this. Embarrassing. Each. Each. Hidna's genitalia. I think that questions for you, Erica. Oh no, that's for you standing. That one's all of you. That's for you standing. What's wrong with the genitalia. I don't know. I'm not sure if I want to Google this standing. It might get you put on a list. I don't know that. I don't know that nomenclature. I don't know what species that is. I'm going to be embarrassed. Sometimes known as spiny anteaters. Spiny anteaters. Yeah. Do I really have to pull one to send us a source or something more detailed later, we can try and answer it off there. I'm not too sure what that is to be honest with you. You should know this standing. I know I'm sorry. I'm sorry. But Erica, Erica being such a intelligent individual says she doesn't know either. So. No, I didn't. That's true. I don't. Unfortunately for me, I don't know the Latin names for every single animal. Sounds like a good question though. Thanks so much for your super chat from yeah, trip for who says Erica is the most knowledgeable, eloquent, cordial and intellectually honest debater on this topic. Standing for standing for truth also did a good job defending his position. Wow. And I didn't even pay that person to see that. I would say Erica is definitely one I've said it before. One of the most, if not the most knowledgeable, I'm going to say evolutionist debater that there is. So that's why I've really enjoyed having three debates, you know, sometimes too many debates can be redundant, but with you there's so much to talk. We can spend one on one point, an entire debate. And I get along really well. We make a good debate duo just because I think we get a good flow going and no one ever talks too much. I really genuinely mean that I have fun every time we chat. Me too. I enjoyed this one. Thanks so much for your super chat from our dearest friend, John Lloyd, who says, quote, the chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two species is shown by man attaining to a higher eminence in whatever he take up than a woman can attain, unquote. And they say that they're quoting Darwin descent. I think a descent of man. I guess 327. Yes. So, so Darwin, while very intelligent in many different rights was also somewhat the victim of his times in many ways. But I did look into his sort of, I someone had mentioned to me that Darwin was like wickedly sexist at one point and I was like, hi, I'd never heard that claim before I guess I'll look into it. And interestingly enough, if you look into his interactions with both his daughter and other up and coming female scientists. It does somewhat paint a different picture so I wonder, I wonder if his mind changed as he aged but yes, Darwin was a was a dude in the 1800s and I'm not, I'm not particularly surprised that he didn't think as highly of women as he did of men. But it's a shame, you know, I, I don't know what are you going to do, don't meet your heroes. Thank you, Zach Branigan. Thanks for your super chat who says, Erica's dedication to educating the misguided is amazing. I paid. Yeah, they're saying you're misguided. I know that's the job. I paid the wrong person. I, I, if, if that's for, if that's for me, I do want to say that I definitely get the feeling I think standing is just, you know, genuinely trying to figure out what's going on. So I don't think you can ever call someone who seeks knowledge makes misguided. Very sassy. I like it. And thanks for your super chat who's from Excalibur who said so much better than Tom. I mean, some other debater that often comes on the show and flat earthers just saying, quote, you are wrong. Stop it. Just stop. You're making stuff up. I added some of those. I need to debate a flatter. If you recognize those quotes, they say with zero evidence, great debate, keep improving modern day debate. Well, all credit to the speakers. The speakers are what makes this channel fun and as well as you guys all out there watching and engaging. So we appreciate it. And yeah, so that's a compliment to you, both Erica and standing for truth. Very nice. I appreciate it. Next up. Carmel Brunk. Thanks for your super chat. They're coming at you standing. They said saying for truth. What do you think of Christians who confirm evolution or in other words, say it's true. Who believe in evolution? I think, I think they're misguided. I mean, salvation itself is obviously based on, you know, faith in Jesus Christ. So you don't have to believe in old earth creation or young earth creation to be a Christian. But I think that they're giving up a perfectly good Bible for a, I don't even want to call it a theory. Because it definitely doesn't fit in scripture. Of course, you got to force fit that type of belief into it, but I mean, it's not required for salvation. So I would just say they're misguided in the science aspect of it. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Appreciate your super chat from Daniel Baker, who says, Erica, how do you feel when you bring up so much scientific evidence for your argument and creationists only ever counter with quote, the Bible says blah, blah. You know what, I do have to say standing has never responded to me that way and and very frequently our conversations that we have spur me to look into more of something that I didn't know about previously. For instance, our first rather a second conversation he brought up white chromosomes and the divergence there and I didn't know I didn't know the answer and I'm sure you'll remember I was like I don't know the answer. But yes, those those who do behave like that are missing out on a great conversation. And from my perspective being someone who finds evolutionary theories so fascinating I think they're missing out on some really cool science. And I've known some very excellent Christians who as standing noted below that they accept evolution just just fine and so I've you know, I, I guess that's all I have to say on that. Very nice. That was very charitable. Good answer. Good answer. Next up, serious startups. Thanks for your super chat who said even though standing for truth one, Erica's performance confirms I can't say it about. I love him. I hope Professor Dave is doing okay. It was a long it was a it was a wild debate last night for those of you who tuned in. Remember that's for sure. That was that was a lot of fun club. Thanks for your super chat who said, be nice to standing for truth James. All right, because of James I cry myself to sleep almost every night. That's very thoughtful serious startups. Thanks for your super chat who said this is their second. He said James just likes to show off his chin. That's kind of you. I don't know. I was you know, I was a little insecure when I was younger because I had this big butt chin. Do you notice that I have this like dimple. It's pretty massive. It's hard not to see it. But thanks. I mean, I don't know if you're making fun of me or not, but I'll take it. All right. Brandon artily. Thanks for your super chat who said when creationists demand an example of a transitional species. Why do they ignore long fish mudskippers amphibians, porpoises, platypie, etc. So, I guess that questions for me why do we ignore those I mean the lung fish the mudskippers for example. I believe you just named a bunch of species that are alive and well today so I mean I don't see them transitioning into anything right now but when it comes to mosaics when it comes to. Tectolic, for example, which we can elaborate on later. We do predict some mosaics based on the design model just like we predict nested hierarchical patterns and adding me morphology and physiology and genetics, for example. So we don't deny that some species that God may have created rod in a way in mosaics, but yeah, I wouldn't say we deny them. Gotcha. Thanks so much for your super chat from our dearest friend Nathan artwork. Good to see you again. They said, oh they're challenging your charitability Eric other. They want to play hardball tonight. So they said if a person is arguing the wrong information. How are they not misguided. Because I think that I think that when it comes to to being whether you're misguided or not rather I that was a bad way of phrasing that sentence, I think intention has to be taken into account so even though I think standing is wrong I think that he makes a solid effort to figure out what's going on. And anytime someone does that, even if I do think perhaps maybe the answers they've come to are incorrect or I guess you could call that misguided I certainly don't think that the person themselves is, because I've certainly met a lot. This is probably the one of the less charitable things you'll hear me say but I've certainly met a lot of bad faith actors that I at least interacted with. And you can usually you can usually call them on their cards decently quick into the conversation. And I don't think standings like that so. Gotcha, very kind of you. I mean I got nothing against him he's alright alright thanks for your chat. You'll have me back on again James that's sweet. He's he's precious you know he's he's you know I gotta give. So even though I'm a little I was heavy handed moderating tonight. I have to say I actually enjoy it more when I'm when I almost have to do that because I don't think a debater has to be interrupting to be passionate. But it's at least a sign usually of passion and so we do appreciate that. You did moderating James I'll give you a credit you are a great moderate and you did good tonight. That's kind of you I appreciate that. However someone may disagree with you however we may have Darth Dawkins back soon. Or as he goes by now I think the last time we saw it on Discord is Darth Mauling Atheists. Oh my God. Sassy. We love you Darth if you're listening. Carmel Crunk thanks for your super chat said natural selection and this is a quote quote natural selection and belief in God are not only non contradictory. But they are inextricably linked and harmonious quote Seigart PhD. Yeah I mean I think he's just stating one mechanism in the bigger picture natural selection of course natural selection