 Hey everybody tonight we're debating whether or not irreducible complexity is a problem for evolution and we are starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen thrilled to have you here for another epic debate. If it's your first time here I want to let you know that at modern day debate we are a neutral platform so we have no stances or positions of our own we are just a platform for others to come and state their case on a level playing field and want to let you know as well no matter what walk of life you are from we hope you feel welcome. Also if you are sick in the head like us and you like juicy controversial debates well consider hitting that subscribe button my friend because we have many more coming up. In fact as you'll see for example to the bottom right of the screen we are pumped for this Friday's debate between Dr. Michael Shermer and inspiring philosophy. It is going to be juicy folks that's on whether or not Christianity is dangerous and right now the Kickstarter is about to close. You guys we're running out of time that if you have not pledged yet highly encourage you so what we're doing is we're doing we're trying this new strategy when we go for bigger speakers and oftentimes have bigger honorariums and so in other words it helps us to kind of take those bigger risks when we have help and so for this debate one way that you can help make it happen is if you pledge three dollars you can watch it live basically the price of a cup of coffee nowadays and you can watch it live and it helps make the debate possible for everybody because we will release it in the next several days after it occurs live to the rest of the world but to watch it live as I mentioned just pledge to that Kickstarter which is linked in the description and by the way we are thrilled you guys we have made our original goal so technically your pledge is actually going to go toward we have kind of a stretch goal where we want to fly down to the atheist experience studio and have another live debate with Matt Dillon huntie and the crew with the atheist experience studio really great guys are really loved on there's great time that we went there lasted I was about yeah it was a year ago so we are going to use those extra funds to make that trip for another in-person debate and we hope you enjoy it as we're excited for the future this year it's going to be epic folks but want to let you know a couple other quick channel housekeeping things first our speakers are linked in the description so if you want to hear any more from Dabrudino or Otangelo well good news you can by clicking on those links that are also in the description and for tonight's debate the way it's going to work is it's pretty flexible so mostly open conversation we'll have our roughly 12 minute opening statements from each side then that open conversation followed by Q&A for about 30 minutes if you happen to have a question please do fire it into the live chat if you tag me with at modern day debate it makes it easier for me to get every question into that Q&A list also super chat is an option and that'll push your question to the top of the list with that want to let you know you guys we are so excited we really do hope you enjoy this debate we're going to kick it off with Otangelo and so Otangelo thanks so much for being here the floor is all yours okay can everyone see the screen okay yes okay so has irreducible complexity been debunked by irreducibly complex be he means a single system composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning an irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly that is by continuously improving the initial function which continues to work by the same mechanism by slight successive modifications of a precursor system because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition non-functional an irreducibly complex biological system if there is such a thing would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution the cell is the irreducible minimal unit of life and chemistry and the missing error of evolution that book Graham Curran Smith writes we can see that the time of the common ancestor this system must already have been fixed in its essentials probably through a critical interdependence of subsystems roughly speaking in a domain in which everything has come to depend on everything else nothing can be easily changed and our central biochemistry is very much like that and Eugene Kunin wrote in the book The Logic of chance breaking the evolution of the translation system in incremental steps each associated with a biologically plausible selective advantage is extremely difficult even within a speculative scheme let alone experimentally all proteins that play essential roles in modern translation are products of a long and complex evolution of diverse protein domains here comes to catch 22 for all this protein evolution to occur an accurate and efficient translation system is required this primordial translation system might not need to be quite as good as the modern version but it seems a safe bet that it must have been within an order of magnitude from the modern one in terms of fidelity and translation rates to make protein evolution possible however from all we know about the modern translation system this level of precision is unimaginable without a complex dedicated protein apparatus and chemist Wilhelm Hock professor at Red Boat University said a working cell is more than the sum of its parts a functioning cell must be entirely corrected once in all its complexity and Harold Morowitz in the science paper universality in intermediary metabolism writes the irreducible complexity of genetics first origin scenarios is high requiring joint emergence of catalysis compartmentation and heritability to make the minimal self perpetuating structures and Paul Davis asks in the book the origin of life acknowledging the interdependent dependability of the component molecules within a living organism immediately presents us with the stark philosophical puzzle if everything needs everything else how did the community of molecules ever arise in the first place as most large molecules needed for life or product produced only by living organisms and are not found outside the cell how did they come to exist originally without the help of a meddling scientist and an article in Scientific American in 2015 wrote how structure arose in a primordial soup about four billion years ago molecules began to make copies of themselves an event that marked the beginning of life on earth a few hundred millions late years later primitive organisms began to split into the different branches that make up the tree of life in between those seminal events some of the greatest innovations in existence emerged the cell the genetic code and the energy system to fool it all all three of these essential to life as we know it yet scientists know disappointingly a little about how any of these remarkable biological innovations came about and the science paper defining life in the universe from three privileged functions to four pillars published in 2020 writes a Venn diagram of the four pillars of life sub life regions one to eight is any system that performs some but not all of the pillars while life region nine is any system that performs all four my comments to this this is a nice illustration why life is irreducibly complex and even in 1965 that problem was acknowledged and the riddle seems to be how when no life existed did substances come into being which today are absolutely essential to living systems yet which can only be performed by those systems it seems to be begging the question to suggest that the first protein molecules were formed by some more primitive non-protein living system for it still remains to define an account for the origin of that system and Robert Blankenship professor of biochemistry stated the process of photosynthesis is a very complex set of interdependent metabolic pathways and how it could have evolved is a bit mysterious so with that I end my presentation and I basically am providing just examples of mainstream science literature which provides these examples so I've not provided any from intelligent design literature and I think precisely because these examples come from mainstream science basically reducing complexity is already mainstream it has not it doesn't require yet to be confirmed it has already been confirmed and with that I end my introduction thank you very much Otangelo we will kick it over to Dapper Dino thanks so much the floor is all yours thank you very much James I want to say a special thank you to Otangelo because this debate was the challenge was issued about eight hours ago so this is a very very quick turnaround time and I also wanted to say thank you very much Otangelo for actually giving what I think is a really great definition for irreducible complexity I had actually already prepared to give that exact definition that it is many or at least several integrated matching parts such that if you take one part out the system fails to perform the function that it was performing and so the argument for irreducible complexity is fairly simple it says these things can't evolve although in Beehees book he's very specific that they cannot evolve by subsequent improvements in the efficiency of the given function therefore they can't evolve but that ignores that there are other options for evolution but regardless for this argument to work we have to be able to say that no irreducibly complex mechanism can evolve so all that's needed to defeat this argument is simply to show a single plausible pathway for the evolution of any one and we've done that many times we actually have plausible pathways for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum for the mammalian blood clotting cascade the eye all of which are mentioned in the original Beehees black box but even more we actually have observed instances of the evolution of irreducible complex sorry irreducibly complex structures in biology one example is that the hiv group one sorry hiv one group m viruses actually are able to infect human hosts only because of a novel irreducibly complex protein that is um vpu see vpu is a protein common to all siv and hiv groups the problem with most siv viruses is that they cannot infect human cells because they have no way to deal with the extremely unusual human tethering but uh hiv one group m uses an irreducibly complex protein which requires at least four mutations to all function and any one missing means that it can no longer infect human hosts so we have observed this we've also are observing the evolution of placentas or well analogs of a placenta in lizards and only in particular species in particular families that do not generally share this trait so this is a novel trait that's coming about so not only do we have irreducible irreducibly complex organisms or sorry systems have plausible mechanisms we have known examples in also another one is the citrate metabolism by e coli in the lenski experiment the long term lenskins experiment these are all examples that defeat this argument now otangelo likes to say in some of his other discussions that oh well if we can say it can evolve and it wasn't irreducibly complex there's a problem here if we can identify something as irreducibly complex under the definition that otangelo gave and that i agree to but you say anything that meets that definition that can evolve no longer meets the definition that's just a no true scotsman fallacy it's not falsifiable it's not science so if we want to make that argument then irreducible complexity becomes literally a nothing there's nothing to it it's just a fallacy and if we try to make the argument the stronger argument anything irreducibly complex cannot evolve and we don't get to come back and say well it wasn't irreducibly complex even though it meets the definition if we want to take the stronger one then it's already falsified and really that's all i have for my opening it fails thank you very much dapper dino we will now kick it into open discussion mode gentlemen thanks so much and the floor is all yours okay i think the greater question is if uh bio complexity and biodiversity and the origin of life and basically all uh kind of uh origins can be better explained by an intelligent designer or by natural mechanisms that is actually the overarching issue here which we try to elucidate and of course there are two opposing camps here on the one side there is the intelligent design theorist which claims that what we see in the natural world is better explained by an intelligent agency which created everything and on the other side are materialists with which who think that everything can be better explained by natural mechanisms now i i think that basically in in all the range starting from the origin of life to biodiversity we see irreducible complex systems not only in the few examples that have been provided by the intelligent design community but i have brought forward many many more examples of this and i think that contrary is the case there can be a systems which have shown and can evolve but there are systems which which has not been demonstrated that they can evolve and that is in my understanding a good argument for intelligent design and i think can i address some of that yeah okay sorry i don't mean to interrupt but i think that uh if i keep going much longer i'll forget some of the things you said and i want to make sure i remember everything okay so i think my first point is uh this is not an argument between um materialists and non-materialists most i'm not going to actually go with this head and say most a large portion of scientists are not philosophical naturalists or materialists so i i do not like it when that is how this argument is framed uh second we have