 Tonight we are debating evolution and we're getting started right now everybody. We have a really interesting debate tonight Thank you so much for showing up everybody that's here. We have standing for truth and David Neff It's gonna be a quite an interesting discussion. I know I'm interested in this topic There's been a lot of debates on this, but we're gonna be talking about Universal common ancestry versus separate ancestry. So that'll be an interesting segment of this argument So I guess what we're gonna do is we have a Format of a 12-minute openings. We're gonna start with David and Basically, I would just want to let everybody know like hey if you're like I really like this guy Well, they're description in the description. That's where you'll find their information You can click on their links and find their channels. All right, and I just want to make sure everybody knows as well that this is a an unbiased channel we like to make sure that everybody feels welcome here and But just try to keep it clean in the in the live chat there We know how I can get heated, but we'll be watching it for questions as well So just tag at modern day debate and that's how we'll get your questions. So with that We'll go ahead and get started with David for his 12-minute opening. All right. Thank you so much Thank you standing for truth for agreeing to debate me and thank you so much for modern day debate for Posting and for Congress. Thank you so much for Being the moderator for tonight This is my fifth live debate. So I'm still a little bit new to the voice debate format And I debated praise I am that I am that a few months back, which went really well so tonight's debate is evolution versus creation and What I'm gonna be doing tonight is dividing my arguments into two parts and the first part I'm going to be getting an overview of evolution and the evidence words and and the second part of my Arguments I will be giving an argument where my Predictionism is not viable The theory of evolution is one of the most misunderstood theories in science yet It is also the backbone of modern biology Nothing in biology makes sense except the light of evolution the theory of evolution explains not only that Diversity of light but it is vitally important in fields such as medicine and technology Contention number one evolution by natural selection is an observable facts sub point a micro evolution We have observed evolution by natural selection both in the lab and in nature when we expose bacteria to antibiotics The transformations enables them to form resistance to the antibiotics causing them to be so much stronger The end result is bacteria with the favorable traits necessary to resist antibiotics Resulting in deadly diseases. This is well known as micro evolution or the change in the allele fake of cheese in the gene pool This is so well observed and documented at no creationist for the night is some point being macro evolution Speciation is the emergence of new species from the single ancestral species This is probably the most important prediction of evolution at evolution were true Then we should observe the formation of new species as it turns out Speciation has been observed so many times that even creation is accepted Oh, they've been trying to rationalize it by denying that speciation perfectly fits the definition of evolution or by simply moving the double-closed in facts, we even have different names and Or how various those a speciation happens You can take a speciation like language as time goes on new words are added people spread out Words change meaning and does new languages are formed This is how Latin turned into Spanish French Italian Romanian and the rest of the Romance languages from the single ancestral language You're gonna take that the minor changes in production and meaning to be the quote-unquote micro evolution and the emergence of new languages as macro evolution contention number two genetics genetic comparison In my opinion genetics offers the most profound case for evolution The closure related species some more genetic material they will have in common using genetic markers We can trace which dependence accuracy on how humans and other species migrated when I got my DNA sequence from the ancestry calm I was shocked to see just how accurate it was not only were they able to tell the region of Europe We're I just said from they were also able to pinpoint exactly where my family settled in the United States And they were able to tell when they came we can use this to trace human ancestry back to many humanity first evolved using MC DNA and using Why DNA we were able to find that humans originated in Africa roughly 200,000 years ago Using the same principle that determines maternity we were able to find that humans and shems are about 95 to 99% similar Which would suggest that the two species are closely related What is more is that we can determine and roughly when humans and shems I worked which is about seven to eight million years ago Of course there's more Information becomes available and more studies are done the more refined the state be able to come Now let's look at a real world example. S. I. B. And S. I. B. And S. I. B. And the 1980s people were dying left and right of HIV Where did it come from and how did it evolve? Let's find out. There are actually two main types of HIV HIV one Which is most common and HIV two which is less common using genetics We found that HIV evolved from S. I. B. A virus that infects non-human primates most likely humans were butchering meat from an Effective animal and that is how they initially came in contact, but there's a problem humans are naturally immune to S. I. B. So something had to happen in his book evolving the human effect and why it matters Dr. Fairbanks and shows exactly how this happened The virus had to mutate into a form that could overcome natural immunity to S. I. B. Humans we almost have a gene that encodes a protein called tethering This protein has evolved to confirm resistance to the retroviruses by telling them to the inside of the cell They in fact and preventing the viruses from replicating where S. I. B. C. B. Z to a Successively infected human and have to overcome the suppressive effect of human tethering The S. I. B. C. B. Z evolved by acquiring two anti-tether genes called any F and B. P. U One from each of the original monkey viruses that used to form the chubby and D virus The any F gene mutated to overcome the chimpanzee tethering, but the V. P. U gene remained essentially inserts where the virus jumped from humans to Two humans human tethering was so different that the any F gene could not overcome human tethering and said the V. P. U Gene mutated it to overcome human tethering allowing HIV one group M to infect humans as Mutation and a second gene called it G. A. G. Was required for the chimpanzee virus to jump to humans interestingly a case in which HIV infected a human Excuse me infected a chimp is Known and a G. A. G. Gene of this virus mutated back to the original form and the chimpanzee to successfully re-infecting since central host So point B is the ERVs and does this retroviruses and does this retroviruses are about our viruses that incorporate themselves into our DNA As I already pointed out humans bottom as gems are about 99 to 99 percent similar This strongly suggests that we are closely related and share a common ancestor when we compare genetics We can look at ERVs and use that to help connect the dots as it turns out human and chimps have thousands of ERVs in common So either ERVs independently inserted itself into the same occasion Thousands of times or we share a common ancestor who had it the latter is far more likely now Let's look at the fun fossil record So point A is the geological column the geological column fits perfectly within the evolution of your evolution in free work We never find a fossilized rabbit in the pre-capturing labor, and we never find a dinosaur fossil on top of the human fossil So point B transitional fossils. We're all the transitional fossils. I'm glad you asked Let's just look at one example and the Archaeopteryx Archaeopteryx is probably the first transitional species found it was probably it was only found there's answer Darwin published the origin of the species as noted by 12. origins It has good bird and dinosaur like feathers that are hard to explain away The main bird traits being a long external nostril and the two bald bones nuts Stitcher together and all teeth blacking serrations Orange lateral froze in top of the rear body of the greater major Major Tritonium is the no-bills teeth on the maxilla and maxilla bones the actual openings forward and et cetera in number 100 differences converts And now for two is the failure of creationism Let's identify three major predictions that the Bible makes in the first five chapters of general interest and the first chapter of Genesis The Bible protects the order in which the universe was created The second key protection is the age of the universe and the third key protection is how long humans once lived if any one of These three are shown to be false and the entire Genesis creation myth collapses The order creation and in Genesis creation myth God creates the universe in six days one day one He creates the light and darkness one day two he creates the sky and sea one day three vegetation and land day four the stars the sun and the moon day five the sea animal and birds and a sex plant animal from humans The order that the book of Genesis proposes is inconsistent with what we know in science How can a day and night exist before the Sun? How can vegetation survive without the Sun? Without the Sun the earth would have been at or just above absolute zero Modern astronomy has witnessed the life cycle of stars in solar systems the way solar systems warm is nothing like how it is described in the Bible Stars forming power to gas collapse under its gravity This is called a bird a star when the story heats up enough in a cut ends nuclear fusion That's when it's fully a star not only have we observed this process But we have found young stars with planetary deaths around them even more impressive is that we have discovered moon swimming Around new exoplanets solar system formation is nothing like what is described in the Bible Next the age of the universe creations is all argued that the entire universe is less than 6,000 years old a wealth of independent lines evidence proves that the universe is billions of years old here Let's just give two evidence and the distance from its problem light travels at a speed of two hundred ninety nine thousand seven hundred and ninety two kilometers per second If an object is one light year away and follows that the light from that object must have taken one year to reach the observer The furthest distance we have seen is roughly about 13 billion light years away Logically it follows that the light took 13 billion years to reach us thus the universe has to be at least 13 billion years old Radiometricating radiometricating is the most accurate way to tell the age of an object We can test the accuracy of radiometric dating by cross-dating it with various isotopes as well as testing it when the age of Neon objects, this is incredibly useful in archaeology For example research has sounded old Quran that dates back to the time of Muhammad when we applied these techniques to rocks and asteroids We discovered that the Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old a four cry from 6,000 years old and Lastly, let's look at the life's man of humans as of today the oldest person in life is 116 years old However, in the Bible the oldest person to die was Methuselah at 969 There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that humans won't live that long and all evidence points to the contrary From what we know life is nice to see from the paleolithic era up to modern early England was less than 40 years old so in summary The major predictions made in the book of Genesis are a complete failure The theory of evolution has been vindicated time and time again whereas creationism can't even get off the ground And you can't trust what was written in the very first chapter of the Bible Then you can't trust what was written in the vest. Thank you, and I look forward to seeing this reply All right, thanks so much for that opening statement now. We'll kick it over to standing for 12 minutes Standing for truth. You ready to go buddy? Yes. Yes. Can you see my screen here? I cannot see it yet. All right. It looks like it's coming up now Yep, we got you. Okay, perfect. Just one second. I'm gonna get my My time are going Before I start I do want to thank Yeah, no problem. I want to thank David and everybody here on Modern-day debate for giving me the opportunity to discuss the topic of ancestry tonight with with David Neff So I'm really looking forward to this and I believe this is going to be a very profitable and informative Discussion, I mean I've watched David debate Ken Hovind and I know he's got some knowledge on this subject So I think