or better referred to as differential reproduction keeps a species as strong as it can be so based on our model of created genetic diversity mechanisms such as natural selection mutations even genetic processes like recombination and gene conversion. These are all important according to our model and evolution would probably say the exact same thing. Those mechanisms are important overall. Gosh Seigart's a cool guy. I would like to interject that. Thanks for your super chat from Sirius startups who says the chin point was a compliment bless your heart. Appreciate that. They said but you've got to say beta. I that was a really wild one last night. Like I said I'm like that was something amazing. Okay. So amazing. Amazing. So thanks for your thanks for your super chat from Dildo Baggins strikes again. I wonder. I don't know if it's a real name. Like you think their parents call them that. I don't know. But they said standing for truth is like Saruman believing a lie will be your end. Hey, all I got to say is I like Lord of the Rings. So we are the bad guy. So go ahead, Erica. Sorry. No, I was going to say we have that in common standing and I have frequently had the discussion on which trilogy is better. Lord of the Rings or the dark night. I'm I've got my hand in on on Lord of the Rings but standing standing flip flops you flip flop sometimes. It's a tough one. Yeah, I think it's whatever one I most recently watched. But we'll have that debate in the future too. That'll be a good one. Gotcha. And thanks for your super chat from last one that we've got here. Nathan artwork says maybe Erica should get into being a politician. Oh, no. What a giant pass I'm going to take on that. Thank you. That's very kind of you. But that, that. Not a desired profession. That's not, that's not the world for me. They meant it as a compliment though. Maybe they meant it as like the world needs more politicians like you. Oh, that listen, whether it's sweet or not still. You got it. No, thanks. So thanks for that. I've got to, we've got to wrap up soon. I'm getting hot in the sauna. It's just really warm in here. I just thought it was funny. Somebody in the live chat. I can't remember who it was. It said, is James in a sauna? Like a broken sauna. So we want to see. I am. And it's just terribly hot. But yes, thanks so much everybody for being here. The speakers are linked. I am going to get the link from dapper dyno, which I think it may be in my email as well. Otherwise I can put it in there from standing for truth or Erica. And thanks for your super chat. Again, dildo Baggins strikes once more saying, James, can I have your babies? Appreciate that. Another one of those 65 year old postman people. It's like, I'm really big in the U.S. Postal Service. So thanks for that. Then yes, that after show will be at dapper dyno's. If you, if anybody else wants to host an after show for this, let me know. Usually if you can let me, if you see a debate on our upcoming debates within, you know, our YouTube channel page and you're like, Oh, that's one. I'd probably love to do an after show for it because I know this debater or I love that topic and I know a lot about it. If you shoot me the link beforehand, I can even put your after show link in the description before this stream. The debate actually starts and we can let people know about that. And so, but yes, thanks so much folks. Really do appreciate it. It's always fun and especially thanks to our speakers though. Awesome. Always a blast. I really enjoyed it. Thanks for doing it again. Erica's round three was another one to remember. So I had a good time. For sure. The audience enjoying too. Thanks for that. One last super chat that just came in corporal Annen. Thanks for your super chat who said, are you still doing donations for that bone marrow organization? So we definitely mentioned be the match. In fact, we are actually it's be the match won't be tomorrow, but tomorrow for the debate on whether or not anti-theism is reasonable 100% of the super chats will be going for that debate to COVID relief efforts. And so probably Red Cross, but I've got to check around. And we usually try to look at like charity watchdog rankings or ratings just to kind of see that the charity that we're giving to is both transparent and effective with the basically that they're using the funds with for what they say they'll actually use them for. We are, but I do know it'll for sure be one that is giving to COVID relief. And that is tomorrow's debate, which is 1pm Eastern Standard Time. So we'll be going really early tomorrow about eight hours earlier than we normally do. And it's going to be a lot of fun. So if you guys want to come on, hang out with us tomorrow for that debate. And that's on our main page. And as I said, 100% of the super chats will be going to that good cause. So thanks so much everybody want to wish you a great night. One last time when I mentioned the speakers are linked in the description so you can hear more from them and keep sifting out the reasonable from the.