to address the fact that you have not put forth a model that can make predictions or given a mechanism for how design works so right now it's not that it's better at explaining biodiversity or the origin of life it's literally explaining nothing until there's a model you have to have a model before an explanation you don't have one and further this isn't just about intelligent design in general it's about irreducible complexity irreducible complexity has been falsified as a problem for evolution we can observe irreducibly complex things evolving in the real world in real biological systems okay i think that i'm as a machine designer i know for example that if i want to make um as a machine or a factory for a specific purpose i need to have foresight and i need to know how to do things in order to reach a specific goal and the distinction between systems in biology and things which are not biological like rocks for example is that when a biologist looks into uh biochemistry in the biology and so forth and sees a protein for example the first thing that he asks is what is the purpose of that protein what is the purpose of that system and then he will find the purpose why that it is there now in regards of your criticism that intelligent design has no model i have responded to that and said that we know by experience we do not need a model because we know already that intelligence can make complex machines factories computers transistors turbines energy plants all things which say which we see analogously in the living so we know that intelligence is capable to bring forward all these systems through its intelligence now we do not have an example where unguided render mechanisms for example can bring forward cell factories which are in a literal sense chemical factories which have internally uh myriads of proteins and and so forth and they they are directed and made through genetic and epigenetic information so we have a parallel here an intelligent designer he goes to the drawing table he designs something that's design which is an instruction and assembly manual goes to the factory and there the factory workers they take these instructions and make the machines and the factories okay assembly lines and that's what is in the cell as well can i jump in here for a second yeah i'm sorry it's just that i feel like there's very rarely a natural pause where i feel like i can insert myself so i feel like i'm kind of being forced to ask to interrupt a little bit um so the reason that we have a mechanism for man-made objects we have a model it's because we can watch them being built by intelligent agents i don't have to theorize about it i can literally go to a factory we don't have such an option for an intelligence designing life forms in the distant past in order to say that it's even possible that that happened we need to have a physical mechanism by which the design occurs second saying that looking at a protein and wondering about how it could become to be that way without being designed is simply an argument from incredulity it seems it seems like it can't happen to you therefore you conclude it happens it's not a valid scientific inference science doesn't operate that way science has to find out how things occurred and it has to have a mechanism not for an analogous instance but for that particular instance so for instance i think we need to make a distinction here that first of all there is operational science where i agree that methodological naturalism is applied where only natural causes are accepted as possible explanation of the feat in question of for example how a protein works but when we are asking issues about origins that are entirely different questions in regards how things came to be and there we need to put all possible explanations on the table nobody was there either it was if it was six thousand years ago four billion years ago nobody has been there to see what actually happened how life came to be so all what what we can do is abductive reasoning to the best explanation and while and modern science excludes intelligent design a priori i think this is arbitrary and not justified we need to put all possible causes on the table and then find adequate explanations and answers and i think that's why in historical sciences intelligent design should be also considered in as much as evolution or chance or chemical evolution or whatever people want to suggest that today is not being done and i think this is a wrong philosophical scientific framework okay there's reasons intelligent design isn't being excluded from science because of philosophy it's being excluded from science because it fails to make novel predictions that have in fact be you know been demonstrated to be accurate and because major aspects of the ideas of intelligent design like irreducible complexity have already been falsified you're sitting in a burning house and saying this is fine why won't anyone come over for dinner the whole thing has already collapsed in on itself like a dying star that is just an assertion avoid assertion in my understanding that first of all the origin of life has not been explained it is a failed venture in science this isn't going to be a busting event yeah yeah but i will come to that i will come to that pardon my interruption otaniel the cell is irreducibly complex and you know one second one second one second pardon my interruption uh what i want to do is i was on mute on on zoom yet sorry about that so oh sorry what i'd like to do is otangelo like if there's a rep if there was a accidental misrepresentation that dapper had done that works but otherwise i do want to give him more time uh just because you have had probably a greater proportion of the time so far okay so first this is not a debate about abiogenesis this is irreducible is irreducible complexity a problem for evolution now i will grant you that abiogenesis is one of the big open questions in biology there's progress is being made on various fronts but i think we're probably quite a ways away from anything that could be reasonably called a theory regarding abiogenesis however irreducibly complex things can evolve you could i will tell you what i will say that literally every single aspect of any biological organism right down to the atom is irreducibly complex it doesn't matter because irreducible complexity isn't a barrier for evolution because we have known instances of the evolution of irreducibly complex systems and we have plausible pathways for many in fact we have known pathways for some other ones that happened in the past it is a literal nothing for evolution it's no more problem for evolution than the color red is it is irrelevant it has been falsified over and over it is currently being falsified you have to address why that is well i think that the the the the concept of irreducible complexity does not only apply to defeat evolution but it is also an issue in regards of the origin of the first living cell which in my understanding is a prime example of irreducible complexity because we know that a minimal amount of parts are required as i put forward in my introduction in order actually to kick start life and if there is just one single protein for example like ATP synthase or topoisomerase or any other protein which is essential is not there then you cannot kick start life and that is a huge problem for naturalism and for those which propose natural mechanisms including chemical evolution okay so you must know which proteins are essential for the first life which ones are they i just gave you two examples well how do you know ATP synthase is essential for the first life how do you know the first life even used ATP we don't know you can you can read the relevant science papers and i that's the thing yes potential i don't know what what science papers actually say on the subject indeed if you don't have enough energy and ATP you cannot start life but the problem is that we know of non-living systems that use metabolisms that don't need ATP there are there are non-living metabolizers in the real world right now that don't use ATP therefore it folds open the possibility that the first the first reproducing metabolizers with the genetic code also didn't need ATP they surely would have been very inefficient compared to modern life but we're talking about the first life we don't know that the first life used ATP and until we know that completing the ATP synthase is irreducibly complex it doesn't matter because it very well could have evolved after the first life and since irreducibly complex things can evolve and this is a debate about evolution why is it that you're still using irreducible irreducible complexity as a problem for common descent not a biogenesis common descent why is it a problem for common descent irreducible complexity is a problem for explaining origin of biodiversity and the origin of life okay it's been falsified in regards to biodiversity why is it a problem explain it to me because you're basically saying this thing that we already know doesn't pose a problem to biological evolution is a problem to biological evolution there can be systems that which evolve and that that is something which I have never questioned and there is absolutely no dispute in regards that evolution to a certain degree is observed actually so there is no problem with in regards of that but I can give you examples where science is absolutely in the dark and has no clue how a biological system could have evolved like photosynthesis for example which uses the oxygen evolving complex and that system there have been made a knockout experiments to see if one or the other protein could be removed and the system still would work and they have investigated this and seen that any of the four proteins and the co-factor the metal factor in the center if it is removed from the system then the system becomes uh non-functional and these proteins they do not have any other function in any other biological systems as far as we know and in special the metal center which is very very specific in that reaction and that metal center if it is removed then the the function oxygen evolving uh complex it it breaks down so this is in my understanding a prime example of irreducible complexity and now let's even suppose that that system would be functional and come to work if there is not all the other 25 extremely complex protein parts in photosynthesis then this system has no function so why would evolution produce such a complex oxygen evolving complex if there wouldn't be all the other proteins also required in order to have photosynthesis and in the end glucose okay so the evolution of the photosynthetic capabilities of the arcayans that eventually became chloroplasts is in fact a very much open question in uh biochemistry and evolutionary biology as far as I know I don't dispute that I also don't dispute that it's irreducibly complex but it doesn't matter irreducible complexity is not a barrier to evolution because we have examples and I've given several such as the evolution of placentas which are irreducibly complex in lizards the irreducibly complex uh sorry um vpu protein and hiv one group m viruses we've got just the i we've got the bacterial flageon all of these are irreducibly complex they all are known to be evolvable and to be evolving in some cases so the fact that there's currently real quick the fact that there's currently an open question in evolutionary biology is not a problem for evolutionary biology as a field it just means that it has not answered every possible question which is true in every field of science there are open questions in universal universal gravitation that doesn't make gravity wrong so you saying we don't know this doesn't mean therefore evolution fails it just means we don't know this you don't get to insert an intelligent designer into any unknown and complicated thing there are there's a prediction from uh irreducible complexity it says if something is irreducibly complex which all the things i just listed are it cannot evolve we know they can and are evolving therefore the initial premise of irreducible irreducible complexity as an argument against evolution fails completely there is no hope for it well i think that either a system is irreducibly complex and then it cannot be the product of evolution or it evolves and then it is not irreducibly complex you cannot have it both and i've just given i've just given you one example in regards of the oxygen evolving complex but i have listed many many different systems where the same situation occurs so there is a scheme here there is not just one single example which we eventually will find a solution for that but there is many there are many other systems where we know they only work if there is a joint venture of different systems working together in order to have a specific feature okay so botangelo let's just say hypothetically that we'll do the photosynthesis one i like photosynthesis it's it's broken insane so i love it let's say that we found an extremely good mechanism by which it can evolve from pre-existing systems boom we know it can exist does that mean it was never irreducibly complex it means that it can evolve and that the argument has been falsified well that's already happened with other irreducibly complex systems that doesn't matter that is not the problem why doesn't that matter well god can have used systems systems uh fully formed right from the beginning in order to start and other systems like we know that life for example for instance requires to be able to adapt to the environment and requires to to evolve up to a certain point this is okay so some irreducibly complex systems can evolve and some can't is that what you're saying no i am saying that there are irreducibly complex systems which cannot be explained through evolution and which