this is gonna be a lot of fun Okay, so I'm gonna set my timer here for 12 minutes and if you can see my Screen we'll get this going. Okay, let's get right into it then What directly records a species ancestry? Well, it's genetics. It's in our DNA where the question regarding ancestry is Answered sperm and egg don't pass on a fossil or a bone. They don't pass on geography or rock They pass on genetics and traits in order to answer some of the important questions on ancestry or find out the history of Humanity and discover the origin of species. This is where we must look I know David spent some time on rocks Radiometric dating for example, but it's it's genetics genes and traits that are inherited sperm and egg time Time is not the hero of the plot for the evolutionist So I know David spent some time trying to prove deep time light time travel problem For example, well, God may have created stars and galaxies while earth was deep inside a gravitational well Which actually causes earth clocks to slow down or even stop After God stretched out the heavens earth came out of that well and time starts ticking But since stars and galaxies did not experience time dilation the universe Could be around billions of years old while the earth is only one day This is gravitational time dilation and perfectly explains the the problem But like I said time is not the hero of the plot for the evolutionist since genetic change is down Let's let's look at dogs as a basic example as to why fossils Being indirect evidence can't give us an answer to this question as genetics can genetics is so important Important in determining what is related and what is not why will 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 ancestors by looking at the genetics and that which is passed on sperm and egg What David should be asking himself is this What would he honestly expect to find if Adam and Eve were true? I think it should be obvious to anybody that we should be expecting evidence for one female ancestor of all people on the planet as Well as evidence for one male ancestor of all people on the planet genetic data confirms these expectations The genetic structure in humans today speaks to us of a literal Adam and Eve Everybody on this planet got their mitochondrial DNA from a single woman who is exactly what we would expect from the biblical Eve She is quite literally the mother of us all in a nutshell We have nearly identical mitochondrial DNA and the very few mutations that differ from Eve's sequence are Exactly what would be expected if Eve arose just several thousands of years ago. We have molecular clocks This is direct evidence not rocks not starlight Specifically for example the why chromosome and the mitochondrial DNA that go back just six thousand years to Adam and Eve I can demonstrate limited ancestry right here and now Those that hold to deep time evolution Have been faced with very serious challenges regarding pedigree based Human mitochondrial DNA mutation rate studies. This has been a serious problem for evolutionist since the beginning of these types of studies The reason is because pedigree based studies and the empirical method rejects and disagrees with deep time evolution and Universal common ancestry the best tools to determine what is related and what is not related our molecular clocks and DNA function We will get into DNA function a bit later evolution has looked to time dependency as a way to explain away the data Evolutionists have suggested that the mitochondrial DNA clock ticks at different rates at different points in history Evolutionists would have us believe that mutation rates have been significantly slower in the past for this explanation to be Scientific or even reasonable the evolutionist must make testable predictions And this is what I am going to request David answers in the discussion portion if David disagrees with the eve date derived from Straightforward mitochondrial DNA coalescence equations. He needs to make testable predictions When does the molecular clocks speed up and slow down for example? David is not the first to be asked this question. I've asked numerous proponents of evolution to make predictions I asked this question to guts it given in our last debate since time dependency was her rescue device with no answer and no predictions Her answer was non-science Can David here predict when the mutation rate accelerates and when it does not or is time dependency a rescue device that? Evolutions are forced to invoke in order to explain away the observable data The evolutionist love to accuse creations of resorting to an answer of God did it well It appears it is the evolutionist that are guilty of answering the empirical evidence with time dependency did it or natural selection did it Science tells us that all men have similar white chromosomes Which is passed down from their fathers and all of male humanity traces back to a single man This single male ancestor of humanity has all the qualities expected if the Bible were true a new research paper here Confirms that we only observe approximately 4500 years worth of mutation accumulation in the paternal ancestry That is contained in the record of the human white chromosome Subsequent papers also confirmed testable predictions on the history of civilization found in the white chromosome How does David deal with this especially if he wants to look at rocks? Let's look at the direct evidence that can answer this question of universal ancestry or limited ancestry Creations that are making the testable predictions on DNA function mutation rates speciation rates and more Evolution is dead the entire junk DNA paradigm has been overturned orphan genes show limited ancestry How does David here explain this? Incredible class of taxonomically restricted in essential genes the chromosome to fusion has been overturned the alleged site where the fusion Supposedly took place actually represents a highly organized functional gene the area is far too Generate and there is lack of evidence for the so-called cryptic centromere Trips have very distinctive and exceptionally large satellite sequences at the end of their chromosomes Where are these large ape-specific satellite sequences in the reputed fusion site? How does David address these problems? ERVs he talked a lot about here ERVs ALU's and other classes of retro transposons. Just look at these papers here retro viral promoters in the in the human genome Well, even pseudo genes are consistent with this model of created heterozygosity. The evidence is clear These are functional DNA elements important to our genome I'll briefly touch on the created genetic diversity hypothesis in order that we are not talking past each other in the discussion Where does genetic diversity come from the major difference between my view and David's view? Is that I explain the vast majority of nuclear DNA differences as pre-existing or created diversity? Evolutionists assume mutations as the source for all DNA variety This one genetic difference has massive implications for the timing as to the origin of species If you're trying to explain the origin of species just by mutations Then the evolutions would be right and you would need millions of years for all these differences to accumulate If the differences are there from the start the simple operation of recombination and gene conversion can produce visible variety in a single generation Migration isolation shifts from heterozygosia to homozygosia and inbreeding will all of course play their part in producing new species Classic textbook examples of universal ancestry that I've seen David here use in his Opening include homology right that shared structures seen in the biological world shared four limb structure for example But we know human engineers design and homologous patterns across the globe. We see shared designs and even shared blueprints What about the so-called existence of transitional forms that David talked about here archaeopteryx for example We'll think of a military vehicle that blends the features of both a land vehicle and a vehicle built for the ocean For example an amphibious assault vehicle even a crossover SUV for example These would be the perfect examples of transitional forms according to David here when in fact we know this is not the case This amphibious assault vehicle and these crossover SUVs were built and designed this way What about those groups within groups patterns that David points to here as evidence for to set with modification He looked at nested hierarchies in DNA. We can even look in anatomy and physiology But these are also predicted by creationists based on the design model The classification of life can be compared to the classification of modes of transportation on how different companies Manufacture cars based on their similarities forming hierarchies the examples that he used antibiotic resistance for example The HIV resistance example as well. They're all based on losses of information Genetic changes down David's gonna have to answer the question of net gain versus net net loss. Let's Let's look at the differentiating evidence. We're gonna need to look at this in order to determine. What is true? Universal ancestry or limited ancestry here are some questions I have for David that can most definitely help us differentiate between the two models We have preliminary evidence for genome-wide functionality This is a direct prediction of the created heterozygosity model. Can David refute this? Can David present us with that will select away so many deleterious mutations that are pouring into our genetics and de-generating our Information systems, how does David explain the incredible dissimilarity between chip and human-wide chromosomes? How does David explain the low genetic diversity in human beings? He looked at the out of Africa scenario But I'd like to see how that out of Africa scenario is even remotely feasible. We can talk about that in the discussion portion We know that the ERVs that David talked about and other classes of these retro transposons accomplish many crucial functions and regulating gene expression Differentiation development and even cell stress responses. How does David fit this into his evolutionary story? If he could answer that question at the beginning of the discussion, that would be awesome Human chromosomes, for example, are made up of relatively large linkage blocks and analyses 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 David explain this data? I've got a minute and a half here a couple more questions How does David explain the mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome data that based on the empirical method tells us we come Not from just a small founding population, but a population of just two Adam and Eve six thousand years ago These are all questions that must be answered in order for David to have any chance at making a case for universal common ancestry Why because these are just some of the lines of evidence that can differentiate between the two models universal ancestry and limited ancestry. I've got just under a minute here. He also looked at Dating methods for example, but those dating methods even including isochron dating always rely on a few Unknowable and unrepeatable assumptions some of these assumptions being about initial conditions Constancy of rate and even a closed system and even isochron dating will require an assumed history For example, you can look at Rocks that were taken from the ground the Grand Canyon using three different isochron methods that all greatly disagreed with each other so if if David's gonna reject for example a Global flood then he's going to be looking at these dating methods and he's going to Assume that these are absolute ages when in fact they're relative obviously if radio isotope decay was accelerated stay during the Genesis flood Then the radio isotope decay clocks could never be relied upon when they date rocks as millions and billions of years old But like I said, I've got 10 seconds here like I said Rocks geography. These are not what's inherited sperm and egg. It's genetics and I'd love to give David a few moments here To start the discussion by answering some of these genetic related questions because that is the direct way We're gonna answer this question. Thanks so much guys. All right. Thanks so much for that standing for truth Thanks for both you guys for your opening remarks. I just want to say anybody who's thinking hmm I would I want more well You can have more because we put their their links in the description So just go down there and you can check out their channels. All right Be tagging modern day debate with your questions and we'll get those in at the end We're gonna start 50 minutes of open discussion Starting now David. Do you want to kick it off? Yeah, sure. Can you hear me? All right? Yes, you sound good David. Thanks for your opening by the way, brother. All right. Yeah, sure same here And thank you standing for your opening statement. So Let's start with The loss of information I think we should start there So standing the