 Everybody say we're debating evolution on trial and we are starting right now Taylor aka snakes opening statement Thanks for much for being with us snake. The floor is all yours Thank you. All right, so I Guess evolution on trial tonight and in order to challenge evolution These guys need to define a hard limit on how much a population can change And I will continuously point out that they're unable to do this throughout the debate I also keep an eye out for that There's no genetic limits. There's no morphological limits that they can point to that would Go against evolution. I'm not trying to say that there are no limits period But that would prevent evolution every attempt to put on like genetic limits are entirely arbitrary and either separates humans and apes while dividing up their declared kinds like all cats and Are unrelated to all other cats Or and that would overload the arc or it gives them roughly the kinds They want accepts that it puts humans and apes is the same kind. So all attempts of that have failed There has been no attempt to define morphological limits But these are necessary to challenge this idea and the consensus In order to challenge scientific consensus that has already been proven to the vast vast vast majority of the experts One must be qualified in the subject and good give good evidence. They have neither actually. I'm not sure about Victoria but What will not work as a challenge to evolution is to point out some hole in the scientific understanding and say It's not possible to know it and therefore God can fill it that as a fallacy, which must be dismissed out of hand I'm compelled to dismiss fallacies or else I'm being irrational Evolution has been on trial in the kids Miller vs. Dover trial. No surprises here, but evolution one even with a conservative judge and And so in order for a scientific a concept to be scientific it must have scientific applications Which basically means it has to have novel testable predictions. If it's a model creationism has zero evolution has many Based on common descent like traditional species Archaeopteryctolic are the famous ones Creationist has no reason to predict those even exist Multiple lines of evidence cross confirm each other and At this point, I'd like to share my screen Is that working? Yep Okay, so genetic clocks lined up with geological and random metric clocks And if these are wrong the earth if the earth is young the amount of radiation alone would melt the earth So certainly not a possibility All right advance the slide come on okay ERVs are DNA elements that viruses inserted into ancient genomes which are inherited Since they're all the results of infections in random areas of the genome They make for very good markers of ancestry since the likelihood that two species would get infected by the same virus in the same place is Virtually nothing just for 205 shared HERVWs. That's one class of HRVs Humans and chimps share 205 of 213 I think these are the chances of just that shared placement that's about five eight eight with 1416 zeros after I think so basically and that's like Several orders more molecules that aren't even in the universe so mathematically impossible For humans not to be descended from apes, which is of course the most offensive relationship to creationists obviously And that's only one class of ERVs and that's only one class of transposable elements that also trace ancestry so That's a major thing but my favorite point is basically that every single difference between populations and life's history is already accounted for by observable micro evolution that they accept We know that the size shape orientation location number and chemical composition of bones organs and tissues can change within accepted biblical kinds and creationists accept this These are slides from call me emo and as he beautifully demonstrates the amount of accepted variation within kinds is larger than the gaps between them Variation is covered by transitional forms But if creationists insist transitional forms are their own kind they shoot themselves in the foot since now the range of accepted diversity Overlaps the gaps meaning there's absolutely no reasonable barriers between any of the kinds and that's because they're so close morphologically to two different kinds If the transitional forms are explained as being part of either kinds This just shrinks the gap between two original to original non-exit sorry between the original two to non-existence Resulting in a unified kind so the amount of creationist accepted variation within kind such as in sealic camp is so large as the same as the difference between fishes that creationist considered not related Variation within kind is larger than the gaps between kinds creationist or ex admit miso hippus is an ancestral horse, but that's actually more similar to that of tapers Which they arbitrarily separate for absolutely no reason the foot structure of creationist accepted horse kind varies wildly from Close to one that's major coordinated structural change variation within kind is larger than between them This is an inconsistent standard and thus any doubts as to relationships are unreasonable and irrational by definition Comparative anatomy is viewed as valid to draw relation within kinds, but it's arbitrarily dropped whenever creationists feel like it so I would ask how they know that Saratopsids are related they'll say anatomy then you ask them humans They'll just draw an arbitrary line They also claim to be able to identify fossil snakes from just jaw bones or vertebra alone Yet they drop comparative anatomy whenever convenient Berminology the creationist term for classifying each kind demonstrates this self-defeating problem as baremen's declared clusters of morphological similarity organisms that fit this pattern in clusters appear But and then larger gaps lie between them. Those are declared barons as clusters But as more fossils are discovered the distance between like avi's birds and dromaeosaur dinosaurs like velociraptors Collapsed and the variation within kind exceeded the distance between the variation Between kinds whoops, so could these be the same kind? There's no way for a creationist to tell What about these all that separates is slight proportional differences the same bones. I came micro evolution same here micro evolution Same here micro evolution, but when we add them all together we see macro evolution So why can't these accepted micro changes add up in the same lineage? There's no answer to this slight variation of existing structures is Observable like the flexing of fins for walking limbs Folding of teeth to make fangs which there are half evolved transitional forms to this day yet still functional Theory of life being connected gives us predictions about the fossil record Predictions that the inconsistent and vague creationist hypothesis cannot make that's making evolution scientific by definition Organisms don't suddenly start rings. They modify them from existing structures. Plants are amazing examples of macro evolution These are all related plants because they can graft and breed with each other. They have different body plans though Such as broccolis and