are not the product of evolution and there are systems which have been built on the goal in order to be able to evolve and to adapt to the environment okay is hiv group um vpu tether and antagonism function irreducibly complex it requires four specific components added on or well out of the protein any one of which if missing means that the virus can no longer antagonize homo sapiens tethering which is a molecule in the immune system and therefore the infection fails is it irreducibly complex well i've not studied that case so i can it meets the definition it has four well it has four interactive parts any one of which can be knocked out and the function ceases if it can evolve then it's by definition not irreducibly complex even though it meets the definition that you gave i don't think that the example which you are a little an easier one the i is the i irreducibly complex yes but we know it can evolve well the thing is um okay let me ask you what evolved first obscene already now i don't know off the top of my head okay so site begins with rhodopsin which is the central player in vision and all visual systems require rhodopsin in order to have eyesight and rhodopsin is constituted by two parts by a seven trans membrane protein which is okay now we're going on to the biochemistry of this particular molecule i want to i want you to answer the question about the eye we know the eye can evolve and you just said it met the definition for irreducible complexity and i agree if you take any one particular part of the eye and remove you take the retina out it doesn't work take the optic nerve out it doesn't work if you take out the lens it doesn't work if you take out the iris well okay maybe we don't have to include the iris because it could probably kind of work but yeah if you take any of these things out it doesn't work and they are well matched and fit together very neatly it meets the definition of irreducible complexity but we know it can evolve so either one of two things are happening you're wrong about what things are irreducibly complex because you cannot stick to your definition or you're adding a new exception to your definition but your new exception says well if it can evolve then it's not irreducibly complex but the problem is that exception makes your argument fallacious it means you're just using the no-truse Gossman policy you're saying oh well you know it is irreducibly complex except well since it can evolve what it's obviously not really irreducibly complex okay first of all the argument says that what we are talking about is the basic function so once you have basic function eventually it can further complexify that is not the problem but in order to have the basic function of eyesight you need rhodopsin and rhodopsin is by all means irreducibly complex because well I am talking now about the central player of sight which is rhodopsin and if rhodopsin cannot evolve then my point stands because it is the central player if you don't have rhodopsin you don't have any other visual system but rhodopsin rhodopsin isn't only used in sight that's a new that it is also used in other photosensitive activities on other cells in other organisms well the thing is that you happen to know that well the thing is that rhodopsin uses two very well matched and precise parts which is the obscene protein and the retinal and if they are not fitting precisely then the mechanism of the photon hitting the retinal and then triggering the signal transduction pathway it cannot happen so this is a well matched and very precise system and you cannot say oh I will just co-opt retinal from somewhere else and then somehow maybe it will it will fit and that's not how it works because in order to co-opt something it is like I give you an example if you have an engine and you have a cylinder with a piston and the piston fails if you if you co-opt another cylinder it has to have the right size the right it has to be available near near around you have to have the mechanisms to fit it into the cylinder you need a whole lot of steps which you have to account for and that requires a lot of information and I'm not disagreeing with any of this right so we can't we cannot spend the entire night describing in detail all of the aspects of a particular molecule because we won't get anywhere that's why I'm trying to stop it from becoming that here's the thing every time I provide you with something that meets your definition for irreducible complexity that you gave and I think I have it here so I'm going to reread it because I think maybe it's time that we re-establish what our definition is okay um this is from Beehe and you basically write it word for word in your opening a single system which is necessarily composed of several well matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function wearing the rule of any one part causes the system to effectively cease functioning that was your definition okay we know of systems that meet that exact definition that we have seen evolve during human history therefore no matter how complicated the example you give me no matter how crazy and specified it is that fact alone is unimportant because we have examples you have to be able to explain why it is that your definition fails to preclude things evolving and saying ah but what about this other thing that maybe we haven't figured out yet doesn't help your case you could sit here for the rest of eternity until the last black hole evaporates listing off complicated things that in 2021 haven't been explained by biological evolution and at no point would it help your case because your case has already failed and the only attempt that I'm seeing to rescue it is just the no-true scoffman fallacy applied to biology well I can turn it around 100 to you Depper and say that as long as there are irreducible complex systems that is indication that there has to be an intelligent design which brought no because they've already been observed evolving without intelligent design well I gave you I gave you I gave you wrote obscene I gave you the right but that's what I'm saying there's no no number of you giving me currently open questions means that the questions that are already not open I am sorry I'm Depper I'm not giving you simply open questions that would be a goal that would be a goal of the gaps argument that's what this argument is that's not what I am making what I said previously is this and this is a positive case whenever we see someone making a blueprint or creating that's just an argument from analogy it doesn't count no no no can I finish please I would love if you finished an argument that actually addressed the question it will address the question yeah I'll like if I should go ahead okay so what do you have in life basically in all life always an interdependency from information which directs the making and the controls biological systems and that starts with the first life forms where you need the genome and then you need the machines which are made through the genome and both that that is an analogy to what we make in life where we have blueprints which direct the making of machines and factories and control these factories through information that's what we see also in life where the genome and epigenetic information controls the making of molecular machines or proteins constructs all parts which are required for life the basic building blocks of life and if any of this is missing you have no life this is an irreducibly complex system and kills any materialistic supposition and scenario so we are not here cornered in a small corner that basically evolutionary claims which try to exclude an intelligent designer these claims have failed and biogenesis is a prime example of that no one is excluding or at least i'm not excluding an intelligent designer tonight i'm suppose there are probably some people who are but here's what i want to point out your answer to my question was one an analogy to human made objects which we already know is not a good analogy for biology in most cases why not because we observe biological organisms and systems evolving in real time without a guider so we know that that can happen your other response was to change the topic to a biogenesis if you want to have an a biogenesis debate by all means set one up i might as i said previously the problem of irreducible complexity is much broader than just in regards of evolution it also is in regards of chemical evolution and the origin of life but why did you agree to a debate titled is irreducibly irreducible complexity a problem for evolution i gave you an example of the oxygen evolving complex which is irreducible i can give you many other examples no number of examples fixes the problem that observed instances of the evolution of irreducible complex of irreducibly complex systems falsifies the thesis the thesis is irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve therefore when they are found that is evidence against evolution we have watched irreducibly complex systems evolve where they did not exist before therefore the prediction is falsified no number of currently not well on well explained systems can fix that problem this is what falsification is there is no problem that per as i told you before what would falsify you're just for complexity as a problem what would do also falsify the or demonstrate how the oxygen evolving complex could have evolved falsified if i explain that one with that with that falsified just that one it would falsify just that one i mean okay so we have to so what you're asking is with evolution attention what you're saying is you're right unless i'm god unless i'm omniscient you're just going to claim that you're right because somewhere out there there might be an unexplained system that aha that's the one so the only way for me to say that according to you irreducible complexity has been falsified is for me to be literally omniscient that's not how science works okay let me give you an example no i don't want you to give any example i want you to explain your logic talk dapper like we do let's very very and then we'll give you a chance to respond to his example i can tell you my response is going to repeat this that no number of examples will help but please give your example well i mean if no example will help because you think that one example has been falsified and that's so that's how falsification works well i mean there are so many instances where evolution has been falsified and it's still the dominant explanation of biodiversity on earth and i mean it's not how it works i mean just because you think that one system has been which was claimed irreducible has been demonstrated to have all that in that regard that because of that all the entire concept of irreducible complexity has been falsified that's something which i i i think this is preposterous i don't agree with that okay i don't know how that was a response i if you think that biological evolution has been falsified i encourage you to write that up in a paper and submit it as widely as you can i will help you with that if you know if it's actually some good quality scholarship i am not aware of any instance in which biological evolution is falsified i know i can already give you science papers which have demonstrated what i am claiming we can show that after our debate here i can give you a series of papers which have shown that that that would be very interesting and i i would very much likely for you to send those to me but um as far as i'm aware there has literally never been a falsification of evolutionary theory itself which is why remains a theory but the fact is is your claim for what would falsify irreducible complexity requires me to be god i reject any claim no it doesn't no it's not necessary how would i falsify then you said i had to falsify every single example no no just not not necessary how many do i have to falsify five more but i tried to make you an example in order for you to understand where the problem relies but i was cut off so i can make maybe now the case and i give you an analogy here and if you have a photovoltaic systems a system composed of five main parts in order i didn't hear your first word could you start over i'm sorry i just didn't hear it okay let's suppose you have a photovoltaic system okay five parts and in order to store energy and all these five parts are required now the first part are solar panels but in order to make solar panels there are very complex factories required to make these solar panels now an engineer would he just make a factory for solar panels and completely dismiss the other parts essential and required to have the photovoltaic system in order to store energy or would he would he engineer and project an entire system in order to have the end goal achieved which is to store energy would it make sense just to make a factory for solar panels which by themselves would have absolutely no use is that a question that you want me to answer yes okay sorry i just wasn't sure if it was protocol because i'm bad at work with protocol questions um so uh no i don't think it would make sense but we don't have a demonstrated designer for life okay okay okay so let's so it's a disanalogy so i don't let me make the analogy now to photosynthesis in order to have chlorophyll B which is the analogous mechanism of solar panels which captures the the the the photons you read a biosynthesis pathway of 17 proteins which have to work in a production line fashion in order to make chlorophyll B now the problem here that is that seven or eight of the proteins they are exclusively used in for in a chlorophyll B biosynthesis they are not used in any other biological system known so why would evolution produce a biosynthesis pathway to make chlorophyll B if just that would be there then and not the other parts which are required