first question I have is can you first of all give me a definition for information? I Would say that which is prescriptive for example, and if you're going to I guess refer to So-called beneficial mutations that are reductive for example, even sickle solenemia, right? That's got a benefit It's got a significant benefit, but ultimately it's reductive because it's due to a broken style broken protein broken Broken gene so when something's broken or we see a deletion In the genome that generally should imply to anybody that some type of information has been lost That's why they can sequence these genomes and they can look at levels of heterozygosity versus homozygosity They can look at a lealic variation for example So you may be able to show me one or two, you know, so-called beneficial mutations that in a narrow sense Result in a gain of fitness for example, even Lensky's experiment But if you don't address the key the key question of net gain versus net loss Then how are we going to take that fish to fishermen right because you're not going to get ripped by by losing Losing money for example, so I think in short something like a deletion in a genome a lot of these mutations that degrade the genetic information that I would define as that which is Prescriptive that type of change. I don't believe is going to take your fish to fishermen take your time there David. All right, so with a circle cell a media the example that you brought up Are you are you aware that? That mutation also gave Resistance to malaria Exactly, that's why I'm saying fitness can be increased in a narrow sense But the best definition of fitness is total functionality right if you look at Lensky's experiments There were some benefits to be had but overall what we see is a total reduction in genome functionality So yeah in a narrow sense these Organisms in bacteria humans regarding sickle cell anemia they can have a benefit because a lot of these beneficial mutations are environmentally Dependent, but if we're accumulating 100 new mutations per person per generation With most of them being deleterious and what we know about the known functionality of the genome That means we're degenerating even faster right now I think the key question to this and I want to ask you David is how much of our genome Do you believe is is functional both non-coding DNA and protein coding DNA because if if most of it is junk then a lot Of these mutations they're absorbed by those junk junk areas making them neutral So that would be that beneficial to you and universal common answer issue But if as the evidence suggests most of the genome is involved in at least some type of regulatory function then any mutation in This genome that is that is nested that is multifunctional for example will be deleterious So over time you need to give me the here's my question to question How much of the genome do you believe is functional and question to what type of selection? Could you? Provide us with that can remove so many of these deleterious mutations that are pouring into our Genetics David take your time. I know I spoke a lot there. All right, so for the first question that I want to say I don't know I honestly can't give you a percentage Now as far as the fitness I would disagree with your definition I would just say and fitness is anything that Makes a species more able to survive. So for example with the sickle cell in the media example on one hand and the mutation and Got the sickle cell in the media, but on the other hand it gave resistance to malaria because the Resistance to malaria was one balance better and the Mutation got passed down throughout the generations. Does that make sense? It does make sense and I do agree that some So-called beneficial mutations and you know a lot of them are even epigenetic as well So that's not really increasing information content, but it's just general adaptation based on our model of pre-existing you know heterosygosm for example, but The question that I asked about you know genome functionality It is important because it's a direct prediction of our model of front-loaded genetic diversity that the majority of these DNA Differences nuclear DNA differences for example mitochondrial DNA differences They would be functional and you point into endogenous retroviruses and now we know and I provided about six or seven Technical papers in my opening showing just how functional they really are in determining cell types in the embryo in the placenta Are you are you familiar with all of this new data? I mean even the endcode project for example David It shows that most of the human genome is functional and not only that David, but functional on many levels We've literally got layer upon layer upon layer of programming within our Within our genome. So yeah, as you said earlier with with Information I think the best way as I said, you know functional specificity communicated through you know language or code that which is prescriptive now if most of our genome as is being shown in these technical papers with the endcode project is It's functional that means these mutations are far more deleterious than was previously thought So yeah, you got sickle salinemia or a few epigenetic related Changes, but that's only going to improve fitness in a narrow sense. Okay, because it's environmentally Dependent if you're going to take two steps up that mountain, but then ten steps backward You're never going to climb that mountain. So yeah, what type of slide if we've got all these mutations pouring into our genetics Okay, for example Natural selection. Yeah, it can act upon, you know The best beneficial mutations and it can get rid of the most detrimental mutations, but those nearly neutral mutations David like those single spelling mistakes and in a bulk the size of an encyclopedia, for example, right, you know What type of selections are gonna is going to be able to remove that significant amount of mutations from from the genetics? Go ahead take your time David. Well, I would say that if it's neutral then Natural selection won't necessarily delete it and remove it from the gene One question that I want to ask you for my case is Do you accept speciation? Oh Yeah, I like according to our model of Created heterozygosm that I touched upon in in our open You know for us, we're looking back to the original creation. We're looking back to the expand Genome right because we look to a speciation event as a sorting out of genetic information For example shifts from heterozygosm to homozygosm obviously these great population often times they will Migrate enough from the original population. They can be defined as a new species and we've made a direct predictions on a Speciation events for example on birds snakes lizards But the thing is that that change that we see with speciation we see it on the Galapagos Island We see I think it was a year ago or two years ago fulfilled prediction by dr. Nathaniel Jensen new species of fetch Was formed based on shifts from heterozygosm to homozygosm just as predicted in our model Do you want to touch on the neutral? Mutation I guess a counter that you gave me. Yeah, the thing is if the majority of our genome is actually Junk like for example, I'm sure you're aware that less than 2% of our DNA actually codes for proteins But the rest actually turns out to be like a huge control panel David with millions of switches that turn protein producing genes on or off So that means that the more functional our genome is those neutral mutations that are supposed to be absorbed by those junk areas They're now nearly neutral. They're only slightly deleterious to fitness. So once again, what type of selection? Can you provide us that would be able to rid from our genetics these mutations that are just slowly degrading our Information systems unless unless you want to hold to the view of some evolutionists that say the majority of our genome is junk Would you hold to that view? And I do also want you to answer the question about the end I know we're kind of bringing up a lot of points here, but you mentioned the ERVs in your opening So I was curious if you were aware of the endogenous retroviruses and the the functions that are associated with them Take your time. Take as much time as you need David Yeah, one second. Let me pull up my notes here And Right where are my notes? Even before because are you familiar with the fact that this so-called quote-unquote junk DNA David? It can actually modify the modified the way chromosomes write the packages of DNA are organized thus changing the way the DNA functions So, you know, this this prediction of created heterozygosity based on genome functionality the trajectory is very very strong for Genome-wide function. I'm just fascinated by the endogenous retroviruses and I think you're a visa fastening and yeah I am aware that there are some Quote-unquote function to it, but I think that it doesn't really matter in the long run if there are endogenous retroviruses or retroviruses that have to be inserted into the cell That gets passed down. I still think that's solid evidence of that being the ERV got passed down through Evolution and common descent. Well, here's the thing though It's not just a few of these ERVs that are functional literally these endogenous retroviruses. They have crucial functions in Helping to regulate genes and even determine cell types. So a lot of the evolutionists. I've debated a biologist You know, they'll claim that the the functions were actually co-opted But is there any real evidence for that David like my question that I asked you in my opening was this We know that ERVs and other classes of these retro transposons Accomplish many crucial functions in regulating gene expression differentiation development, for example How do you fit that into the evolutionary story? Because evolutions have always assumed that these were non functional leftover remnants of ancient viral infections but ancient viral infections don't become suddenly important in the placenta or in You know acting as DNA regulatory elements because we would say and you probably got this from my opening We would say that these ERVs the pseudo genes, for example, these are all created DNA units of function, right? So how do how do you fit the date the data the most updated data on these DNA elements? How do you fit that into your evolutionary? Story and take your time David. All right, short. So Can you I think I'll be helpful to point out a few of these sources that you brought up and Actually read the allow me to take the time to read the whole paper. I Could share screen if you'd like. Yeah, sure Please do that'll be perfect As you're answering the question I'll share screen on the on the papers of the endogenous retroviruses, but I and what what's as I'm bringing it up. What's fascinating as well David is that there's various classes of these retro transposons found in mice and When they're when they're turned off for example, like the embryo the mouse stops developing that that's how literally that that's so important these classes of retro transposons are in our In our genetics. So if you can see I'm sharing screen I'm not sure if you guys can see but there's some papers here Promoters in the human genome. Here we go Let's see here Here we go Here Regulatory activities of transposable elements right here in the It says transposable elements are a prolific source of tightly regulated biochemically active non-coding elements such as transcription factor binding sites and non-coding RNAs like we just know that the non-coding regions of our DNA. They're Incredibly important to the rest of our genome. It's like they function much like the operating system and in a computer, right? David they're directing the timing the expression and regulation and in use of the other parts of the Of the genome. So I mean, it's it's just fascinating and it's exactly what We've always predicted as compared evolutionist that would say that, you know Our genome is full of ancient viral infections leftovers of ancient viral infections or genetic mistakes, for example But yeah, so if you're looking at these papers here, how would you fit this? How would you fit this information into your? I guess the evolutionary Story like for example this one. I don't know if you can see science news scientists Hang on one second standing David are you with us right now? It looks like he got disconnected If you could on your side Connect him back up. All right. Looks like we got him back now All right, let's um because I'm getting some I'm getting a lot of comments Saying like, uh, we want to see David, uh, go through some of these So maybe we'll just give him a couple minutes to try and give his side on some of these questions Yeah, sure And like I said before many times David, just take your time And I know I've thrown a lot of information and questions at you take as much time as you need I'll just sit back and um, you can take your time in answering these These challenges and questions. Go ahead David. All right, sure. So the first thing, uh I'm just going to do is