mustards Fractal pattern is in Roman esco broccoli is an example of functional information evolving without intelligent design We've observed single cellular organisms evolving into multicellular There's made major bone changes numbers of bones Functional changes in bones of creationist accepted kinds change new muscle groups evolving in mammals That they accept are related That's why there's vestigial structures Like nails on manatees and seals legs develop on whales and snakes and vitro So what separates these monkeys from lemurs nothing because they agree the same thing can happen in dogs This happens in the same species of fish different functional confirmations so at what point do these changes stop accumulating and That will be my one of my major sticking points tonight. Thank you Thank you very much for that opening statement We'll kick it over to snakes partner for the remaining roughly four minutes or so for his opening as well in terms of the You could say argument on behalf of evolution. I'm gonna minimize your screen Snake aka Taylor and with that thanks so much for being with us a theus jr. The floor is all yours Yeah, could you share my screen now you bet? Okay, so the title of this debate is evolution on trial So let's remember that in the scientific community There's no debate about whether or not evolution happened in the past and continues to happen We are still evolving and that's not controversial Evolution as well as the religious concept of intelligent design, which is not a scientific theory They both have been on trial in the past. It didn't go well for ID on December 20th 2005 in Kits Miller versus Dover the district court judge John Jones Ordered the Dover area school board to refrain from maintaining an intelligent design policy in any school within the Dover area district Now judge Jones wrote that ID is not science and cannot be judged as valid accepted scientific theory Is it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals engage in research and testing and gain acceptance in the scientific community? This was the first challenge to the constitutionality of teaching intelligent design in the public school science classroom and You could see that they the front page news in Denver or in Pennsylvania, I guess was that into ID is not science and Let's look at just some quick evidence about Creationism and what they say about kinds and creation is somehow except major chromosomal Translocations and mutations in horses something they say is impossible for human and evolution Everything they say is made up ad hoc just to try to refute a specific fact They don't like but nothing's derived from essential thesis other than God did it which I think we saw in my last debate on here So you'll see that they say that horses and donkeys are can be the same kind Which are separated by two chromosomes, but if you ask them are humans and chimps the same kind They would say no even though they only have a difference of two chromosomes just like these And these animals are more fit than their fossil ancestors that that have more toes in them and more fit for horsey things now Some otters can be very weasel like while others not so much and still others look like they're on the cusp of being seals with their Patter like how to like flipper feet remember creationists admitted that these evolve from weasels They're all in the same kind So they admit flippers can evolve from terrestrial feet and we have more or less seal like versions No in otter variations sea otters are closer to seals while river otters are more like flat-footed Swimming weasels and we can see in the fossil record animals that look like a combination of bears and dogs or seals and dogs We get a transition where it's getting impossible to tell which category they're in like if you look at the transition between Theropod dinosaurs to earth earth Theropod dinosaurs to what look like modern birds it gets to a point where paleontologists can't tell which category they're in Because they have the traits of both and I think snakes showed this slide as well but it basically just shows that When it comes to specifically human evolution This is a problem for for creationists and because they're biblical literalists So if you want to take Genesis literally then it's gonna be a conflict between the idea that humans were created as Is as we are today walking upright intelligent with very little body hair and Intelligence to speak English versus the fact that we had a common ancestor with bonobos and chimps and other apes So this is the primary conflict. This is the reason why they don't want to accept evolution and you know I'll just end my presentation there because snakes was a little bit a little bit longer than mine. So You got it and with that we're gonna jump into the opening statements from you could say the anti-evolution side But before we do want to say folks if it's your first time here at modern a debate We are a neutral platform hosting debates on science religion and politics We hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you are from We're thrilled to have you here hit that subscribe button as we have many more juicy debates coming up For example at the bottom right of your screen It will be a juicy controversial one this Sunday is Islam true between Mohammed and apostate prophet You don't want to miss it. Hit that subscribe button with that. Thank you very much Bgg and Maddox the floor is all yours As I'll go first as I'm new here right then First I can get an audio test and everything good All right then Evolutions some acts of human invention and confabulation what there is is a lot of claims about engine of evolution and the possibility of Life through deep time and random mutations becomes constructive in order all of which are stipulated to exist But none of which are demonstrated to exist. There's a striking absence of evidence where once you would expect to find it Unless you want to propose an imagine and verify possibility of of evolution Well, one would not expect to have to to have evidence We have no demonstration evolution being possible or even likely We don't have we don't we don't even have confirmed the counts of evolution what there is is listing slider hand semantics In which devolution is treated and presented as evolution, but this is more than this is nothing more than usable well in double-think It's it's akin to same subtraction is addition loosen is gaining slavery is freedom Devolution is evolution And that's really my intro Kick it over to Maddox as well then thanks very much Maddox the floor is all yours Well, it's good to be back here on the one and only MDD. I'm actually trying out something new I am streaming live everybody from Centennial Park here in Nashville behind me is not a backdrop It's actually a full-size replica of the Greek Parthenon. That'd be fun try some out here So James, thanks for inviting me on for this debate. It's kind of interesting listening to our opponents in their opening statements I don't know if they forgot that this is evolution on trial. It's their position that is on trial not alternative models So this isn't about defending creationism YEC OEC Theistic