to make glucose true photosynthesis these these these uh chlorophylls they would just lay around maybe and have no function now the worst thing is if the pathway would stop that there are 17 steps if it would be incorporated in a leaf in a in a chloroplast or in a cyanobacteria and the synthesis pathway would have just gone to the 15th step let's say and the last two proteins they would not be there the product would be toxic to the cell and the cell would would die because these proteins they generate a destructive oxygen species ross and that of course kills your proposition okay i accept all this plane that can we can we pause on the the long explanation of this i accept all of the things that you said is that good okay okay so you are claiming that the photosynthesis system of um is irreducibly complex yeah that that's right okay and by that do you mean it is a single system which is necessarily composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function yeah okay and because it meets that definition it cannot evolve correct okay does the placenta also meet this definition well the placenta can have been created by an intelligent designer to evolve sure it can oh it is so it can have been created to evolve what does that mean well as i said to you i think life requires to be able to adapt to the environment and to evolve so the creator the intelligent designer he must have created life already inbuilt with the capacity for biological systems to adapt and to evolve so god can be assigned to make irreducible complex systems which have to start already fully set up and complex and other systems with the capability to adapt and to evolve now in regards of evolution if you have some systems which eventually can evolve but others which can't evolve you have destroyed your entire framework how do we tell what your wishes i just gave an example with photosynthesis okay an example isn't an example is great but it's not an actual model that tells me how to predict which things can again evolve i have already explained i already explained you that we know by experience that intelligence can conceptualize and instantiate and to make irreducible complex machines and factories and computers and whatever i've already agreed we do not know about natural unguided non-intelligent mechanisms capable of instantiating these systems so we have an explanation what's the answer to my question okay how do we know which things that are a single system which necessarily which is necessarily composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function which of them are evolvable and which are how do we know we can test it we can make the experience the the the tests and okay that's what it's for what initial predictions can you make how do you what is the actual theory behind this that lets you say before i go in and test i suspect system a cannot evolve and system b can even though they are both a single systems which necessarily are composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function how do you tell before you test it which one is likely because unless you can do that you don't have a mechanism to actually test the fear or hypothesis we can make knockout experiments they have done this with the oxygen how do you make the prediction before the experiment well you can just say we don't think that the system can evolve and then you can also make make these knockout experiments remove one of the proteins in the system and then check if it still is functional in with with less parts but attention what you're describing is still unfalsifiable because you have no mechanism to start with it says if this system that i predict can't evolve in fact can then my initial hypothesis is false how do we do that because apparently simply falsifying the basic strong version of this that any irreducible irreducible complex system that meets that definition if it ever evolves then the whole thing falls apart that's already happened so now you need to back up and you need to find either you need to abandon your irreducible complexity or you need to find a subset of irreducible irreducible complex structures that you think can evolve before you test them and tell me why you think they can evolve okay first of all dapper i'm not buying your claim unless i uh investigate by myself what you are saying and then i will tell you okay what your claiming is true or i don't i'm not convinced i think what you're claiming is not true we can do that after this debate you can send me the papers i will take my time and look it through and then i will tell you okay this has is really a system which has evolved gradually even if a subsystem or a incomplete system has function or something like that okay so you've never looked into like the bacterial flagellum or the mammal blood clotting cascade or the eye i think that the claim that the bacterial flagellum flagellum can evolve that has not been substantiated also they have made knockout experiments and they have shown that if you remove one of the parts the of the proteins there are 36 proteins and i can show you uh science papers i've made this investigation each single of these proteins these science papers say it is necessary in the system right but we still have and you saying that the scientific papers that you know have actually been published about say the evolution of bacterial flagellum which is one of bhe's poster child children for irritable complexity you know that these papers exist you just what you just throw them out what what i am saying to you is following that part that i have investigated each single protein of the flagellum and each single one these papers they say it is necessary in the system and knockout experiments have demonstrated that if you remove just one of these 36 proteins i think it was uh mudscare or so back then when the dover trial and i can show you also that um and it it has become non-functional so uh that meets the definition of irreducible complexity and i don't think that someone has shown how the flagellum can be the product of evolution sorry i had i unmuted myself for a second there sorry about that um okay so but you're aware that there are in fact numerous papers about the evolution of the flagellum do you just don't are they just all wrong have you read any of those well i've read them i mean there are tons of evolutionary papers which make claims but but which are not substantiated they say oh probably oh we think oh we guess we suppose yeah that's the language of science oh yeah but that is not a substantiation that is just a claim that has to be demonstrated and that has not been done but actually for the uh irreducible complexity argument actually doesn't actually have to be demonstrated all that has to be done is for there to be a plausible pathway for the evolution of the mechanism and it's already gone because the claim isn't that irreducibly complex structures don't exist so you have just shot in your own foot because you have just confessed that nobody has demonstrated that an irreducible complex system actually actually we've watched them evolve in real time okay as i said to you give me the papers and we look them up and then i will tell you what i mean i mean literally just look up the lenski experiment and read the papers about citrate metabolism and ecoli that's it that's all you have to do well we know that these genes they were already there they were just not expressed and that is not an irreducible complex system all all genetic mutations are based on genes that are already there that's like that's like saying that meteorology is dumb because the air already existed before the storm started that doesn't look like it was already there of course the genetic material was already there no one is claiming that there was a miracle where new genes appeared from literally nothing evolution is about mutation and change in allele frequency over time so that but let me ask you something a minimal protein has about the smallest one has about 120 amino acids the smallest modern protein or ribosomes let's say 124 RNA has about 124 RNAs okay if you remove just one wait hold on now now i'm confused are we talking about RNA um yes we can put yeah these are we talking about proteins what are we talking about here we can yeah we can you we can use as an example proteins or ribosomes whatever let's take proteins yeah let's suppose let's suppose that the smallest protein has about 100 amino acids okay i disagree no i'll just give you i give you just an example okay if you have less than 100 amino acids then does it still have function i don't know this is a hypothetical made up experiment what yes i don't know how to answer the question i mean i mean in order to have a functional protein you need a minimal number of amino acids do you agree um actually well in order to be a protein you need to have polypeptide chains you need to have at least a few amino acids so yeah i would say that they're in order to be a functional protein you do need at least more than probably four or five but i don't know what the actual minimal number is okay that is an irreducible complex system okay but polypeptide chains that we don't call proteins only because they're nonbiotic form naturally what they are saying you know in order a system to be irreducible uh it has to it has to preserve the minimal function so you have the protein which has a function and in order in order to to be able to evolve it has to have function starting from from from a smaller set of of units but you haven't told me why it is that only large enough proteins that are unlikely to arise naturally without any actual biotic um well so i said i would should back up and say why peptide chains that cannot are not small enough to be reasonably randomly assembled from the actual catalysis of protein synthesis by RNA itself which can't happen why is it that that number is not low enough that that is a reasonable option now you just now you just how do you know you did did make just an unsubstantiated claim that yeah your claim is almost as if you're saying that the big the smaller smallest protein has to have 120 amino acids how do you know why why can't it be 10 because there isn't one now that doesn't mean there can't be one well we can go down to one it does one amino acid make a function of protein and ATP synthase for no by definition proteins have to be chains of amino acids so by definition no amino acid okay so so do you do you have an ATP synthase with two amino acids well now we're back to do does life require ATP synthase because metabolism doesn't so i don't see why life does okay take take rhodopsin no modern protein that i know of is something that i would be comfortable saying would be required for the first life so i'm not going to take any currently existing protein because i don't know that any of them are required i just moved to a protein which is not required in the origin of life like rhodopsin and i'm asking you rhodopsin is a seven trans membrane protein and science has no clue how it evolved that i can give you the science paper in nature which confesses so now we're i said eyesight and vision is not explained the problem is still there since darwin's time how eyesight emerged because even the trend the seven trans membrane brains they are irreducible if you remove just one of the of the trans membrane brains then you cannot have a functional rhodopsin and i's argument from incredulity doesn't mean anything no that's not from incredulity that but that is from experience and knockout experience they demonstrate that a system cannot work and also in regards of proteins we know there has to be a minimal sized protein with a minimal number of amino acids in order for you to reach the threshold where a protein becomes functional that is very well how do we know that for well actually there's a few things because you brought up a few a few things one is by pointing to these things where knockouts make them non-functional that doesn't matter because when you do a knockout on say um hiv one group m vpu it ceases to antagonize to human tethering but we know it evolved because we watched it happen so great who cares you're the problem that you're having here is that we have watched in real time things that meet the definition and i know i keep going back to this but it's because it is the one thing that matters i know you've known about this problem for at least a few months because i know you watch creation myths and that video has been up on creation myths for a long time i've looked into it i've not watched it were you not told about it today in live chat i've not yet had the time to see the paper i mean i i guess i can't tell you that i disagree i mean sure maybe you didn't have the time but it is curious to me that there are papers out there which if true completely falsify irreducible complexity as an argument against biological evolution and you haven't looked into them well i mean i i have so many examples where i know that a system requires several several parts which by themselves have no function i'm sure you have 18 billion examples it doesn't matter because the prediction is this thing can't evolve which means anytime anyone makes the claim this thing has evolved and we know it that falsifies all 18 billion as potential problems for that reason they might be problems for other reasons don't get me wrong maybe there's something about photosynthesis or one of your other 18 billion examples there's a problem for evolution but it's not that it's irreducibly complex because we already know that's not a problem and in order to say that it is you're going to have to address the papers in which irreducibly complex systems either have been shown to be possibly evolvable or to have evolved in real time in human history as we've been watching them because both of