just read the paper Yeah, if you if like if you want to read the whole papers, I can send them to you afterwards Just to avoid dead air I just like having a whole time job to just read the whole um paper Like this one's fascinating entronic al use influence alternative splicing even redundancy in our genome, you know That's based on amazing design How how would evolution because natural selection sees that which is uh short term We get redundancy, you know, for example, these redundant elements that help slow and speed processes in the south. How does evolution build or evolve You know something like a spare tire, you know what I mean? These redundant elements would require foresight How does evolution account for the those types of? um functions in the genome david Well, first, let me um Just finish this up real quick. Um reading um Just planting out the paper, uh, right now. I'm just kind of kind of taking a step back We're looking at the paper regulatory activities of trans visible elements from conflicts of benefits that you cited um, I'm just going to do a quick search All right. While he's doing that. I just want to say to everybody that's out there Maybe you've got a really interesting question or a really good, um stinger that you want to get one of them with uh, just Tag at modern day debate or send in a super chat and get it pushed to the top of the list um And uh, david you can start back whenever you get your place All right. Just trying to find my place real quick. Just give me a minute Oh, it looks like the one I got is the redundancy of the genetic code that enables translational pausing Yeah, I mean, there's there's so many papers coming out left and right Regarding function in in our dna. It's almost hard to Um, stay updated on it, but that's what's so fascinating about the creation model is so many of our predictions are coming true more and more Um, every single day, uh, I you know, like Are you looking to just read the whole papers or you know, like you can see the Yeah, I'm personally like to just sit down and read the whole paper. Um, just Understanding that's what I like to do. Um, first thing to do is just read the whole paper And this one is really wrong. So maybe Yeah, so maybe why don't we exchange papers after the debate? Yeah, and so why don't we we get why don't we uh I think it might be hard for now until you've read it and maybe we'll move on to another selling point Yeah, I think might be my cue is just let me have a chance to read the whole papers that you're citing And come back for a part two of the debate. Would that be um, okay with you? Of course, of course and when you read the paper, I want you to Jot down, you know, how they explain Whether it's through co-option, for example, how they explain these functions and and let me know and ask yourself too Is this philosophy or is this based on observable evidence? For example, I debated conspiracy cats recently who Specialized as in the endogenous retroviruses and we spent probably an hour discussing this and I asked him I said, you know, do you have any technical paper? Any real empirical data that can show us a non-functional endogenous retrovirus going from Non-functional to something extremely functional in in the genome I mean, I want you to Consider the fact that these classes are retro transposons as I talked about David that are found in the mouse embryo That if you deactivate it the mouse embryo will develop and then stop Well, why because it depends on the function of these retro transposons Which evolutionists have always assumed was junk now the patterns the nested hierarchical patterns That's also predicted Based on the design model of course We're going to share more in physiology anatomy and morphology with a chimp Then we will with an old world monkey or then we will with a fish for example, right? Those nested patterns are predicted on both sides But the one key factor that can differentiate between the two models is dna function and dna function is on the side of the creationist if you wanted to move to A new topic We can David because I'd love to hear your explanation for the molecular clocks that I talked about with mitocondrial A dna and in y chromosome that point is right back to adam and eve. So take your time david take as much time as you need And sure, let me get back. What is the paper that you're signing for that? Um for the Yeah Yeah, I can uh, you want me to share a screen on those papers? Yeah, share a screen with that paper, please Okay, so there's multiple papers. So I'm glad that you uh, brought it up. So we got multiple papers And let me know if you guys can see my screen as well Um, okay, so we look to Right, so for example here. These are all pedigree based studies David and here, you know, you can see this this is a One of the more popular ones the parson's paper, you know Using our empirical rate to calibrate the mt dna molecular clock would result in an age of the mt dna of only 6500 years and what's amazing david is that there's agreement in in Two mt dna mutation rates sets that exist. So there's there's sets that look at the dilute. That's a coding region And that's germline david. So that's incredibly incredibly important and the second set looks at the entire mitocondrial Um genome and when you look at both sets, they both corroborate a Most recent common ancestor of just 6500 years. This is based on the empirical Method, so how would you explain that? And secondly, how would you explain that more importantly in the deep time evolution? Model take your time. All right. There's some more papers here, too Again, I'm going to need to read the entire paper Which I'd like to do is just read the whole paper And get a better idea of what the paper is actually arguing. What journal is that from? This one's from the journal of Science this one over here. I believe is there's another one here a high observed substitution rate in the human mt dna control region That's the dilute. I'll I'll send you all these papers. I've got a ton of different papers, but if if If it's genes and genetics that's inherited sperm and egg And this is our direct answer to the question of ancestry david How if you're going to ask yourself, you know, what would you expect to find and yet we see One female mitocondrial dna answer ancestor and one male y chromosome ancestor Um consistent with the biblical base model um, how come that is not Convincing to you, especially because this is all based on the empirical method that which is Observable go ahead david take your time. Okay that mean, um Again, I mean they're paying for But let's just hypothetically say that you're going to read it. You're going to see that these pedigree based studies Confirm a mitocondrial eve of 6500 years and a white chromosome atom of 4500 years What would you then conclude like would that be enough evidence for you to? Okay, limited ancestry You know Could like are you familiar with the low genetic diversity found in humans? I mean we're all 99.9 percent Similar right our y chromosome is incredibly similar 99.9 percent Similar yet the the chimpanzee which you'll say is our most recent common ancestor is less than 70 percent In the y chromosome similar to that of the human y chromosome and yet the y chromosome is immune for the most part to recombination Um, how would you explain that significant? Uh dissimilarity in y chromosome between our so-called quote-unquote most recent common ancestor david Again, let me actually sit down to read the paper and um, you know back to your screen. Um, if you will please But you mean you want to read the paper right here? Uh, trying to at least just glance at it Well, I think as carver said we could always just exchange papers after just to avoid. Yeah, just because you Yeah, just because yeah, just because people will start to snooze if somebody's yeah sitting here reading Maybe there's something that you're both familiar with that you disagree on actually david Um, have do you have any questions for s of t because some people in the audience were saying like hey Most of the questions that came from standing side Do you do you have any questions or is there anything that he said that you? Uh want to uh elaborate on All right. Um, so why don't we deliver? Um With the order of creation that I brought up into the failures of creationism Um, since we have seen new stars form and even new solar systems that are in the plant process of forming Um, how do you deal with? the Observation that it does not fit well with the venus's order of creation Um, let me just ask you the so we're looking at uh ancestry the question of ancestry and you want to point to Like solar systems like for example, I gave you an answer in my opening regarding Gravitational time dilation, but I also pointed out the fact that time you can have billions of years even though I believe the evidence suggests otherwise that's not going to save Evolution from especially something like we were discussing earlier genetic entropy because and and that's okay. You didn't have an answer for You know how this problem of genetic degeneration can be Solved but if if genetic changes down of molecular clocks point to Recent ancestors of just 6,000 years and 4,500 years But then you want to look at something indirect like let's say rocks bones found in the dirt or Distant starlight or just solar system formation. I mean, how is that going to help? You know that might help you with the age of the earth But how is that going to help you prove to me and the audience that you know pine trees and whales are related Like I'll answer that question I mean that would be my answer is that you know, these things are indirect But I'd like to see the best evidence from you because I've given you some solid evidence for a young Genome and limited ancestry, but what would be your best evidence? For universal common ancestry right the claim that fish humans and apes are all related Because it's a solar system formation. Is that your your best evidence for Universal common ancestry or just just try and help me understand that David Dennis the solar system thing that I was throwing out is Just proved that the bible got the facts wrong Which falls into question the whole account As far as the strongest evidence for evolution and I would say the strongest evidence is that we observed it happening When she seemed to agree with you agree with microevolution and you even agree with speciation Let me ask you the question. Why isn't speciation? You know off of an Reason to accept the theory of evolution But what type of speciation event are you referring to specifically like what? What was the genetic change in the specific speciation event because I showed you a recent speciation events in the Galapagos island with the With the finches and we've predicted based on our model of created heterosigosity right the fact that god front-loaded adam and eve with pre-existing functional DNA differences And of course this applies universally to Species we'd be looking back in time at the expansion of genetic information Well, the evolutionist looks back in time at the contraction of genetic information because if you're going to start out as a single solid ancestor To a multi solid ancestor to a fish to an amphibian to a reptile to a mammal to a bird to a monkey to a man That's going to require the expansion of genetic information But the speciation events we see they generally include Reduction in information shifts from heterosigosity to homozygosity So the reason why that's not evidence for fish to fish from an evolution or a single solid ancestor to a whale type evolution Is because the genetic change is opposite of that is which is required for that type of large-scale um Evolution, you know what has to be a speciation. I would be um referring to I guess we can start with like the s i b h i b um The s i b h i b speciation for that be Like an example of a beneficial mutation that like is that actually Because what was this an example that you said was found in humans the h i b resistance example? Yeah, well the h i b s i b um how they diverse um into new completely kinds of new kinds of viruses completely And this was the and this was the h i b what was the uh details on the um on the change in in the viruses like was it due to um Reduction in information broken promoters broken systems broken ribosomes like in the antibiotic resistance like I'd have to work at the exact Is that what it is because let me pull up my screen. I think that'll help you Yeah Let's see if I can um Can you see my screen Uh, let's see All right, here's the quote from the book that I cited um The virus had to mutate and haven't overcame um those mutations Take your time Yeah, no, I I would just say that you know what I'm going to predict that these these changes are consistent with um loss of function loss of Regulation type mutations or just basic epigenetic related changes that Because it seems like the evolutionists um doesn't believe like We do believe in change over time and we do believe in micro evolutionary variations where You