evolution and those models has nothing to do with tonight's debate So why 90% of y'all's opening statements was all about Those positions don't really make any sense to me if you're actually making a case for yours Or perhaps you are just operating from the usual EVO atheists on YouTube position, which is oh Consensus is X therefore it must be 100% true. Therefore. I'm not actually going to Analyze my own position. I'm just gonna try and deflect over to somebody else's which I find very interesting you know get into things like the the bush or the orchard of Organisms from origin of life that potentially especially on the protein level potentially defeats the entire premise of Universal common ancestry you have all of the issues with Gene regulatory networks that are necessary for New body plans to exist. We have the recent discoveries that there's dramatically Controlled mutations inside of coding regions, but there is much more open in the non-coding regions. However, the Evolutionists want to use similarities in the coding regions of the genome to somehow be the fruit beyond all doubt of Their position. We're actually finding out that it's being much more controlled You know one of the favorite talking points right now, which I'm very fascinated how long it takes for that one This one to be Shuffled under the rug like so many in the past but like ERVs for example, right? So we now know beyond doubt that it's Essential to all sorts of stages of embryo developments. We know that many of them work in conjunction with things like p53 in order to Stop cancer tumors have the ability to mimic Viruses and be able to operate with the immune system to take out everything. It actually kind of looks like their Defense mechanisms, which I always find very interesting if you don't think about that then you get into stuff like oh, well it must be a Endogenous retrovirus because well, we need things like verse transcriptase always kind of thinks well I guess they weren't paying attention to the fact that the discoveries in relation to something That was also called junk by and therefore evidence of evolution up until about two years ago The polymerase theta turns out it actually is has a higher fidelity rate of RNA to DNA than the HIV reverse transcriptase So there's so many different things that keep being discovered which completely, you know negate or at a minimum decimate the You know dogmatic positions that are taken by so many of the folks that you know defend these positions and that's fine It's so funny that in relation to you know, I forget which one of them said it But it was oh well If you don't have you know the piece of paper that makes you an expert in XYZ Therefore, you're not allowed to actually really have positions or challenge a position But to my knowledge neither one of these guys have those pieces of paper either but are or on the flip side Have invested really investigated Alternative arguments, so are you qualified to even be having this conversation? Or we all here able to use our intellect and be able to analyze the arguments the evidence and be able to reach conclusions and potentially challenge The status quo because it's not like there aren't things like the third way in Evolution they're challenging the conventional paradigm and saying oh we need things like extended and synthesis and you know The the standard models aren't really working. So I mean all these things are you know growing rapidly to Denigrate the dogmatic position the sake of my so many folks on on YouTube now So I found extraordinary fascinating from snake was right was trying to use the 5.88 to the 10 to the 1088 power whatever it was or 14 hundred power whatever that was it's so funny that that number would indicate a Probability of zero or just not being possible in this context for ERV placements, but Dramatically even even more improbable Things for just the formation of genes in general and overall you know transcription translation factors all that kind of stuff the numbers are Exponentially larger than that, but in the conversations these guys have both had they claim that oh well, there's a possibility there for So how are you gonna say on one side that this gigantic probability number equals not possible without it being your worldview? but completely Utilize the opposite context to reject Opposing positions on the plausibility of these other things actually coming to be so I think folks as you listen throughout the open discussion We're gonna have just make sure you pay attention to the fact There's going to be dramatic attempts to deflect and not actually defend their own position And so somehow claim that this is all about God of the gaps had all the things like Atheist junior were saying when in reality this is about the Weaknesses in evolution, which is what's on trial not whether or not God did it. I yield You gotta thank you very much, and we're gonna jump into open conversation Everybody's favorite want to let you know little channel housekeeping stuff in particular our guests are linked in the description Keep that in mind throughout the debate as well as they're also linked to the podcast as every debate from modern day debate ends up At the podcast where our guests such as Atheist junior snake BGG and John Maddox are linked as well in the description box there last but not least a lot of people are like, hey, what about an Intelligent design on trial debate or creation on did on trial debate We would be thrilled to host it if you'd be interested in doing that debate You can reach me at modern day debate at gmail.com as we are very open to having those topics It just so happened that people were especially into evolution on trial as of late but with that gentlemen, thanks very much The floor is all yours. So how would you reconstruct the relationships between organisms that you accept are related? If not by a morphological similarity, well here I have a very low criteria for evidence for evolution So for example, uh, can I share my screen? Okay, all right then So to the anti-evolution stance would say these are not the result of Evolution so how do I exit? I'm gonna share a different screen So my my question is simple so since my criteria for for evidence for evolution is very simple according to evolution, there are many transitionals between The wolf-like ancestor and the donation So my question would be give me at least one transitional between the wolf and the donation If you can't present this trans this transitional you have no evidence that means it would it would be the child of that wolf That is that That is a slightly different version because children are not exact clones of their parents Okay, so are either of you gonna answer my question. I want to Forgive me one second for jumping in I do want to say bubble gum gun This is my fault because I know that I told you to bring the mic a little bit closer right before we started But it's a little bit too close if you're able to bring it back just a little bit further Is that better and that should be better and I'll try to adjust it in obs in terms of getting your volume up higher Go ahead. Okay. Uh, is this an answer to my question or well, this