those things have happened let me give you an example if i give you 20 examples which i predict they are irreducible and they cannot be the product of evolution and you demonstrate me one of these can actually be the product of evolution does that falsify the claim altogether if the system is in fact irreducibly complex by the definition that we've been using then yes so you think that the other 19 which have not been shown to be uh uh evolvable that that doesn't count anymore it doesn't count in terms of irreducible complexity it makes irreducible complexity falsifies because that's how falsification works if i say if i go to the end hold on you ask me why i need to be able to say if i say all swans are white it only takes one black swan to falsify the statement that's how falsification works okay the the crooks of the issue here dapper is not falsification once it's falsified we are all happy that is not the crooks of the issue and that's why i came up right in the beginning with the greater question here which is can biological complexity in general be explained by unguided natural mechanisms or is an intelligent designer required that this that's not the title of this debate i i know but i mean if you want that i'm telling you um you won't because you have showed one example of a system which can evolve and is therefore not irreducible complex it is irreducibly complex you have to show it's not irreducibly complex by some other means than saying well it evolved therefore because at that point your definition for irreducible complexity isn't what we said before it's not even what you said it's instead of a single system which blah blah blah you're saying it's a single system which is necessarily composed of several well-matched parts interacting parts sorry well-matched interacting parts which contribute to a basic function unless they happen to have evolved that way once you add that little bit in that's not that's not what he said no it's not but it's what you're saying no no no no i am saying exactly what he says he says that he says that a system which if you remove a part it becomes non-functional you know and okay so if it can't evolve and and and and if it evolves then it is not irreducibly complex anymore by definition does it remove that okay let's say we find an irreducibly complex and i know i'm asking but if we find let me just verify that either a system is irreducibly complex and then it cannot be the product of evolution or it has been demonstrated to evolve and then it is by definition not irreducibly complex anymore either it's one or the other it cannot be both a tangelo if it already meets the definition the be he gave and then it's shown to have evolved and then your claim is well therefore it's not irreducibly complex which is what i'm hearing that makes your statement unfalsifiable it's now officially outside the realm of science because we can point to a trillion things that meet the definition and as long as one of them remains currently unexplained you can say see i win that requires science scientists to be omniscient to falsify your hypothesis that makes your hypothesis fallacious unscientific and completely useless okay if if if you're burden of of proof let's say or if you are happy if you say oh here is an example which has been falsified and that settles the issue and you are happy with that i'm not entirely sure what you mean by that could you rephrase okay you brought up two two three examples the hiv example another one which will claim it can evolve and therefore the the the claim of irreducible complexity has been falsified if you are happy with that fine but that doesn't remove the fact that there are many systems which we know cannot be the product of evolution how do you know therefore and therefore the the the claim that an intelligent designer is required to instantiate these systems that claim has not been i'm not currently making that so my my claim is not because irreducible irreducible complexity fails as an argument therefore intelligent design fails i happen to think that intelligent design fails but it's not just because irreducible complexity fails my point right here right now is irreducible complexity does not a provide evidence for intelligent design or b provide any problem for evolution because we know it actually does evolve therefore it is not an argument for or against anything it is okay i have i i myself have not known until then brought up these two arguments in regards to irreducible complexity that's why i said i have to look into them to them in answer in regards of those now the examples which i have brought forward i have never seen a proponent of evolution falsify them and i after our debate i can give you an entire list and then be my guest and try to falsify what i am saying attention what is what is the point of the list is it that until the list is completely exhausted irreducible complexity remains a problem yes i can give that is that that is the problem that we're having that is not how science works falsification goes like this hypothesis states if x than y if not y not x okay those are the two parts of the scientific hypothesis ever there are examples of claims where predictions have been made of evolution and these claims have been falsified yes and then the theory was modified does that does that mean that the entire evolutionary framework has failed it means that the hypothesis used to make that specific prediction has failed that's the same exactly thing which is then what's your new hypothesis you need a new hypothesis and it can't just be the same hypothesis but unfalsifiable which is what you're giving me so for example i think that i think that you are squibbling with definitions which i think what i think it is entirely meaningless if you just simply claim oh this is an irreducible complex system which has evolved when by definition irreducible complex systems cannot evolve okay then if the new definition for irreducible complexity is not the new definition that's the definition which p he gave okay let's even though that's not the definition that we both read even though it's not the definition we both read i'll just grant that that's the definition that b he gave if that's the definition b he gave irreducible complexity isn't really even an idea it's just a warm blanket you wrap around yourself to keep your illusions intact it's not scientific it's barely even a coherent thought it's just a fallacy i disagree with you well that's great but that's logic if you say it's just the no true spot in fallacy i'll tell you if i say and i gave you a prime example why what i am saying is stops substantiated that's great but if i say you would let me finish that thought because i want to reinforce that if you have a biosynthesis pathway of 17 proteins where the eight less proteins are non-functional uh in another system only in that system and then you have a product which is chlorophyll b and chlorophyll b by itself as a product has also no function unless it is incorporated in a greater system of photosynthesis then what does that demonstrate what what b he claimed is that a precursor system which is which has no advantage and which has no function it cannot be the product of evolution and what i am demonstrating here i am exelber i am making it even more clear that a product a complex system of eight proteins which would you would which would be the producing a complex product which by itself then also would have no function unless incorporated in a much bigger system evolution would not come up with such a system and that is logical okay what i want to do is uh oh let's let's do maybe one or two more things in terms of the interchange and then we'll jump into the q and a no that works okay so a change will by saying that part of the definition of irreducible complexity is that it can't evolve therefore anything that has evolved can't be irreducible complex yes you are essentially just making the no tree scottsman founcy if i say no scottsman will ever be found drinking budweiser beer because you know no scottsman would have such poor taste in beer but then i walk into a scottish pub with a man who has a scottish birth certificate sitting on a budweiser that does not mean that he isn't a true scottsman it means my statement is false and if i get to say he's not a real scottsman once i mean i'm the one with the problem not him okay i've i've said to you the two examples which you brought up i've not read into them let me let me let me read the papers and then i will tell you i will either grant you that what you are saying is true uh or i will say well this is one more science paper which is just making things up and what they claim has not been hold up and tango if you were going to accuse someone of making things up that's a serious serious offense that's accusing someone of academic fraud you need if you even broach that you better be able to show that they falsified their data or made it up what what i am saying is is this that there are plenty of evolutionary science papers which cannot empirically demonstrate what they are claiming they say we think we suggest we suppose it is hypothesized that probably and so forth yeah but that's how science works attention yeah that's what how science work but that's like complaining that's not complaining about mathematicians using too many numbers what do you want well that is not evolution then you cannot say that irreducible complexity has been falsified unless you can demonstrate yes the system actually evolved from a precursor system which which which has parts which were not functional you would have to step several uh steps non-functional steps to then reach a level where the system becomes functional that's what they want to see okay but okangelo what your your complaint your complaint here is that science isn't confirmationist it's falsificationist but that's been the case for a long time now because confirmationism has problems dealing with things that are initially seemed confirmed but then later could be disconfirmed confirmationism was a proposed mechanism for science at one point it has been rejected because it can be demonstrable that confirmationism results in incorrect answers falsificationism has the problem of you always have to be speculative or circumspect with your statements because you cannot confirm them 100 percent but it has the advantage of getting rid of wrong answers more reliably so the fact that science isn't what you want it to be isn't a problem for science science will always say things like we suggest we propose possibly probably it seems because science is fundamentally based on falsificationism if things which can be falsified are rejected things which are tested and not falsified haven't been confirmed they just have failed to be falsified and it's what we go with until we don't I mean until they're falsified that's how science works you can't have it both ways either you you demonstrate a claim to be true by empirical tests and then you can say no another claim that is 100 percent wrong science never demonstrates a claim to be true well then it demonstrates other claims to be false well then I think we have a conceptual disagreement here oh hey if you science paper say something is true but cannot demonstrate it but just claims it to be so that's not the potential if you want if you want to make the argument to be if you want to make the argument the philosophy of science should switch back to confirmationism have that am I dude but I'm going to give you a heads up confirmationism fails because it produces wrong results that's just that's just how it is for me falsification the upper for me falsification is if you put it in the test lab you test the thing and see the thing evolving in front of your eyes and then you can say okay that has been demonstrated to happen that way therefore the claim for example that ec is true has been falsified but if you say oh because science paper x is hypothesizing that it could be it probably and so forth that is not in my book a falsification they both do and here's one because um sorry I just had a blank irreducible complexity that's it I had to look at the name of the show I'm sorry I don't know what's happened uh irreducible complexity my goodness because it makes the claim cannot not simply do not all of its need is a hypothetical but fortunately we have both things we have possible mechanisms for many things are claimed to be irreducible complex as well as the even stronger observed instances of irreducible irreducibly complex systems evolving as they are observed yeah I want to see that show me the papers and I will write you that you have a case do you want to jump in this may be a good opportunity yeah I think it's a good time want to say thank you everybody for your questions we are excited to jump into it want to say thanks everybody for being here this always just puts me in a great mood just to be here and so one quick reminder the guest links are in the description so if you want to hear more what are you waiting for you can by clicking on those links also pinned at the top of the chat I have put dapper dino's after show so we're willing to do that for either side in any debate we're willing to link the after show is in either the description or the chat or both and so dappers is there if otangelo decides to have one or if you know mad ox or whoever one of otangelo's other members of his entourage have an after show entourage that's cool then I can link that as well and so thanks for your question this one coming in from rodent no last name says why do creationist straw man okay so more it's like really more serious questions so thanks rodent last name for the no rodent no last name for the super chat anyway I have a feeling that uh yeah so rodent lat no last name says otangelo do you consider