could be getting the changes in the frequencies of these Alleles and the expression of these different traits and things like that But it's the type of traits. It's the type of changes It's the new innovations the new structures the body plans the that you know the the novel information And if the best example that you would have is these changes in the hib virus As demonstration for that type of large scale fish to fishermen type evolution I mean the majority proves the rule I mean if we're accumulating 100 mutations per person per generation The majority of them are deleterious degenerating our information systems. I mean is is that Proof enough for you that you Have evolved over billions of years from a single solid ancestor, you know, like if you get what I'm asking Okay, I don't think um so um since you seem to agree with um Specision and something that the question that I have is um, where exactly do you draw the boundary lines? We are um one um species or whatever What is the limits? I guess is what I'm asking um We're one quote unquote kind of the animal changing into another quote unquote kind or new species Where do you see the actual boundary being? we're like we are somehow with some type of um evolutionary past where Um, it can't change beyond this That's a really good question. So I think that that's going to get into um our model of uh created heterozygosity as well as nested hierarchical patterns but we've got many different ways that we can um look for a boundary um in ancestry for example, um dna function as we talked about earlier um in great deal we can um save that for another day so you can look at those um papers we also look at orphan genes for example that I talked about in the Opening and the problem for the evolutionary model of animal origins in regards to orphan genes Is that these novel dna sequences david and the unique traits that they're often associated with appear suddenly And fully functional without any trace of evolutionary ancestry So therefore the orphan genes that are specific to say humans that are not found in some of the great apes would draw a line Or a boundary in that Hierarchy, so I think orphan genes would would be a great way to Draw a line. Um, like how would you explain orphan genes? For example those taxonomically restricted in the essential genes in your model because it fits nicely in our model of Biblical kinds take your time david take your time all right, sure, so um, I just um pulling up my a paper right now on the evolutionary origins of orphan genes and this is from nature um Well, um the key the key class, excuse me current model of gene evolution Have concentrated on mechanisms that are mediated by duplication and transposible elements um, but these models Have not yet fully evaluated the possible possibility of a new evolution orphan genes with no homology to genes and other evolutionary lineages Um occur and all genomes um and are candidates for de novo um Let's see here. So it so in other words, would you say that the um explanation for orphan genes is de novo gene synthesis? Um possibly because it sounds like that see and here's my rebuttal to that because I've read all these papers as well It's just like the the endogenous retroviruses or the al use for example They'll say that those functions were co-opted with the orphan genes They will look to de novo gene synthesis and I do believe that that's a circular based argument I'll tell you why david it's because Evolutionists say de novo gene synthesis must be true because orphan genes exist and orphan genes exist because of de novo gene synthesis So do you see the circularity in that? Um, I would call it a rescue device because they're just inferring. Oh look at these orphan genes They must have been adopted through gene duplication or You know somehow a non coding region of the genome popped up and became protein coding and functional But they're not actually observing this in real time. So do you see the circularity in that argument there david? no, um Let's see here. I'm just um reading Papers here now But yeah, is there any answers other than de novo gene synthesis in these papers? Like do they actually observe it real time these non coding areas of our genome popping up? um as a protein coding gene incredibly important and essential in these Species and lineages or is it just inferred as I said? Yeah, I'm not sure. Um Here we go. Here's a paper Trying to see here But yeah, I think we should definitely exchange papers in a happy part two of this discussion Well, let me uh, okay. Yeah, and and that's fine. You let's go to something even just a little less technical. Let's say kinds, okay? So, yeah Yeah, there you go. We'll we'll make it fun for the audience now So I would say my definition of kind would be and but I do want to point out to the audience that I do believe that molecular clocks dna function Um taxonomically restricted functional endogenous retroviruses taxonomically restricted in essential orphan genes these types of Lines of evidence can draw a boundary and I think I've proven that today I just want to point that out and I know you disagree with that and you got to look at the papers But those are like for example dna function and molecular clocks. Those are the two best ways that we can determine Um, what's related and what's not and I think I've proven that but yeah We'll wait for you to read those papers But when it comes to just a basic definition of kinds my definition would be groups of living organisms Would belong to the same say created kind if they have descended from the same ancestral Gene pool so I would say we can infer and I'm sure you would agree with this with really good certainty. David that dogs wolves Let's say coyotes and maybe foxes all go back to an original ancestral gene pool But I don't believe we can scientifically infer that dogs wolves and pine trees Go back to an original ancestral gene pool and once again I believe we can demonstrate that with molecular clocks orphan genes dna function Okay, so you're saying that maybe god or whatever created an archetype of um Dog that gave birth that eventually gave rise to the various types of dogs and foxes and all that Actually, that's a really good question. So we would look to um, the idea of pre-existing genetic diversity, uh, David So this means that god created adam and eve with differences within themselves and this hypothesis this created heterozygosity Hypothesis would then apply universally Among species. So yeah, let's let's use dogs as a basic example um There david noa brings aboard two dogs And now we have everything from wolves to coyotes to jackals to foxes and in between and of course ultimately the domestic dog Or we can look at Let's see cats So for example, the cat ancestor aboard the the ark was front loaded as I talked about with a whole bunch of these functional DNA differences at creation these front loaded functional dna differences has led to the origin of species, right? So noa brings aboard two cats and now we have everything from tigers to house cats to jaguars And in between and we can even see that in the species we see today. What is there between 30 and 40 different types of Cat species that david is that roughly what we have? I guess so, um, I'll have to look it up but um, so the question is if that's the case and why couldn't god have created like a um Arkans type of the primate and have all the descendants of primates, um to send from bats or um And you get what are you going from Are you saying that are you including humans in the primate category? Yes, I am and we can and We can debate that and and that's a hypothesis that we've um that we've tested there Before I answer that question There is a paper that I want to send you as well Uh, if you've never heard of it, there's no point in going into it any further I'll just I'll answer your question on the the primates But there is a new paper that demonstrates that 90 of all life has the same level of genetic diversity David meaning almost all life on earth is the same age and they use something called dna barcoding They can go right into the mitochondrial dna and they they can look at what's called the co1 gene It's highly highly conserved and the diversity in that gene demonstrates that over 90 of all life as the same level of genetic diversity. So it's um It's it's pretty fascinating actually, but yeah, so we've tested that model Um regarding um the primates did god create one created set of primates Uh, and they've all diversified into humans bonobos chans gorillas orangutans, etc, etc But the molecular clock tests failed when we included humans in with the primates the orphan genes The functional endogenous retroviruses for example the dna barcoding was all inconsistent with including humans in with the other um The other apes so therefore scientifically we can't actually include them as true, um Primates uh, go ahead David. Okay, so um with the whole archstory. How many um species? How many kinds or what do you say when we're on the arc total? Let me give you some time to answer that How many actual species in general like how many how many kinds of animals from when they work? Let me give you some time to answer that Sure. Yeah, let's say, um, let's say as a working hypothesis god Between six and eight thousand kinds of animals and when we actually pick out certain kinds of let's say he brought a board um, let's say 80 different Um 80 different bird kinds for example Well, we can look at the number of bird species that we have today and we see that there is approximately I think it's about 11 000 bird species today. So that's really only between like two and three new bird species Uh per year to account for that and like I said, we've just seen one with uh with the new species of finch Now here's my question. Certainly. I'm going to follow up before you ask it before you ask your question So, um, how do we get? The 10 million plus species that we have today from kinds of animals that were on the arc in just 45 hundred years Using the molecular clock that doesn't seem like enough time to give us Several the millions of species that we have today. Let me give you some time to answer that Yeah, no, I think that's a good question. I think I did um Answer that when it comes to our model of um, pre-existing genetic Um, heterozygosity for example because you can even look I mean genetically speaking this all goes back to Gregor Mendel For example, he actually lived at the same time with Darwin himself and just basic genetic principles. Think of Think of capital and lower case letters. Okay, David So we got big a little a big b little b these letters constitute different features and traits for example Um for me to break it down if you have a capital a let's say for dark skin And a little a for light skin now if you have a couple a couple such as adam and eve Uh, what were adam and eve according to their skin tone? Well, if they were homozygous for example, let's say they're capital a capital a capital b capital b Then, you know, both of them would have dark skin and all they can produce now is dark skin And the same thing is true if they were all lower case letters, which would mean they can only produce light skin people But if adam and eve are a mix of capital and lower case letters capital a lower case a Capital b lower case b and we're say a middle brown skin tone They have the potential to produce every shade of skin that exists On the planet. So the point is adam and eve and this would apply universally thought species Would have had the potential within their dna to produce In in terms of adam and eve every shade of skin that exists on the planet are known to man And regarding species whether it's the cat species the dog species the horde species That pre-existing genetic heterosygosity based on these Pre-existing dna variants just through recombination gene conversion for example can explain all the species we see today I mean as I pointed out we've only got about 11,000 to 12,000 bird species Okay, but yet if evolution is true and birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs 65 million years ago And they've been evolving for millions and millions of years. Why do we only have something like 10 to 12,000 bird species. I mean, how do you account for that just a bunch of extinction events or um, yeah, go ahead David Yeah, obviously we do have about 10,000 bird species. Um, not quite sure. Um, don't quite understand the question obviously Looks like here, um, number of bird species stores to 18,000, but of course as we learn more, um and discover more each day, um He simply don't know how many bird species there actually are or were Obviously, he's got extinct all the time and you were um any Extensions events in the past Um, that could explain that um with your um clock, um, so to speak, um from 4500 years ago from the flood, um, how many New species have to evolve each day in order to get to millions of species that we have now Um, I'll give you some time to answer that Really good question. I did cover the bird ones, right? It'd