is I'm presenting a Question because you're on trial. This is a little kind of chain. You kind of changed the topic though This is evolution on trial. This is the topic of the debate Yeah, so it's a discussion portion. I asked a question Well, would you like me to repeat it? Well, you guys are on trial. That's the thing. I think his question was related to evolution though, wasn't it? Yeah, this is this is so you're so is this your next way so james. Is this a uh interrogation or is this just discussion Yeah Okay, you guys I mean, this is how you can we pass my question if you are oh, we can get to I'm presenting This is my criteria for evolution. It's very simple. It's I this is bottom of this is bottom of the barrel Yeah, I answered it. Okay. What is that? Are you just are you just saying the wolf is the answer of the wolf? So are you saying a wolf gave the red buff to a Dalmatian? That's not what you asked you asked what is a give me an example of a transition between that wolf and the Dalmatian And the answer is The child of the wolf each because each What do you mean? Well, what is it? Okay, let me see Let me show you a picture of what I mean I mean, are you looking for something that's half wolf half dog because no I'm looking for an intermediate Okay, here. Do I share my screen again? Okay I mean, what's with what's with the um hypo graph or or I forget what you call those animals those what's with the picture in the middle Yeah, what why is that there? Is that what you think that we think evolution is? Yeah, I'm asking you are these see these nodes Those are intermediate intermediates between the wolf And the Dalmatian Those are different breeds of dogs. No, see these nodes the arrows. No, that's not how phylogeny works This is uh, uh, it works. No, it's not. Okay. Are you are you positing there is no intermediate between the Dalmatian and the gray wolf? No ancestor There is no intermediate not meant to represent any particular specimen. No, they are Okay, are you saying these intermediates or merely abstractions or are they real? Uh, they're abstractions representing real phenomena So move move the arrow up say that again one node and that's oh, we can do that again Uh, sure. Give me a second. I'll get that We should remember that these dogs at the bottom these represent populations of animals. They're not individual dogs and individual wolves either So you're asking if you're asking you you're asking for one Transitional we're talking about populations of animals Are you questioning whether dogs are related to wolves like? You're starting there I mean creation is um creationists except they say they're the same kind Because that's not what's on trial What my partner thinks of this free time is irrelevant to this debate This is evolution on trial. So i'm asking you are these nodes Uh, the last common ancestor are they real or are they abstractions? Well, they're on a graph nodes are abstract Okay, so they don't exist That's not what abstraction means Yes, it does. It means they're real No, the genie from Aladdin isn't real An abstraction is a is a representation. It's a simplification Okay, yeah When I mark my height on the wall, that's an abstraction too, but it represents the height If they're not abstractions, tell me what they are Well, the data of evolution Just data This okay, so we're trying to waste our time they have Okay, so family trees or uh graphs like this if they actually actually represented the amount of species There are they would not be able to fit on a textbook page So they have to shrink them and simplify them and They have to make these abstractions in order to make it palatable for us to read Because we're humans and we can't actually see That much data it would it would be too Too much data for us to to actually comprehend in a useful way. So that's why abstractions are used There's simplification of the larger data field Right and the hang on let me jump here for a second. So the The simplification that's being talked about in my opinion is a way to just gloss over the rapidly growing amount of dissimilarities like so the the more genomes Of different types of organisms that are being sequenced the more we're discovering that there is A greater amount of differences and similarities in terms of Unique genes this was there was a paper on this I think like two years ago on the exact topic of like Oh, it turns out as we sequenced more and more types of organisms were finding less and less similarities and greater and greater dissimilarities. So the amount of Mutation and natural selection and fixation of all sorts of de novo functions I mean, that's just getting bigger and bigger and Completely irrelevant and since relevant is no no no no no no no no from from your Timeline right and you're the one that claims that there's the improbabilities And things have to be taken into account. So if you're now having Sequences that the probabilities of their formation through undirected process is greater than the number that you put forth in relation to ERVs It's what's good for the goose is good for the gander. So how do you explain? The massive amount of dissimilarities in the coding regions and as well as non coding regions of the genomes as we're finding out more and more of it is Utterly essential for those organisms to exist It's irrelevant because it's mutations and you know that But what matters hold on i'm speaking what matters is What's what is the similarity between the most similar organisms can evolution account for the gaps between those? Well, yeah, and so the wider we widen our scope There is nothing you can do. Well, tell me what is that will bring a a barrier between any of the observed things that we see within Modern animals all of that we see within modern animals is Uh explains the differences in between every organism in the fossil record as well So it doesn't matter if there's a difference between an elephant and a human What matters is a difference between a human and an ape Well, give me one intermediate between this gray wolf like ancestor and the donation What is it? What did the omission dog come from? I haven't memorized dog phylogeny. You can go look at it. I got the graph you want to look at it Yeah, I don't care. Are you are you putting dog evolution on trial? This is evolution on trial Um, well, the common understanding is evolution. Uh common ancestry evolution Do you think Do you think dogs are relatable trying to avoid this, uh, are you trying to avoid this argument because you know, you can't answer it We're trying to understand it. No, I'm trying to say I'm trying to not waste my time because This is a debate about common ancestry of all organisms not about dogs It's about evolution No, it's not It's not the debate. It's not about evolution. The debate is about evolution from common ancestry From common that wasn't in the title So, so this is But even if there was it would still be part of the evolution Ancestry Okay, so the question is very simple Uh, don't mention here somewhere around the circle the outer edge of the circle and we have the the wolf Answers answers are here in the middle. So There are multiple intermediates and all I need for