all existent creation myths as your intelligent designer or just the christian god I just believe in genesis and Bible gotcha next appreciate your question this one comes from sphincter of doom our favorite says removing a keystone removing a keystone from an arch or arc has the arch arch thank you that's right like uh like yeah it's like that has has the arch collapse that does not let us conclude that the arch had no previous scaffolding that existed that led to its current stage that is now absent otangelo yes the the the arc the first becoming the arc and building up that has first to be explained before before it can become irreducible so that's the problem of the middle of the two-step middle of argument next and can I just get a quick I was you can you guys can do this to each either each other but we do have a pretty good amount of questions for tonight so I would say only sparingly okay so the point that the arch example gives is um that the way that some things can evolve to be irreducible complex is they can evolve a system that isn't irreducible complex but then important functions then get localized to a system that makes part of the system redundant the redundant part can fall away and the result can be a now newly irreducible complex system that's the example with the scaffolding but that's the part that's now redundant you take it away that's the whole point of that example gotcha thank you and for those of you who are both in our twitch chat and our youtube one let me know i'm trying to find on my page it doesn't show the twitch chat anymore i don't know why but i see there's seven peeps hanging out there so let me know if that's just me if anybody's hanging out on both youtube or uh twitch you can let me know in the youtube chat by the way folks quick reminder we do have twitch so we are excited for this and you can also the word on the streets is that so we've become affiliates so if you want to subscribe to us you can and the word on the streets is if you have amazon pride you if you have amazon prime you have a free twitch sub that you can use and so stoked to see you there on twitch as we are now watching both chats congrats man that's pretty cool thanks and thank you for your question from mike bill ours has made an appearance saying james did you screen these interlocutors oh never mind it's not funny anymore here just have the money thanks for your support appreciate that and yes nobody misses a darth dockins more than me so i i actually do like once in a while on a discord i call him a soy boy because he won't respond no hard feelings against darth i really do no joke i like we hope he's doing well i got no hard feelings stinker of doom says polypeptides are linear chains do we got that yeah we no i don't think we did they said polypeptides are linear chains of amino acids proteins are chains of multiple polypeptides with a minimum of 50 amino acids fair enough i'll say that there you go i mean i think that was directed at me oh oh gotcha thank you for that and el spaghetto says this is a stick up everybody briefly describe the adaptive value describe adaptive value right now who would you like to have to go first your preference go ahead since you asked okay so adaptive value and this is just off the cuff so you know please look it up if you're actually curious but uh basically anything has adaptive value if it allows an organism to more successfully produce ultimately descendants that go on to themselves reproduce usually we measure it at the point of grandchildren who reproduce because you have to cut it off somewhere but um in some organisms we have other measurements but yeah if it helps the organism reproduce better in its current environment that has adaptive value the degree which it has value is the degree to which it helps with that gotcha otangelo you agree disagree triggered um i pass this question gotcha thank you so tangelo is not giving you the satisfaction next oh that's fine thank you for your question from el spaghetto says no we got that one rodent no last name thank you says dapper id is not a theory intelligent design is instead a hypothesis i would agree i was sloppy tonight in my use of the word theory i tended to use it colloquially and i apologize what tangelo would you like to answer for me id is a fact wow okay throwing the gauntlet down thank you very much and next up michael dresden a tangelo okay it's another troll i'm sorry how do i why am i not supposed i'm sorry wilson thank you says like your positivity says happy new year james and to your butt chin i appreciate that i've always had a butt chin you see that it's like an automatic dimple it's always on good day to you sir thank you says uh let's say there is no theory of evolution like we were born 200 years ago where is the evidence for a designer otangelo well the the evidence is what we are doing is post-diction or abductive freezing to the best explanations we do not have a time machine to go back in the past and see what happened there so our evidence is indirect gosh yeah and thank you very much for your question this one coming in from coming hot from james watkins says otangelo how do you know the proteins involved in photosynthesis didn't have some different function when they first generated well because uh that science papers say they they uh they they give the numbers you can look it up in the the proteins uh the data bank and then you see what functions they have been discovered for uh given a protein so you can look it up gotcha and thank you very much for your question this one coming in hot from top dog shattuck says for otangelo if the truth was different than what you currently believe would you listen and accept it of course thank you andrew coming thanks for your oh that's right he canceled his question the maverick thanks for your question said a question for dino how did miniature single celled organisms create huge dinosaurs even the scientific theory proposes one off process that has never occurred again meaning id well first of all multicellularity has in fact arisen several times in history of life including recently in historical times we've watched it happen um so it's it's not a one-off thing uh the rise of multicellularity which is the interpretation i think is meant by the question so i mean multicellularity can arise in a few ways one of the big ways is if you introduce a a predator to the environment which can't eat things that are too large then you start getting cells clumping together and from there uh since they're all going to be end up closely related over uh collection pressure to develop different cell types so first the first thing we've observed happening in actual experiments in multicellularity is we get the division between somatic and reproductive cells and that is essentially the first tissue because tissues are cells that are structurally different and have different functions um and so it's not tissue but the first um identifiable cell types because not all multicellular organisms have tissues per se but uh from there it's just a matter of uh it being adaptages are adaptively advantageous to develop new specializations among the cells and since we've already watched one specialization among cells develop i don't see any particular problem with having a second or a third or a fourth gotcha thank you very much and this one just in glad to see you again our dearest friend area 85 restorations says can the creationist otangelo provide an example of creationism making a novel accurate future prediction that can be scientifically verifiable if not then he has no argument well if you think so up to him of course we cannot predict that god will create again what he has done in the past but we know by that intelligence can do what we see in nature we we don't know that unguided random events can do the same gotcha and thank you for your question this one coming in from communist propagandist for otangelo is god more complex than us if so wouldn't god's existence demand a creator more than our existence if not that's proof that things can create more complex things that's a good question of course god is not complex because he is not made of parts he's a spirit so that answers the question he is not complex gotcha thank you for your question this one coming in from beowulf beta wolf okay says it's just easy buddy i'm totally kidding says if anything that has evolved is not irreducibly complex by definition doesn't that make the phrase irreducibly irreducible complexity things can't even so sorry i've screwed this one up the okay i'm gonna start over if anything that has evolved is not irreducibly complex by definition doesn't that make the phrase quote irreducibly complex things can't evolve on quote a useless tautology oh it is either one or the other either a system is irreducibly complex and it cannot have come by by evolutionary mechanisms or if it evolved then it is by definition not uh irreducibly complex and i just like to say yes it absolutely makes it useless tautology that's why i said it's not even it's barely even a thought but handelow could be the last word since it was for you any thoughts well i i i i think um we can have an aftershow chat about this gotcha juicy he's he's saying i'll meet you outside next up thanks for your question you're welcome to come on to the um the aftershow i'll email it right the link right to you juicy i don't have it yet so pinned at the top of the chat that after show is and likewise mentioned folks no matter what side we're happy to link your aftershow correct night well nightwolf says otangelo do scientists have to observe something before they can say it's happening if so do you believe in forensic science that helps solve murders when we weren't there well i think that's precisely what we discussed tonight if someone says something has been falsified without empirical evidence and tests then this is a baseless claim it has to be demonstrated gotcha and thank you for your question this one coming in hot from top dog shattuck says otangelo you want a man-made analogy for irreducible complexity if you remove a load bearing structure of course it falls apart but towers can be built up yeah they can be built up by intelligent people gotcha next up thank you argatha for your question says for dabbardino the four hiv proteins were they used somewhere else prior to the novel function of attaching to human cells so interestingly this is actually a single protein uh that requires four uh mutations that occur in order to make the new irreducible complex protein because remember biological system is basically anything that you can find identifiably in a biological organism and so what's actually happening is that this vpu protein is used in another function called dsg xxs degradation which has to do with how the virus inserts itself into the cell and helps it reproduce in one honest we don't have to get into all of that but this vpu protein does the same function in both the hiv one group m as well as in all other hiv groups it's only in hiv one group m where the vpu has gained this new and irreducibly complex function of tethering antagonism and only has done so through the addition of these four required parts which actually form a cool radial spoke sort of look on the um on the actual protein and then it into goes through the cell membrane and basically tells tethering to just get out of here gotcha appreciate that and jumping into our next question we really appreciate your question joe the toe rogan says how did these odd shaped quote dinosaur unquote have sex to reproduce seems impossible so actually that that's actually get an open question in a lot of cases it's not clear how things like stegosaurs managed to actually do the deed um although i'll point out that there are animals today that you would think would have trouble for instance um you know how porcupines mate the answer is just very carefully that that's literally the answer they're just super careful about it so um but there have been other instances i don't know how um explicitly want to go but uh one option is very very flexible intermittent organs uh you see that in whales and uh and elephants today so that's a possibility um other possibilities are unconventional mating stances like um side just like standing like left to right side or right to left side um things like that so yeah it's actually an open question and it's one of those questions i don't know that we're ever actually going to get a good answer to because there's only so much you can tell from what's almost always just bones interesting thank you very much and next question joe the toe rogan said why did the t rex arms evolve so short with this wacky theory um so there are a couple of competing hypotheses about t rex arms but the dominant one is that uh so if you look at very basal um tyrannosaurids i get things like uh di long and things like that they actually have fairly beefy long arms um but as you get closer and closer and finally genetically to the uh you know tyrannosaurine and albertasaurine tyrannosaur the classical ones that we think of there's an increasing dominance in the use of the hind limbs for prey restraint and the mouth for prey dispatch and um so what's probably happening is that we're just seeing overall the arms becoming less and less important to actually getting food and therefore uh relative to the total body size they end up shrinking although it's important to note that even in the latest and most derived tyrannosaurians and albertasaurians uh you still actually get fairly well-developed arms they don't ever get to the point where you see like in um like a vellosaurus where they're just completely useless and so there have been some hypotheses that um there may have actually still been some prey restraint or some utility to arms maybe it helped um