be about two to three per year That's a testable prediction made by dr. Nathaniel Jensen and after that prediction was made um, amazingly enough, I mean a new Bird species on the Galapagos Islands was observed in real time and that's you know, we've been studying the Galapagos Island So two to three per year For 4500 years is not um, you know, that's a pretty easy task and what I find funny too is Talk about bird species and talk about all the millions of species of Of course. Well, I'm just saying we can't look at it and just like hey This is how many species we have all together of every single kind of animal We got to break it down. Let's look at birds lizards and snakes for example There's only like a few thousand really of each. So that's like one sometimes less than one per year Let's look I want to Cover this because this is really important and I'm still answering your question But let's look at the horse donkey and zebra family for example So we've talked about lizards reptiles birds cats dogs bears. Let's let's look at the equids. Okay So there exists david three species of zebras today What is I believe it's one wild horse species three wild asses seven species total? Okay? This is what I find fascinating david There exists over eight hundred and fifty breeds of horses and donkeys in the world Okay, so let's ask ourselves this question david ask yourself this question Where did all the breeds today come from? Okay? Well, this is an easy and obvious answer I think since we humans, you know are the ones who are responsible for producing these breeds So I think he's created them through any breeding So therefore all these breeds obviously came from a common ancestor common ancestor You know 850 breeds came from a common ancestor at some point during human history now Here's here's my question. How could we get seven species of equids from a pair of equids on board the ark thousands of years ago? Well, I'm just going to ask the evolutionist today about how long it took to get the seven Living equid species because the literature will tell you david and you might already know this We'll tell you that about four million years. It took to get just seven species of these equids But yet how long did it take for over 700 breeds of horses to arise? Well, seven species in the wild And over 700 breeds that's over a hundred fold difference david four million years for the wild But apparently only thousands of years for the 700 Plus species. So this is just one example Well, a question of breeds and species are very different species Species should be taken to that longer and requires sexual recovery isolation and other factors that would go into Creating new species Well, I'm just saying that this is just one example as the plausibility of all these species in just thousands of years Just just have a look at what has been done on the farm and remember They're just taking the pre-existing genetic diversity And they're just reshuffling it for example recombining it and they're coming up with these new variations of On the farm for example, but that's how we say Um, and just so we're not talking past each other david You know, how would you because I explained in my opening and I know we both touched on a lot of points I explained in my opening Where we believe the origin of genetic diversity comes from especially with nuclear dna Just so we're not talking past each other. Do you remember? What's the difference between my model and your model in terms of The origin of genetic diversity. Um, take your time Okay, so yeah easily. Um, the obviously different Um Is obviously number one is the time the whole time facts are being off by a pretty large factor of 6 000 years versus Um, four billion years or so um I mean of course yours would require an intelligent designer aka god whereas mine will not And those are the two biggest um differences in our model Um, one thing that I wanted to address. Um before we get to the q and a And I want you to address that But I just want to expand on what you said so Are you saying that really have a couple more minutes? And then we're gonna and then i'm gonna give you your your closing statement. So, okay Real quick. So, um, just for the audience's sake too. So are you saying That you explain the vast majority of the dna differences that we see within species across species as a result of mutation over time Um, that would be fair mutation and um other factors mutations. Um Not so much mutation mutations would be those dna differences would be the result of mutations, but the actual Variety and the change would be like recombination and gene conversion of those of those dna differences that were ultimately the result of Mutation like what what else other than mutation according to your model can produce these dna differences Oh natural selection. Um Well, yeah, yeah, but not so much on acting on those pre-existing dna difference because all i'm saying is the big difference between my view and your view Is that I explain the vast majority of nuclear dna differences not by mutation, which is how you explain them david But by pre-existing or created diversity and that one genetic difference has massive implications for the timing The origin of species the dna function of the species the molecular clocks in these species And i'm saying all of those factors combined points to a limited ancestry And rejects and refutes a universal common ancestry. So go ahead if we just have a minute left you can have the last word there david All right, sure. So one last word that I wanted to um argue that I wanted to um go before we go into um q and a is um your example of um Cars in various design. Um, this is I believe a perfect example of the fallacy of um, false equivalency And the fallacy is a false equivalency because cars do not have the ability to reproduce and they do not have the ability to um utates and um All that like um living organisms do so this is a what that's what I see as the fallacy of the fallacy equivalency um So if you're talking about the nests and hierarchical patterns that I point to and I point to the Modes of transportation that humans have designed. Well, it just so happens that humans design in these hierarchical patterns And saying that you know cars don't reproduce is pretty much just a misrepresentation of Of our model because we're saying that if we were made in god's image david Then we can get a sense for how god would have created life by looking at the way We create things and just accidentally we build in these hierarchical patterns for example all sedans Share a tremendous amount of features with other sedans And yet you can bring in suvs and vans and obviously all sedans are more similar to each other But they do have similarities with uh suvs and vans But the diss similarities separate them But then you can bring in airplanes and boats and you can look at the materials used and you can build It groups within groups hierarchical patterns It'll remain a false equivalence fallacy as long as cars can't reproduce um, how long um how much longer do we have um, let's actually go into um You guys wanted a couple minutes for closings if you want to give a brief closing um And uh, we'll give both you guys a chance and then we'll jump straight into q&a Of course, yeah, david if you want to start with your closing and then i'll uh, I'll end it All right. Yeah, sure. So we are definitely going to be doing a part two of this debate. Um And I hope that everyone joins us. Um, I just wanted to give it some time to actually read the papers um I really enjoyed our discussion. I think it was very cordial and very friendly and um, I hope you enjoyed the conversation as well um So, yeah Couple of things um couple upcoming debates um that we're working on doing Um, I am looking to have another debate with kenthoven on evolution and creation And i'm also looking forward to debating praise. I am that I am on the topic did jesus rise from the dead So those are some things that I'm looking forward to and that I hope that you guys can um join me with All right, thanks so much for that, david. That's up to you Awesome. Yeah, I think um, it just comes down to that which is testable um, that which can be falsified and you know, we're making the predictions on DNA function Molecular clocks for example and those types of evidence that those lines of evidence that are Agnostic to the debate like the nested hierarchical patterns or the homology Or just a few mosaics for example These are not going to help us answer the answer this question of ancestry It's those those evidence lines of evidence that can differentiate between the model and those lines of evidence Are what david's going to go look into more and we can discuss in more detail In a second debate because I believe those are the lines of evidence orphan genes dna function For example is going to determine what's true limited ancestry or universal common ancestry because The phylogenetic systematics the nested hierarchies for example Universal common ancestry it is mostly based on the assumption that these dna differences the origin of genetic diversity is mutation over time and that the majority of the genome would be based on evolutionary leftovers genomic fossils And ultimately just junk dna and even parasites for example these endogenous retroviruses but these are all proving to be functional dna elements not mistakes not the Ancient remnants of ancient viral infections and the molecular clocks prove a young genome and that is a direct way to demonstrate the youth of the genome like I said the The rocks the dating methods. They're all based on assumptions It also assumes that there wasn't accelerated nuclear dna decay during the Time of the flood and I said that if if there if radioisotope decay was accelerated during the genesis flood Then those radioisotope decay clocks could never be relied upon when they date rocks of millions and billions of years old and that's why when we take rocks of known age and Measure them they come back wrong. But yeah, you want us to believe Rocks of unknown age. No, we need to look at that which is which is direct. So. Yeah, I really enjoyed the discussion David I think we touched on a number of really good points it flew by it was engaging. So thanks so much for Doing this David. Thanks so much for moderating converse And thanks so much for being the behind the scenes guy praise That's it for me. All right. Thanks so much for this Danny All right, so we'll jump straight into the q&a section here. We've got a lot of questions. We'll start with Serve with our first super chat from steven steen. Thank you for your two dollars Says sft is an unstoppable fat machine Hashtag bow to his brain Say that yeah, I would say you're gonna have to pay him back your step brother. So All right, um, we have a 199 looks like Uh, we don't have a um Oh that must be from steven steen as well Uh, steven steen another two dollar super chat says My 400th yet debate young earth creation debate Still don't know what an erv is Is that a question for me actually can you repeat that real quick? Yeah, um, he says my 400th yet debate still don't know what an erv is Yeah, you know, I've touched on ervs many times. I'd recommend looking at my um debate with uh conspiracy cats as well. I'm fascinated by the topic of these these ervs that the Evolutionists will say are the result of you know ancient viral infections But I've said this many times there's a question that we should All be asking ourselves and that question is, you know, what are these ervs? What are these retro transposons? Are they really the leftover remnants of viral infections in our dna? Or as I pointed out to david are they created units of? DNA function and you know, this is a testable prediction that creationists and intelligent design advocates are making and have been making and at this point in time the trajectory of Experimental results actually points to increasing and in surprising levels of function and I showed probably about six to eight papers providing evidence to david of the incredible functions found in the In in the genome regarding the ervs. So yeah, anybody wants to debate that topic Um, I'd be more than happy, you know, I've uh debated biologists on this topic. So yeah, give me an email and we'll set it up All right. Thanks so much for that. Um standing. We've got quite a bit of uh Uh question tonight and they're mostly for you. So we'll try what we're trying to do So we'll try and do like a like uh as quick as possible that way we can get in as many as possible Similar or energy ten dollars super chat. Thanks so much for that. Sarah asked stf Okay, you still don't understand mitochondrial eve which points to not the first female of a species but merely the most recent female and it wasn't 6 000 years ago What do you have to say about that? I love it after all these debates, you know, these are the arguments that I even directly refuted in my opening And these are arguments and I've even showed papers that based on Based on pedigree based studies and even studies in the