evidence for evolution is for you to name one of these intermediates What are fossil dogs, dude? Uh, can you present a fossil or is there is a fossil abstract too? A fossil that's an extract too Do we need the it's abstract it's an abstract fossil. So which means it doesn't exist and you we're simply fossil dogs Okay, would we has anybody presented these this fossil intermediate? Would you have to literally have the fossil shown to you for it to count as evidence? There are multiple intermediates the coincidence that we can't find a single one That wasn't an answer. So it is an answer Why can't we find a single intermediate because this it was a yes or no question Yes Would you would you have to have the actual fossil of that intermediate dog shown to you physically in front of you for it to count as evidence? At least one yes, because if you have zero fossils and you know, it could be a fossil It could be a or either could be also be a living animal. You have neither You understand that how could it be transitional between? an ancient wolf and Dalmatian if it's uh, if it's a doberman, like that's a different breed Like that's what doesn't make sense about your chart. You're asking how could how would show me which of these Which of these breeds of dog is transitional between a modern Dalmatian and ancient wolf? like Now the question is I don't what you guys are arguing about at this point the In relation to if we're going to go down the dog rabbit the dog wolf rabbit hole is the is a yaw's position that dogs are the result of very preceding variations in wolf genomes or The variations are all the result of mutation in the in the traditional paradigm sense I would say it's a mixture of natural selection and artificial selection because we had natural selection of wolves To dogs and then when we domesticated dogs That's where the artificial selection comes in and gets you very specified breeds like a french bulldog With a flat nose or a chihuahua that's very small or a great dain that's bred for its size Right, but you're dodging the point the point of the question the question was is was the necessary genomic information already present in the wolf in order to whether it be through Natural or artificial in order for the breeds of dogs to descend from it Or is it necessitate the formation of a whole bunch of new information in order for these different Breeds take place it would be new and you get that from mutations So you're suggesting that we couldn't very systematically recreate the breeds Uh, it would have to be all random mutations that they're just selected for or those it could be like reconstituted via Purposeful manipulation of the genome No, like I said, it was a mixture of our natural selection and artificial selection But both of those evolve it both involve um mutations. It's just that with one you're Intentionally trying to select for certain traits No, I'm not a geneticist. So I don't know so shitsus. So shitsus. I believe are either the first or second closest to a wolf genomically um You actually think that They're that similar and like that defends your position Did I did I say or imply that? Well, I'm saying that from you guys like to go down the rabbit hole of morphology, right? And then all these variations must be indicative of evolution in the traditional sense But we now have something like I mean eventually you get a chihuahua, right? And if you're looking at things from like the fossil record perspective and you weren't doing a direct genome comparison Are you actually going to try and argue that the skeleton could actually be truly Timelined in between a wolf and a chihuahua Well, what does that mean timeline between a wolf and chihuahua? Evolution is all about descendancy and heredity, right? I think I know what he's asking. So Morphology has to do more with just the uh shape and how an animal looks That's why the first Taxonomies the first phylogenetic trees were made just based on how animals looks It wasn't until we discovered genetics that they were able to go back and test the DNA of these animals And see specifically how closely related they were or not closely related But no, I think if an alien came and saw a chihuahua Skeleton and a wolf skeleton. They probably wouldn't think that they're Closely related or related at all. Okay, because of genetic testing that we can know that or the fact that we know We made chihuahuas basically cool. So is uh 99 of all genetic comparisons done from extant genome sequencing or preceding comparisons You mean extant versus extinct because I think you you have to be DNA only lasts for a certain amount of time that you can So test it like there are fossils we can't DNA can last for quite some time But that's not the point. My point is is the uh, is the majority of the Of evolutionary theory based on inference The majority it's based on prediction. Okay, then tell me the point about morphological similarity is that since we know There's variation within animals that we see today that we know are related That certainly is plausible for how animals that are similar Change from each other And then when we have this hypothesis of okay, so maybe this goes back further and further Then that's able to predict forms that you guys had no idea existed And exactly where they were and what they are Okay, this so that's how science works. That's how you guys. You can't have okay, again I just can't do ladies and gentlemen of the audience. This is example number one of the attempt to deflect ever Oh to you guys you guys didn't think of x y and z. That's not the point. That's not the question That's not the thing that's being brought up here. This is a terrible Model of creation, but let's not over talk Okay, so I'm not discussing anything from a creationist perspective. Okay, we're talking about the necessities of The genome and that the differences and the very hyper specific Functional information that is necessary in order for different organisms to exist. Do you deny the fact that there is dramatic amounts of Differentiation the functional information regulatory sequences, etc. That are necessary for different organisms to exist No, and that's the point is we there are observed mechanisms that change those That those differences can be the result of we observe the ways that those changes arise Yeah differences and those changes evolution those changes can be predicted In the fossil record that's the thing you don't have no fossils If you did have fossils you would be able to present at least one transitional between the Dalmatian and the wolf Go to a museum They don't have a single one of them. Yes, they do. Give me one that atheist junior I told you the transition is between That you're saying ancient wolves and I guess domesticated dogs. Well Every link along between the two Is a transitional form between them. So the child of that the child of that wolf Is a transition are those transitionals real or are they abstract those animals actually existed? Yeah, okay Can you present at least a single one? I don't have to Is it that you don't have to or is it that you can't I don't personally have the skeleton of that wolf fossil. No, so I can't I'm sorry