tyrannosaurus who fallen or were just sleeping or whatever get up or maybe certainly particularly large prey items might have been somewhat gripped in order to position them for a bite um but again that is sort of the the one minute version of t-rex tiny arm gotcha thank you very much next one we just had a super chat come in from james watkins says otangelo i imagine that's how he was like saying that when he wrote it otangelo the question is do you believe that all functions of all proteins are known and catalogued by scientists well i know where he wants to go with that but i say this what can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence juicy and with that want to let you know folks we are so excited uh this has been a total blast our guests are linked in the description also otangelo has an after show what i'm going to do is i'm going to be back in about 58 seconds and at that point i'm going to give you some sweet channel updates as we are excited about some sweet stuff coming up uh we have some in addition to as you had probably seen on the bottom right of your screen i'm giving this one special attention i'm switching it over two seconds so john perry from stated clearly will be here debating tom jump on modern day debate on whether or not there is code more particularly to be more exact with the title i made it super short for this little promotion tag but whether or not there is code within dna that is going to be an epic debate that's coming up on the 13th so we hope to see you there if you want a reminder hit that subscribe button oh and by the way don't forget to hit that bell button if you've never looked at that little bell button one thing to know is that depending on like what you could say sub setting you put the little bell button that it will either give you all updates or only some or you can actually i think ironically you can actually set it so that it'll give you like none so want to let you know that bell button make sure it's showing as like rattling or on and that way we'll get those reminders from when we do go live or put out a new video john smith in the house with the last minute question we're gonna we're going to squeeze this one in john smith i like you john said question for a tangelo you probably or a tangelo you probably had this question before but do you think that christians that believe that god guided evolution can sufficiently maintain their faith uh yes i believe so agreed gotcha and thank you all for that want to say thanks so much as mentioned folks i will be right back in approximately 58 seconds so we are pumped to share sweet updates this is uh my favorite picture guys this is uh me and speaking of t jump and steven steen and myself getting ready for one of those january car washes we can't get enough of it but as mentioned be back in 58 seconds and thanks so much for being here with us folks back in a moment amazing all right thanks you guys so excited thanks for hanging out with us silver harlow says thanks again for another fun evening debate love your work here thank you silver i love that man appreciate that really does mean a lot you guys i am pumped you guys this is big stuff so as you would i'd mention this if you i mean you you must have been living in a cave on mars with your fingers and your ears if you have not heard about this you guys this is absolutely epic we're thrilled for it no not not this picture the actually instead what i was trying to show you is this picture right here you guys this debate is this Friday i can't believe it you guys it's seriously just i'm pumped so if you've not yet done it you only have 14 hours like i'm not joking it's about 14 hours to sign up for this then the kick starter closes and so i would highly encourage you guys to sign up at the kick starter which is linked in the description you guys it is going to be epic it's this friday night and you're like oh james but how much is it like i don't want to pay like ten dollars to watch a debate man seriously no no no it's not ten dollars to watch it live it's three bucks it's three bucks to watch a live debate with a new york times bestseller dr michael schermer also editor and founder of skeptic magazine and that's against inspiring philosophy who as they'll be debating whether or not christianity is dangerous you guys three bucks a dollar fifty per hour of entertainment for a live debate with i mean it's going to be a huge party we really do look forward to hopefully seeing you there that link is in the description box so highly encourage you if you've not yet signed up for it want to show you as well had a couple i think we had two people sign up for the kickstarter during the debate i know we for sure had at least one because i did notice that we actually increased we're nine dollars away from our stretch goal i'm overwhelmed with thankfulness and excitement over your guys's support and enthusiasm for this as the kickstarter is not just it's not just this debate folks we're only going to do this like quarterly or maybe even like once or twice a year i mean it depends on how well it keeps going so far i'm like i'm i'm excited i'm like this is cool we've reached our goal and then we are about to reach our stretch goal so you guys we're nine dollars away so that means if nine or if three people sign up for it right now we will hit our stretch goal already tonight so that's exciting because we'll have one stream tomorrow morning which will be epic really excited for that but you guys this you don't want to forget about it believe me because once the kickstarter closes i don't want you to be like oh man i wish i would have done that it's like only three bucks like might as well you know try it out see what it's like you might be thinking well james but okay cool you know i like there's like three bucks it's not you know it's not too bad but you know i'm still kind of concerned because this whole kickstarter thing it's like you know it's kind of like you might say it's kind of like inconvenient because i you know it's like to sign up that you might be thinking i just don't like the fact that if i sign up it's like well do i have to create a kickstarter account well no you don't actually you don't even have to create an account you can actually just log in with your either your apple id i don't have apple anymore it's been a long time or with facebook i've got a facebook still you can line it you can just jump in through facebook into kickstarter kickstarter saves your information so that every time you log in with your facebook it'll remember like oh hey yeah i remember you you pledged three dollars and that's also where you'll have like a little inbox where i will send the link for the debate this friday in kickstarter which as i mentioned you can bypass creating a kickstarter account if you're like ah man i'm not giving kickstarter my email no problem just jump in through facebook easy peasy as they say and you guys i am just pumped let me show you in just a moment how close we are so you might be wondering james i mean like i don't understand how is it that this is going to happen and you're still like collecting pledges well the reason is this my dear friends is that let me show you on the screen here we've already hit the goal which is incredibly encouraging you guys like i'm honestly just seriously appreciate everybody's support and love and your excitement for this is it's going to be an awesome show is that we have jumped up thank you to our new pledger just saw someone else jumped in and so i can't tell i can't say names on the stream because kickstarter says they want me to uh what's the word they want me to protect your information and i respect that manic panda says if you reach your stretch goal our ut jump and the gang gonna do another car wash extravaganza we might do a car wash for fun in january if we reach this goal um we're not in the same location unfortunately so i wish we could but but that would be pretty dank and that yeah the running joke about the car wash so yeah we're two people away if two people are signing up for three dollars i know you're like i was like i don't know well if two people sign up we've reached our stretch goal which is absolutely epic and the reason that we're still taking pledges even though we've reached our goal is this is going to be reinvested back in the channel what we're planning on doing is taking a trip down into the atheist experience studio for another debate between matt dillahunty and this will be in person another fellow not yet determined who the other fellow will be obviously we want to get a good debater so flat earth asirasko says i don't mind you saying my name out loud well thank you flat earth asirasko for pledging man seriously we really do appreciate the support it's uh that's awesome and i am so excited you guys it's going to be epic and let me oh that's right so yeah you guys we're only two people away if two more people pledge right now we'll actually make it to the the i should say what's the word i'm looking for so i'm showing you on the screen what chrome looks like for me right now you're seeing on the far right we are only six bucks away and crisper ca s nine says you could all wash your own cars we live in live stream it make that a ten dollar donation to watch live nasty guy there we go so uh one track mind crisper but yes we are pumped you guys it's going to be amazing and flat earth asirasko said i didn't even need to put pants on to pledge okay just had a mental image otangelo grasso thank you for your uh so says i would like to share a link can you make me a mod yeah if you've got an aftershow otangelo or i'm linked to one of the like sources from the debate i'm going to make you a moderator please behave yourself and we are so pumped though you guys it's honestly i'm just thrilled want to let you know i'm trying to think of anything else now the Kickstarter if you're new to it want to let you know it's a pretty easy type of thing to figure out it's uh pretty sweet so let me show you here is on the screen right now i'm about to switch over to the different tier so the very first tier it's just three bucks helps make this event possible as you might be thinking like oh well you know it's like uh three bucks like all right well what else do you have well if you want you can also throw in an extra three dollars which helps us as we're trying to promote this to make it huge and in other words what we're doing is things like advertisements on youtube i don't know if you've has anybody seen any of our ads on youtube we've been putting them on more and more channels and so they hopefully maybe somebody's seen them but but also you might be thinking like ah james like okay you know i don't know if i want that what other tiers do you have well showing you on the screen scrolling down slightly more for ten dollars you can have your name in the little thank you ticker at the bottom of the screen so if you don't know what that means let me show you so like our normal debates you can see right here wow there's two of me okay it's like it zoomed in on my face for some reason on the second camera let me oh it's just too distracting i'm gonna do this let me just let's like make it stop okay stop video on zoom and here we go so here i am just like in the bottom down here is the ticker on the bottom of the screen that you're currently looking at so it says patreon in that case that is where your name would appear if you do the ten dollar pledge that we were just looking at when it says your name would appear in the thank you list then there's like another option so for example if you were like oh hey like uh what other what other ones you got we have one where we would send you a postcard of the event page so in other words like it's a postcard that shows like the poster for the debate and then it's also engraved and embossed that's what it is we i actually bought an embosser so it has like the modern day debate little logo really cool did you guys know you can get those like $30 on amazon it's like kind of cool but we know we we definitely like i said we plan on doing more of these so we can use that in the future as well and communist propaganda said how long do our non Kickstarter peeps have to wait to see the debate yes so maybe you're like james listen i i love you bro but i can't make it live and so you know and i'm just kind of like um for whatever reason you're like i'm actually just gonna i rather hold out um well if you'd like to do that it's going to be within a couple of days of when the debate actually happens so it's not going to be on the same day i know that but it's not going to be too long after and so i've still got to get what's the word council on like when is best to release it and so this is like my first time doing the whole Kickstarter like deal so i'm learning but skyworks 600 says don't make otangelo a mod james we already opened pandora's box skyworks 600 i don't know what's gonna happen here things are about to get crazy without tangelo in that wrench he's gonna do all sorts of weird things with that wrench to people and it was not supposed to sound as bad as it did communist propagandists oh yeah answered your question thanks for asking and where did i see yep otangelo is posting them links communist propaganda this is right i am i was multiplying thanks to zoom we've uh got a quite oh robert page stoked that you were here thanks for showing up buddy appreciate it and moshi moshi my m mashem me m thank you for hanging out with us once again king 101 good to see you again Elvis m says heisenberg i don't know if i know the guy but jamie russell says i still have flat earthers the creative spirit is quote out of this globular planet flat earth assi raska will be debating t jump on whether or not space is real that's probably going to be his latest February