dilube region whole mitochondrial DNA studies multi-generational studies for example all point to a mitochondrial DNA ancestor of Um, just 6 500 years but when evolutionists do these analyses now they have to reject the empirical observable Method for example and mind you they can't make any testable predictions my debate with gutsy given Prove that I asked David to make testable predictions as well We've made testable predictions. Dr. Nathaniel Jensen based on the known mutation rate has made Future predictions on african people groups the koison peoples. He said listen, this is he pointed to them They're they're measured mutation rates have not been or not known and he said I predict that their DNA is going to change this many times For this many generations. So it's the creationists that are doing Doing the science and and not the evolutionist. So anybody wants to debate me on that topic as well molecular clocks Set it up. I'd love to all right. Thanks for that Yep All right, thanks so much for that. Uh, robert summers $5 super chat Why is sft using cars as examples? Why not use biological examples that disprove or show design? Uh, yeah, good question. So I do use, um real time observable evidence regarding dna function We're guarding obviously molecular clocks. I'm sure everybody listening. Um, can see that other than I guess the questioner But I'm just pointing out the fact that it doesn't take much Um, it's just common sense that based on both models. We're going to expect a lot more similarity between a human and a chimp an anatomy morphology physiology genetics then between a human and a fish, you know, this is just those groups within groups patterns that um, both models predicting it just so happens to turn out that accidentally humans design in nested hierarchical Um pattern humans even design uh, both the transportation such as amphibious assault assault vehicles Or crossover suvs, which according to david and the evolutions would be the perfect example of a transitional form. No, these are all Uh, agnostic lines of evidence that both models can explain. That's why I always point out. Hey, listen Let's look at that which can differentiate the two models molecular clocks DNA function for example DNA barcoding and these differentiating lines of evidence are on the side of the creationist We're the ones doing the science. Thanks for the question All right. Thanks so much for that. We have a question from uh pc barn says um I'm sorry. I'm I think I missed one once again. Um Um Yes, steven steen another two dollar super chat. Thanks so much steven steen for your support says well shoot. I'm convinced Call it for sft or ip evo Even steen with all those super chats. He's putting our kids through college. So Steven All right, um next we have um We have another question from stupid or energy Thanks so much for your other $10 super chat says Please cite the paper that overturned chromosome two Despite it being mentioned in many recent papers if you cite a creationist paper. I'm going to slap you Super horror energy is getting violent now. Um, yeah, you know, I've uh, I've pointed out a number of reasons why the chromosome two fusion has actually been um overturned Regarding function. Why is the area so degenerate? For example, the lack of uh chimp Distinct chimp related satellite dna lack of evidence for cryptic sensory. I mean there's more and more and more But I do have papers. For example, the evolutionists will say You know, okay, the area is so degenerate because a deep time evolution for example But we do still have some telomere like motives there Well, guess what those telomere like motifs are found all throughout the genome And they're they're found to be functional dna elements that are not even associated with any type of fusion So I've got secular papers showing those lines of evidence or showing the lines of evidence that Suggest that the so-called cryptic centromere site is actually overlapped by a functional gene These are all from secular papers and there are papers by creationists. Of course, jeffrey tompkins. I'm going in In detail as to why this isn't a fusion site, but for more on this I would recommend my my last debate with Erica guts of gibbon. I think we discussed all these lines of evidence for about a half an hour So anyone who's interested go check that out or anyone who's interested in debating me on that topic. Let's set it up All right Yeah, I mean, let's get real. I've shown about 20 papers here. I will include that paper as well in the I'll mail it to super or super horror energy. What's your uh mailing address? All right Thanks so much for that. We'll move on. We have a five dollar super chat from p barns. Thanks so much for your Super chat says can sft explain the shared genes between monotremes and birds and may have mispronounced that Monotremes and birds shared genes. Yeah Yeah, I would say that shared genes are simply evidence for a common design We'd have to look at the function as well. For example, we can look we make direct predictions Based on this model of crater heterosugosity on let's say the the cytochrome c gene and the mitochondria For example, those mitochondrial proteins that are conserved We are predicting that Depending on the kind of animal that we're looking at those shared genes will have multiple functions and then we look to Protein moonlighting for example, which is a new fascinating discovery that these proteins are doing Multiple things. So those shared genes are yeah, they're they're functional But a lot of the times they are like with the monotremes and the birds They may have additional functions on top of the Functions that are basal to that specific species. So these are predictions that we're making and they're in print So I'd be happy to show anybody those All right. Thanks so much for that and move on we have a Two, I'm sorry Five dollars to the chat from stupid horror energy again Uh sarah says ERVs aren't evidence for common descent because of their supposed lack of function Um, was that for energy? Yep. The question for me or david Uh, the question must have been for you So what did they say that ERVs are not evidence for common descent? Yeah Yeah, exactly ERVs aren't evidence for common descent because of their supposed lack of function um, yeah, so ERVs are not evidence for common descent because the evidence suggests that they are created units of DNA function. I've shown that they accomplish many crucial functions in regulating gene expression differentiation and Um development and I've gone over about six or seven papers and the distribution of them that nested hierarchical Distribution of the ERVs make sense. We would expect to find more shared Um functional DNA elements in a human in a chimp than we would with a human and an old world monkey or a human in a fish So like I said many times those patterns those nested patterns are predicted on both sides. It's it's the function Of those patterns that can differentiate between the models and the functions on our side. So All right. Thanks so much for that. Um, the stolen earth did ask, um If you didn't mind citing, uh, the paper for him I don't know if you want to go ahead and do that now or Uh, if you want to just maybe include it Um at the end It was at the paper for the telemeric Like motifs in the chromosome 2 fusion the functional elements. Uh, the last one that you cited to, um To david One is like hey, he's do you mind if I get a citation for that? I will cite that one and another one that I cited in my actual presentation. Um, I had a screenshot. It had to do with the, um Uh, I'll pull it up. It had to do with the The title of it is the evolution of african grade 8 sub telemeric Heterochromatin and the fusion of the human chromosome 2 and why those Sequences that should be flanking the reputed fusion site are not found In the reputed fusion site. So that's a huge problem. Um for the chromosome 2 hypothesis So I will I just cited that one and the other one the telemeric like motifs one I will um provide as well with all the other papers All right. Thanks so much for that. Um Brian stevens has a patreon question. He says SFT I didn't catch the paper that debunked chromosome 2 fusion Can you be specific with the authors and title of the paper? Well, I just named one regarding the, um lack of Ape specific satellite dna. I've got a paper here showing that the so-called cryptic Um Actually just just problems with the alleged cryptic centromere in that it's It's human alphoid repeat dna sequence does not closely match chimpanzee centromeres and chromosomes I'll provide the secular ones and the Ones from tomkins now they'll stop at at tomkins because he's a creationist, but guess what they can't refute his data And I've studied his data in great depth and I am willing to Pretty well debate anybody on that topic. I've debated biologists on that topic erica for example and brian stevens to Um, what's that sound of chicken makes? I doubt he'll do it, but if he wants to debate that topic Set it up, baby All right. Thanks so much for that. We'll move on another two dollar super chat from sunday warship They say for sft When did gish first develop ability to gout? Okay, so I think that's kind of David you david this time you paid him to say that one Get your money worth. All right We have a A lot of music uh background noise For somebody I'm not sure. I'm not sure that was okay. So, um Shadow dancer 35 31. Thanks so much for your $10 super chat says david uh When you did your dna ancestry How come eight dna wasn't in it fish dna bird dna question mark if we have messages left over from evolution Then we should see this in our current dna. All you saw was human dna Uh, that is a word salad and to the question i'm just gonna laugh at it because um Obviously like the ancestry dot com dna Um, we've made a site and it only takes you back so far just include full genomic analysis But just gives you a decent idea of their everything Your ancestors came from so that is just a total straw man and it is worth the belly laugh All right. Thanks so much for that. Uh, we'll move on. We got a Another $10 super chat from stupid horror energy Oh Just has all the money just laying around Yeah, before you read that question, I would just say it should it must be nice to have enough money to just do $10 super chats Yeah, there goes all super horror energies toilet paper money. So Oh, I think that she's pretty she's pretty up there as far as money goes It's like, hey, look if you got a short question, you don't have to do tan. You can do like five But anyway, thanks so much. We appreciate the support. All right. James has done a great thing with this channel so Sarah's always supported so stupid or energy $10 super chat the evolution of a channel forming proteins with preference for cations v pu In viruses is impressive because of how many they mutate they are Macroevolution similar. I'm sorry. Yeah, you kind of froze up on me. I can't hear you Okay, I'll try to read this again the evolution of a channel forming protein with preference for uh cations v pu in parentheses In viruses is impressive because of how madly they mutate. They are macroevolution simulators Yeah, a lot of a lot even viruses for example like They will mutate and burn hot and fast fairly quickly like the h1n1 for example direct prediction from dr john sanford on genetic entropy You know the h1n1 virus. I believe it was well 1917 There is a paper on it that I can uh site as well It went from a red hot pandemic to a whimper to an extinction extinction event in less than 90 years And it was due to a linear accumulation of deleterious mutations. So a lot of these RNA viruses they will mutate fast mitochondrial DNA and all species for example mutates fast So there's no there's no clocks slow enough For deep time evolution and anytime that they say oh the clock's been different in the past Regarding say nt dna molecular clocks. They need to make testable predictions and they can't so their answer is non science and nonsense And is a rescue device. So a good comment All right. Thanks so much for that terry james $5 super chat says ancient egypt records Both house cats. I'm sorry records both house cats and lions So the cat species had to evolve hundreds of years after the flood Yeah, I mean like I said, so if god brought a A couple cats for example on the ark that were at creation at least front loaded with these functional dna differences that do lead to Testable predictions on dna function. We can make predictions on mutation rates Speciation rates and a few hundred years whether it's 800 years or for example After the flood can account for the depictions that they have regarding it. What did he say lions? Tigers because visible distinctiveness if those dna differences are built in They can visible distinctiveness can occur rapidly just through processes like recombination and gene conversion You don't even need mutations over time like the evolutionist needs since ours are already built in So yeah, actually if you want to do a couple speed rounds there converse Yeah, I've