Isn't it so convenient that we can't find a single transitional between the Dalmatian and the wolf like ancestral Do you think wolves and dogs are related? Absolutely not but that would be a relevance that would be irrelevant to this conversation because this is not about creationism This is about evolution. I wouldn't say anything about creationism Look up the paper ancient wolf genome reveals an early divergence of domestic dog ancestors and admixture into high latitude breeds Okay, tell me Tell me what about the specimens. What is the intermediate? I simply want to know what it is They label them with like numbers The numbers are just abstractions What it's a label Yeah, an abstract label Are you an abstraction called the time you're a wolf? Of course, I'm not an abstraction But you are presenting abstractions, but you're not you're not you're not in front of me right now though. I don't see you Atheist junior you're clearly dodging. What is obvious? What's the obvious given I've given you a citation. I gave you the name of it I just need you to present at least one transition. I did I for dead. I did and so the reason that I I gave you a name actually Time you're a wolf and I gave you the name of the paper that it appears reported so The reason that I the reason that I bring up Creationism is because it is the most skeptical position that people hold on this earth about evolution so I was hoping to start with some common ground of What is accepted variation of change so that we don't have to start at biology 101 for an hour and a half debate But we can't even agree on if wolves and dogs are related though. That's his tactic. He's trying to waste our time But the second debate is on So first off the I don't think anything that I brought up is like necessarily biology 101 first off the He bubblegum's was the The macro view of all of this is when the more we dive into genetics, which originally unless you guys are denying this has was considered the foundational defense of evolutionary theory But the more that we the more research that's done and the more that we discovered that larger and larger portions of the genome have specific function and that very minor mutations Even in you know strs and things of that nature like oh if it's as long as it's between eight and 13 base pairs We're good If you have less than or greater than then you have xyz disease like we're discovering this out the wazoo and if The foundational premises of evolution ie you can like have all these Mutations that can take place until you know eventually something functional comes into existence and you can have co-option all these different things If that's true Then why and what we're observing now Is it look like if you don't have ridiculously high fidelity rates um, you have massive issues ie Very often being up to death So how is it actually plausible rather than just being inferred and extrapolate out from a you know mental gymnastics That somehow all these things that we're observing which would get in the way of evolution actually being plausible in the macro view Somehow just magically happened in the past like how do you guys defend that? So I asked this in my intro. What is the uh genetic limit what how many differences defines? That something is not related Okay, that's not what I it's not remotely what I brought up. I was Exactly what you brought up. That's not you said there are major differences in the genomes which is somehow Point against the common ancestry of the organisms that we're talking about so I asked a direct answer to that On topic, which is how large of a difference does that need to be to challenge evolution with the sake of uh You you ladies and gentlemen, he just said he asked a direct answer Okay, so you can answer questions with questions. I mean people miss but people miss you completely you can well Yeah, because he's he's dodging this is on my question, you know, you're dodging my question Which was well, it was about five minutes long Yeah, you talk in a very complicated way. That's hard to follow I apologize that multiple structure components to a compound sentence are going over your head Maybe you should take off your beanie But the whole point that was being made was in relation to the fidelity necessity In order for things not to die. Okay, so if we know you need to have 99.999 percent fidelity right now In order to not have massive issues the Uh It doesn't matter if it's like in humans and chimps. I believe it's over between 35 and 36 million base pair differences I believe is the standard sanally accepted position, right? The if we know that very minor modifications exponentially smaller than 36 million or 35 in whichever number you want to go with um cause you to die How is it plausible in the what six million year timeline or whatever the current uh Supposed history is for that many changes to happen uh from a split of a couple of common ancestor and Extinction not to take a place. I mean seriously if you're talking about how you're asking about that much difference So now you're asking about mutational load, mutational meltdown Uh Ultimately, yes, but I mean i'm serious in in context of fidelity. How is it plausible to make those jumps? There are multiple um papers studying Mutational meltdown molers ratchet where uh, it's quantified where there are ways that where, you know Bad mutations accrue But there are multiple mechanisms observed that counteract the accumulation of uh deleterious mutations Yeah, and I feel like you're asking like how come in how come there isn't just more extinction, but There was over that time period almost like 98 percent of species have gone extinct. Very few species um are what uh, you know Uh darwin called favored races that actually have been able to survive even up to the common day Of the present day. Okay. For example, let's take an example. Could we Take uh pure breed uh chihuahuas and evolve them To be as tall as a a great dain or german shepherd without running into Very disease causing or just the utter death of the chihuahua Why would I expect that we couldn't we got chihuahuas from walls Okay, so we we have great dain so so Can you guys demonstrate? by uh breeding Selective breeding yourselves and provide uh through using pure uh pure uh pure breed chihuahuas only And then select them to be as tall as a great dain or german shepherd. Has that ever been done? You could breed it with a great dain or a shepherd. No, well, that's you can't breed animals to be larger Okay, so you're saying chihuahua and chihuahua. Yeah, okay, but yeah, but you can breed organisms to be larger Has that ever been done? That's yes, that's why we have great dains. It's been done with it Okay, where did the great dain come from it's been done with all livestock So you said you said you're saying the great dain came from like a chihuahua sized dog What is the intermediate? That's not what I said Sorry, I sound like you said that No, snake said that we can breed animals to be bigger and I said that's why we have great dains because we bred A dog like the ancestors of the great dain and livestock I'm not really sure where this whole back and forth is going, but are you guys