because we've got a we've got a pretty good card you could say for the month january looks pretty cool we've got a good variety we really we want to start 2021 off with plenty of variety and we want to keep it going through 2021 because it's true you guys have we've had about a billion debates on whether or not god exists or christianity is true we've got to have our hindu friends on again we really enjoyed noa and sidarth they were pleasant fellows crashes crashes says modern day debate i will debate any flat earth or just go to know email me at modern day debate at gmail.com if you'd like and we can probably make it happen because we do want to have more flat earth debates as we kind of forgot them for like a month or so but i don't know maybe in the next week or two i do we do have like a line of people though that want to i get requests a lot we don't have a lot of flat earthers if you're a flat earther and you're like hey man hey it's flat feel free to email me at modern day debate modern day debate at gmail.com because we are kind of short on flat earthers we got there are a couple contacts but not too many and king 101 says thank you for hosting these juicy debates james good work brother thanks friend that seriously means a lot i'm encouraged by that that means a lot and yes we are super excited though we have not forgotten you trust me flat earth oscee roscoe we have not forgotten you and yes i am excited though you guys because we have a lot of stuff coming up as i mentioned john perry and tjump will be debating that'll be fun whoa we have reached our stretch goal you guys oh my goodness i am so stoked let me i'm putting it in the chat chat i'm typing this into the chat right now check it out we've reached i'm gonna put it in all caps just to trigger the mods we've reached our stretch goal actually we are actually like pretty easygoing about caps we're pretty easygoing channel we try to not i don't want you to feel like you can't you have to like walk on eggshells um but we do you know we would eventually say hey would you help us out not do too many not do too many all caps posts but let's see mods please don't erase this don't embarrass me please but yes i am so excited we've reached our stretch goal we have hit 3003 and i'm serious you guys we i'm like i'm thinking like this this year i'm like let's go for it let's take some risks and you guys are helping us to do that because now we're like hey let us go out and say hey so-and-so would you like to debate but i'm curious what your feedback is in terms of who you'd like to see debate in the future that's a big thing is i'm actually gonna put a i'm not i'm not joking i'm going to put on thanks otangelo says congratulations thank you otangelo seriously we appreciate you for coming on tonight too it was last minute i was like hey you guys i can do it if you help me fill a slot because we had a another debate that was gonna happen today but a miscommunication my fault caused it to not happen today so but it will happen in the next month i i'm you know lord willing we're that's the plan ellsberg it always says nice r f f e f c e says good job thank you appreciate that calling the rents says nice thank you calling h t olson thank you for your smiley face appreciate that expert in gaming says banned for caps did i i can't remember if i pinned it where is that i didn't let me get this i'm gonna pin it to the top of the chat and you guys i am stoked though by the way do want to remind you that our dear friend dapper dino is linked in the description and so if you would like to hear more of dapper and perhaps otangelo i don't know otangelo are you going over there i don't know the debate may continue but that is linked in the description so you can get over to that after show and wait there's something else oh patrons patreon patrons thank you so much want to let you know it reminded me because i saw it on the screen on the bottom left if you are a patron don't worry about putting into the kickstarter i mean if you want to like thank you for doing that to throw in extra but you as a in light of being a patreon patron you'll actually be getting the link already just because we want to say hey thanks for supporting us in the last months or maybe even you just signed up now we want to say thank you for being a patron and bernardo castrup look him up james well let me all right i'll play your game here our ffe fce and what is in the chat is that a stone cold reference let me know if it is because it's cool if it is luck of unis says no more in all caps no more i have to look this castrup fellow up i'm like how did i not know about who castrup is leading modern renaissance of metaphysical idealism is he on youtube at all he's like uh looks like he's more of a scholar but we're happy to have scholars on uh let's see bernard castrup his z i i see his videos does he have his own youtube channel because that is interesting and cool if i can check out some of his content asked for bitten gaming said truthfully i'm interested in pretty much any debater that isn't a troll like nathan or special words here batman mr batman is a troll i don't know if i think mr batman he drives you cry i think he drives a lot of you guys crazy as if you were a troll i don't know if he's really that i don't think he's trying to trigger people when he calls them sir um i don't know i think he's just trying to be like super polite i can't i don't know i i just i'm not sold on the fact that i i mean leave it to me to miss out on a on a nonverbal like his tone that could be the case but i i don't know i think he's just trying to be super polite extra bitten gaming now i'm not saying that i like like his style because the last debate i would concede mr batman was interrupting a lot and i was like bro like what i don't even remember him being like that in previous times extra bitten gaming says i can say honestly i enjoyed that geck guy you had the other day though i liked geck too yeah i thought he did a great job that was his first one on here and i was like bro it was like an awesome start it was like that was a great first debate technically it wasn't his first he's got prior debate experience which is something that if you're a debater and you're like hey man i'd love to come on uh in debate and it's my first time it's like i hate to say it if you've if you've got prior debate experience that is a huge like draw for us we're like hey all right let's give it a shot so let's see here burn our cash up but i'm open to it but yeah oh my gosh i can't believe it 13 hours until the Kickstarter is closed you guys it's that's going fast so i want to say thank you guys so much for all of your support thanks for all your love i am i just love like partying with you and just getting to hang out with you like this oh forgive me the the crowd in the twitch stream well there's only one i think that might just be me too but so if anybody's there on twitch anymore well we appreciate you hanging out on twitch i'm sorry i always forget to check that chat i'm pretty bad at that but yes tell me more can we yes so glad you made it says flat earth please we can try that i mean it'd be cool uh con we i'm so sorry is it true that kanya really got divorced or that he's going to i hope not that's sad and what was it rf fef c e says yes he is on youtube what's his youtube name can you tell me is it simulation and let's see do do top dog shattuck i'm pumped though you guys i'm excited about the future lack of unit says no more t jump con we yes says bring back matt powell i don't know if that's gonna happen i don't know i truly don't you guys want to see brett keen he seems like uh uh boy i remember no joke this is a true story i should show you guys the email like one time i think i asked brett keen to come on and i don't remember what i said but he ended the email with like the fu and i was like what i was like it was like totally like out of nowhere i was like what i was like what i do i don't know but hey you know con we yes says lift the ban on matt powell con we yes is that you matt powell posing is con we yes i don't know but so oh man i don't know maybe con we yes i've got to talk to matt if we do uh have him back on flat earth as he raskas says max power in all caps but yeah perfect one good to see you again glad you made it mark read what is up thrilled you're here thanks for hanging out with us but yeah do you guys have anything anything you'd like to i'm always here i'm like no joke if there's a anything i can do to make your guys's day easier can i do is there's something i can do to make your day better today i honestly appreciate you letting me know and i really do appreciate you guys seriously your huge supporters and let's see here let me think about this but i'm peeking around here two seconds oh no what have i done all right i have to tell you guys mark read says hey congrats on the channel thank you i appreciate that mark read we are excited about the future king crew thanks for your positive feedback totally really do appreciate that we are pumped to vote the future you guys it's going to be epic i think that probably around by the end of the month like man it's like we're probably going to have a really steady line of awesome debates and so we do appreciate that and uh not just for this month but next month we've got it's just cool that i'm i'm excited about what's coming up where is this hold on let me find it you know exactly what i'm doing don't you don't worry i'm going to show you but so uh we do appreciate you guys calling the rent says cheers james we love you too thank you appreciate that brother love you guys i i need to know yeah if there's something i can do to make your day easier we appreciate you guys i'm at modern day debate at gmail.com and so we appreciate you and so it's just been a true pleasure and let's see his youtube name is just bernardo castrup he has participated in many debates and has two phd's possibly a leading exponent of idealism and his take on that doctrine is quite original now that is interesting i think that sounds fun let me just check him on youtube i uh have to see this this sounds super oh no what have i done oh yeah amazing let me check this out i have put his name into youtube oh you're right okay so he's just to be sure he is he a theist or is he a christian or both uh rf fe i'm curious i must know let me drink my water top dog shattuck talking smack says it's better to be a rational human being than what what's the alternative being irrational james paine says oh no i know that amazing he's a wacko christian yeah jor i mean jessey lee peterson i don't i don't know if anybody knows what to do with him he's uh he's got some like strange views that i think even like most orthodox christians would be like uh uh or even triggered by and lack of unis says matt delante is my favorite muslim hey well that's cool what do you know there are two matt delante's out there what are the odds where is your r e f f f r f f e f c e i don't see are you did you leave on me i need to know barnardo castrup is a christian or if he's just a theist more broadly materialism versus idealism wow yeah he's got some interesting videos here but i'm oh this is kind of cool i'm so glad you told me about him i'm like hey let me save his email or his uh oh yeah actually let me just see how i can find his email i'm going to his about page on youtube he's in the netherlands and he's got a lot of contact info so yeah let me see what i can do uh no direct contact info but we can see what we can do and plattertos erasco says option c works for me quite the contrarian and topdoc chatec says i don't like labels it's better to be a rational human being than claiming a label is what i meant sorry for any misconceptions thanks for letting me know that all right guys well i want to say we really appreciate you seriously we're excited about the future thanks so much and we hope you have a fantastic rest of your wednesday amazing all right thanks guys take care but i lost the button very embarrassing oh yes but yes you guys i'm pumped this friday the party is on will also be your tomorrow morning though that's going to be an epic debate so i hope you guys do not miss that that'll be on the problem of evil so that's like i don't know what is that it's about 12 hours exactly 12 hours from right now is when it starts so skyworks 600 says he feels mind is behind everything james oh okay so he's maybe more of a theist more broadly mark reid says take care james thank you mark reid see a topdoc chatec see a gang oh here it is r f f e f c e says no not really a christian but a type of theist i guess he thinks all reality is one consciousness and we are all just dissociated alters like in dissociative identity disorder and psychology of this one consciousness what we oh it's interesting what we perceive as matter is how this consciousness identifies itself across a dissociative boundary now that's pretty interesting huh extra written gaming thanks for all of your support says have a good one james best of luck with your classes i really appreciate that that seriously means a lot and latter tassie rasko says always enjoyable i might wake up tomorrow as well i'm confused you mean like wake up to watch the debate we hope you do we always love seeing you it's always fun robert page says yes i do know that maybe i should have explained this observation is a stand is at standing level but robert page thanks for saying later's james thank you guys hope you have a great rest of your night or day depending on where you are it's always fun and sky works 600 says neither a theist or an atheist he's an idealist the names in the title james oh juicy thank you for that and thank you guys r f e f c e says bye james thanks thank you appreciate you guys hope you have a great rest of your wednesday or thursday amazing