had a few bottles of water and we've been talking a lot so Yeah Uh, let's see if we have a question for david in here So we have a five dollar ship chat from Serious startups that says rj. You literally said snapchat Google twitter and youtube code could write itself You can't be taken seriously stop saying s of t doesn't read papers. So, um, I don't think that was for either of the Contenders, but so I thought I'd get that in there real quick um We have a I'm sorry. I had a question. I think for you david while he's um, okay in there Early on Let's see Nope, that was for s of t as well. Looks like he's gonna get the majority of the questions tonight. So, uh Sorry about that, but uh How much time do we have left? um Well, we we just haven't till we finish the The questions so are you you you need to be going pretty soon Um, yeah, because they had to work tomorrow morning. Um, how many questions may I have left? Uh about 10 All right, so um any of them for me? uh, let's see Um And stand in for truth. Just let us know when you're back buddy. Oh, yeah. I'm back Okay, ready to go. All right. So we had a question. Uh, we had a super chat question You mentioned uh front Front-loading So, uh, just really if we could get through these as quick as possible because um, I'll give one sentence answers Yeah, you're right. We've never heard all these before in previous debates. So go ahead mentioned, um front-loading john rap had a two dollar super chat that says please explain the turn front-loading Uh, so I've said it many times that um, we we would explain the Origin of genetic diversity has created genetic diversity. I gave a really lengthy Explanation to david in the debate regarding alleles allelic diversity, right capital a um Whether these alleles or heterozygous or homozygous so front-loaded means that those dna differences those dna variants Were created by god. They were front-loaded into adam and eve which will apply universally across Um across species and kinds of course and as I've stated that hypothesis is not ad hoc because it leads to testable predictions on DNA function mutation rates and speciation rates and many of them have already come true. So thanks All right, thanks so much for that logos. Dio said future question for sft Did t-rex is eat watermelon before the fall? Did t-rex evolve or uh, did uh, t-rex eat watermelons before the fall? I think that's more of a trollist question. I don't know what the t-rex Look like or eight in the garden. I think I think the question really is um, Rather you think he was a vegetarian before the fall Yeah, uh before the fall. Yes after the fall. Um, you know, I think they were all originally created to be vegetarian after the fall and um, for example mutations started accumulating and death and extinction and animals became carnivores for example Uh, but everything in the garden everything uh pre pre fall. I do believe was um, was vegetarian of course because I believe death Uh came as a result of the fall. So all right. Thanks so much for that Uh, robert somers another five dollar super chat says sft Do you promise to hold? To arguing the papers traded and not try to shift to new ones in the next debate Yeah, every single paper that I um had in my opening are papers that I've also had and uh used And incited in all my previous debates. So Those are the same papers. I always post in the chats and I've had nobody ever refute them I've pointed out the philosophy aspect of these papers how the evolutionists the researchers will say Okay, these functions must have been co-opted with no real empirical data But I'll discuss any any number one of these papers with with anybody All right. Thanks so much for that p barn says Five dollar super chat. Thanks so much says center for truth. Just to clarify a platypus and a bird Are evidence of common design? Take your time For example a platypus. I think um a platypus is like a mosaic. It's like an archaeoptic or a tiktalic for example um And of course evidence for design. I mean, what did a platypus evolve from for example? I know ultimately, you know, they'll say that a platypus evolved from a single solid answer for billions and billions of years ago Which there's no scientific evidence for but the platypus itself defies Deep time evolution and deep time evolutionary change. So yeah evidence for design. Sure. All right. Thanks so much for that David we had a quick question for you. Uh, somebody just wants to know What is that blue thing in the top of your picture sitting on top of that pa or whatever? And Uh Somebody noted in your picture It looks like there's something blue on top of these like sound system And it looks to me like it's just a bunch of cords and stuff, but they were wondering what is that blue thing up there? I'm not sure what we've been talking about. Was it one my uh, was it in my actual paper? Or was it one your profile? Uh, it's on your picture. Um, of you at the like, uh I'm a studio board. Yeah At the studio. Yeah Um, let me just stop the check. Let me just Get that and at the studio And we're mine profile picture. I'm not seeing the blue thing. Um So I'm not quite sure exactly but she's like or what are they pointing to exactly? It's at the top of your picture. It looks like some cords or something Yeah, yeah, okay. I see what they call that. Yeah, there's just a bunch of cords. Um That that's not my studio. That's the um studio the college abuse station that I um used to be day four Well, you're getting some props in the studio We have a five dollar subject from Mitchell says for poops and chuckles What came first the chicken or the egg for both? Um, obviously the egg Obviously the chicken Hey next debate david what came first chicken or the egg? And I'll Enjoy this conversation. I like your approach. I think you're respectful and I notice that in your in your holding debate So keep up the good work, man Yeah, I try to be as I try to be as respectful and cordial as possible. Nobody wants, um To listen to a debate. You're they're just saying Uh, you're just a bunch of blind scum bags and berating them over the head of calling them a bunch of you It's nobody wants to listen to an hour of that Oh and say nobody I'm all right next question So bill chevrolet says I have a question for s of t How exactly is it that he professed as to be a creationist while simul painlessly holding? Like you Um, you kind of cut out there converse, but I think I got the gist of the question. Yeah, I think uh See when we when we take a literal approach to genesis, for example We can now look to science and we can make retro addictions predictions and it just so happens to turn out that We have scientific evidence for one mitocondrial dna female ancestor one white chromosomal Male ancestor the fact that humans in general have low genetic diversity. I mean these three factors point to Common ancestors two common ancestors not just of a small population But literally two Adam and Eve and we can go on and on regarding the genetic related evidence that does point to A literal interpretation of genesis. So I think it's the uh, I think it's uh theological And scientific so that's why all right just a few more here Eric Veranthal or 92 says hey converse You think that's standing for truth and I could do a debate a modern day debate sometime because Kent chickened out I might debate with him the topic is our birds dinosaurs I would love to see that debate What do you think sfc? Oh, uh, I thought those Our birds dinosaurs Would you would you be willing to debate him sometime on that? Yeah, that would be um Probably a topic that is not 100% of it. I mean, you know, I'd prefer more of a topic like David and I have debated and if that's a topic Um, Eric would like to debate I'd be happy to if he wants to debate the specific topic of our birds dinosaurs I would I would just uh, probably take some time to prepare make some notes some slides, but sure Okay, perfect. All right. So we have a five part question So it's I'll try and get through it all and says, uh modern day debates Um How do you explain the left recurrent laryngeal nerve found in humans then the next part of that This runs from the brain to the voice box, which is usually in the distant Few inches, but instead it goes all the way around down the all the way down into the chest loops around the main artery And then goes back up to the voice box, which is present in the Garage and results in 15 foot detour In animals without a neck such as fish the most direct route For the nerve is by navigating a ramp the artery Uh, and then the last part of that looks like if mammals evolved from fish like ancestors We can't can easily explain this do you want to Take a shot at that sfd. Sure. Yeah, I think that all comes down to um, the vestigial organ argument for example or the argument from bad design but um To make a long story short since that would require a long answer I I was just looking at a couple articles on this which I would Post as well where they go into great detail on why it's not Why that recurrent laryngeal nerve is not poorly designed as the evolutionist would say but is rather evidence of both good and Intelligent design and they go through a number of reasons really length length the articles So as an answer to that question instead of going through all that or reading that off I would just post that into the comment section afterwards All right. Thanks so much for that. We have a quick question From andrew t says a real question for sft. It has the ever published a paper Have I ever published a paper no All right. Thanks so much for that jeremy t says Uh center for truth the flu um mutates every year making it more resistant to our immune system Those are mutations that give an advantage to the viruses over mutated flu viruses Yeah, um viruses do mutate they often mutate fast Um, and you can get a different versions or variants of for example, as you said the flu virus Quite quickly. That's why sometimes it's hard with the flu shots to Get a shot, you know directly for the seasonal flu because there could be many variations of it But generally just like antibiotic resistance and things like this. It's all Typically evidence for reductions in information lots of function mutations So yeah, as I pointed out in the debate The the key issue is net gain versus net loss. So those types of changes Are not going to take your fish to fishermen All right. Thanks so much for that last question from td lane says question for standing for truth Do you know that radiometric dating cannot be applied to a very recent in uh Igneous rock because there hasn't been any time for decay Yeah, I think um, I think there's been A ton of evidence for rocks of no age that that date millions and millions of years old So why should we trust? Rocks of no of unknown age and I believe there is plenty of physical evidence that rapid nuclear decay has occurred And being in the past We discussed a little bit of my last debate with erica, but for example byproducts of this radioactive decay would include helium fishing tracks and Radio halo, so that's observable evidence in the rocks that the rapid decay has Has occurred and there's a number of processes during the flood like for example Meters per second plate movement in the catastrophic plate tectonics model runaway subduction um can Speed up the decay rate. It would produce a lot of heat, but there's also Various mechanisms, and I know david asked this question to hoven And we could have a debate about that at some time in the future, but there's a various amounts of mechanisms that can Get rid or reduce the heat that is um You know that comes off from the The catastrophic plate tectonic. So yeah, good question. All right. Thanks so much for that and we'll end it there So I just want to say thanks to both contenders for coming out Say thanks to praise for the behind the scenes hosting of this stream Thanks Yep, thanks to james for the channel in general and everybody for checking it out Please hit that like button on your way out and uh subscribe if you haven't already and consider becoming a patron member like myself and others And we got some really interesting discussions coming up some cool debates uh Kent toven will be back on hopefully fingers crossed right and um uh, I just want to uh Say thanks again to both of the uh contenders here for uh sticking through all the questions and if I missed your question I'm sorry. I try to get to all of them that I've seen But if I did miss it, I am genuinely sorry for that. So with that Thanks so much and as always keep sifting the reasonable from the unreasonable All right. Thank you guys so much. Um Once again, thank you. Um standing for truth. Thank you so much for this debate and thank you guys Thank you so much praise for being here behind the teamwork Um, he's out and I hope to see you guys soon. All right, buddy. Thanks Awesome. Thanks again. Yeah, David. It was it was an engaging debate. I really enjoyed myself Thanks for like I said, thanks for moderating their converse and I hope the audience had a good time. So Thanks