actually suggesting that you could Get a great dain from chihuahuas A great dain sized dog Not an exact great dain. Well, okay, so that would have been done So you think that chihuahuas could breed and ultimately could be selected to get as big as great dains Uh, yeah, you can breed animals to get much larger than they started with I do it I'm not suggesting that there aren't there can't there's a cap though I mean, it's pretty well recognized that there's caps on how big things can get from a starting point, right? Yes, so you can't get a dog the size of Texas. Okay. Okay. Well, that's okay. That's not what I'm suggesting I'm asking you directly. Um, do you think that if you're starting with the Available genome in two chihuahuas Do you actually think it's plausible to be able to get it up to the size of a grain dain? Not the size of Texas bro, because that's not actually a realistic concept So let's get back to real world. So do you think that getting it up to the size of a great dain is actually plausible? Why wouldn't you be able to? How come you can't do it there? The children could be a little bit bigger and then the children of those children could be a little bit bigger Here, I'll tell you I'll tell you why that's why it's not possible Taylor because we tried this with the german shepherd and what happened they ran into a wall in which uh It causes hip dysplasia on my the german shepherd. So it can't it wasn't it didn't even get that bigger It just had a bigger, uh, that's a german shepherd Okay, dogs some dogs. You know what happened with the two wall were the same too. You'll still get the hip dysplasia So you can't assume that just because one lineage has a certain, uh, Mutational confirmation. Okay. Another breed will have that. Okay So are you saying that there's always a possibility for how whatever would need to happen in order for your position to be true It's possible I'm saying that we have observed that uh, we can breed organisms to be larger We can and are we doing any kind of I mean these days are we doing? I know like the chinese for example are doing massive amounts of gene editing in order to get like their giant pigs and and giant cows, right? So Doing like recoding of a genome from a artificial perspective like intelligent agency being injected into the equation Sure, there's all sorts of that can be done. I mean I could say that Uh, I didn't say you said that I'm saying I'm not arguing that so move on Well, you just made the argument that it's totally doable and I'm clarifying to the audience I didn't mention gene editing. I know you didn't I'm telling I'm telling the audience What would have to be acquired and what we have to be executed in order for the kind of thing that you're talking about To actually realistically be plausible if you're starting with something like two to two hours Nope, have you seen that the livestock that used to be around they were much smaller and that was before the advent of genetics Especially cattle. Yeah, they mixed them pigs Yeah, they they're mixing cattle to get different type of cattle. That's no duh That's not evolution They they have what I'm talking about is taking two pure breacher while was And giving them to the size of the gray dame that hasn't ever been done. They've bred pigs that have an extra ribs and vertebra Without gene editing. So taylor, how much are you willing to bet that? Two chihuahuas can actually get to this the average size of a great dame I don't know and and how many generations and how many generations would be required? Like what's how much money you want to bet on that? I don't know whether or not you you can do this or not Does not mean if evolution is true or not. This goes back to my exact point I was making and the clarification question I was asking you guys is is whatever would have to happen Well, it just happened because evolution is true. Therefore, this is what must have happened There must have been some way for this to happen now when it comes to actually defending the reasonability of I didn't say you said it directly But that's the end extrapolation of the point that you guys keep you guys keep grasping on to is oh Well, it could have happened because hey, haven't you seen cows breed? Therefore, they must be able to get that big We're talking about something the size of a freaking in comparison something the size of a freaking rabbit becoming a steer Like uh, have you seen the breeds of rabbits? They've gotten huge huge rabbits three or four or five times larger than wild ones Three or four times. Okay. So are you gonna sit here and say that a chihuahua is only three times smaller than a great day? I don't know the exact number. I know you can breed animals to be larger I didn't I didn't I didn't say I didn't say that I saw them with pure breeds I didn't say that you can't I specifically delineated that there's a cap on how big you can get things and therefore you have to have a starting point that's higher before you go lower You're saying you can't breed organisms to get larger. That's not what I've said. I've clarified that multiple times. Taylor. Are you not listening? I have you said there's a cat. There's a cat. It sounded like that's what you just said. You said you have to start with something larger. That's what I thought I heard but Originally, yes So you it sounds like you're saying that you can only go down in size Are you are you saying there was nothing ever that from a The ever was larger than the things that were able to be bred together and get bigger And are you saying that they were the direct lineage of modern huge cows organisms can get larger or smaller through lineage Through a range are correct. Is it more likely they get smaller or larger? It doesn't matter It matters. The only thing that matters is the environment. It's observationally true that they they generally they tend to get smaller Can two short people have a tall baby? Yeah, because you're mixing them start with start with no a population of okay The average human height has gone up. It has got with giants. It has gone up slightly, but they have Where they're lately a thousand years ago. Are there skeletons of people that were seven feet tall? Uh neanderthals. Yeah, there are no giants. There are yeah, there's not there. There were people that were seven feet tall a thousand years ago But not 12 feet. Well, I didn't say 12 feet. I know I'm just saying that Okay, no, no, I listen listen guys try to pay attention. Okay. You just made the argument that the people have been getting taller Yeah, I agree. Uh in the 1950s the average male was five foot seven now. He's not he's five foot nine and a third Okay, that's the that's the current height change in the roman era There were the average height was like five four for a male. Okay, but Was there in the egyptian era? There's plenty of people that were Way taller than that. There's bones all over the world of people that were way taller than five four or five nine so So are you saying that it's they only got taller because that original tall person's gene spread? No There's a difference because you guys understand what we're saying. Are there are there you're conflicting? Are the majority of the height uh increases and decreases uh epigenetic or purely genetic? It's probably epigenetic. Okay, cool. So if the The majority of it is resulting from better nutrition and hygiene things of that nature. Um that are enabling slight variations in height, but the pre-existing capacity for the much larger Uh differences in height was already pre-existing Did it was a is an evidence for new for evolution of something new or just expression of pre-existing function? Why would height increase the evidence of Can you answer the question directly? Can you answer the question directly for once? I can't it's hard to answer dumb questions. That's not a question. That's a high That's a hyper specific question Taylor of yeah, so is the is the capacity for uh via epigenetics and other minor variables for significant swings in height is that Did that necessitate the preceding ability for greater height or is it a hundred percent new function? Which one? is Variation of height necessarily New function, I'm not sure what that means in this context Or are you not inherently inherited? Are you not claiming that the uh height variables are evidence for evolution? That is one piece of evidence. Okay, cool. So does that creation size right? So as evolution necessitates change in size It uh additions to the genome. Yes or no What was that? For new functions to be available Does that necessitate new functional information? New mutations. Yes Okay, cool. So is this goes back to my point pay close attention if there was preceding Functional information for greater height In the past How then is these minor modifications in variables in height that we're talking about the vast majority of which are the result of Epigenetic factors. How is that evidence for evolution? You you you made the point that it was evidence for evolution I'm saying that the function already pre-existent. Are you denying that? the function of Being able to change the child that your child's height pre-existent. Yeah Then it's not evidence for evolution the comparison for much great for much greater height You're saying you're having to breed for greater height in order to gain the ability to have greater height We've just clarified that the ability to have greater height already pre-existent Okay, so what about Is the variable of course a pre-existent every change in evolution is a modification of a pre-existing structure Okay, so so sorry. Is it your position then that the these functions that we're talking about using height as an example Was already in existence Uh in a greater manner than it is now The height exists in a greater manner than it is now Wait To capacity from an informational perspective Taylor Taylor are you proposing that this wolf-like ancestor was pre-loaded with Dalmatian dna one one topic at a time, please No Because that's it sounds what you're saying No, I'm saying it had a hair and it had the ability to change the color of that hair and the length of that hair Etc That's what evolution is. It's changes Which we observe Which all creationist organizations Except no, but the thing it's just specified information. It's not just random Every mutation is new information. It's not just it's not just the expression of protein coding It's the it's the non-protein coding genes How did they get lots of those prove evolution too like the er is no, they're gonna propose are you saying AJ AJ addition of a random bit of a bit of Shannon information has no relevance in relation to The necessity for functional information and the different they clearly delineated difference between the two so the whether or not you want to say that if there is a gene duplication or In that context that Okay, there's a greater is an increase in the number of bits That has nothing to do with whether or not it is new functional information and then Accounting for the necessities in order for this new functional information to come to be from the evolutionary model That is the whole point that's being made here. So whether or not there's adaptation uh, very often real time, you know, I'm a big fan of Shapiro's Work in talking about how they're observing they observed all sorts of things happening in real time It was it was very directed. It was controlled modifications to existing function on the fly based on very specific Pressures, but it was nothing random about it at all. It was very Exquisite function. So having those kinds of modifications and adaptations of pre-existing function. I don't I have zero issue with that But that's not your position, is it Yes, it is every evolutionary change is a modification of pre-existing traits Okay, but but from undirected Hang on but from an undirected process, right? Nope. No, it's all directed by like the environment. Okay. If the wolf didn't have the The the the Dalmatian traits It's a morphology How did it get the morphology? Was there already pre-loaded in the wolf ancestor? Or was it through micro evolution that it gained these morphology? It's definitely micro evolution. Okay, the question in my opening is What is the limit to the amount of micro evolutionary changes that can occur in a lineage? Is there a limit? Well, you tell me Micro evolution is still evolution Okay, if this as long as it's not going to be there isn't if this micro evolution was real You should be able to demonstrate What at least one intermediate between the Dalmatian dog and the wolf Well, you just can't it is all creationist organizations admitted as I think no we can handle that Yes, well what my partner believes in his free times are relevant to this debates This is about the you are defending evolution and so Another example of like functional information coming from pre-existing traits is the chlamydimus chlamydimonus chlamydimonus chlamydimonus Which would started off unicellular and became multicellular And it didn't evolve like some new protein complex or anything. It used pre-existing genes That were just regulated in a different way, which allowed it to basically have tissue differentiation in a body with a set amount of cells Are you talking about the I think it was a amoeba The algae it's a single cellular algae and it got over 50 weeks. It was able to get an extracellular matrix Because of selection pressures Okay, okay. Hang on. Hang on. So I love when this supposed definitive proof gets brought up It really honestly cracks me up. So me too in relation to the pan genome have was the ability to connect and Communicate in different in different fashions between the single celled organisms. Did that already exist genetically? Yeah Okay, cool. So these algae were still able were able to communicate with each other again. Did the Capacity for them to do exactly what was observed Did that already exist Or how evolution works What? Well, wait. Hang on. Hang on evolution Okay, okay I'm talking about the functional capacity to do all the different variations they did Did already exist or was this new information that was injected Into the equation in order for all these for the colony model to to forms not a colony So what it does is there it already had the ability to stick to other cells and communicate with these cells. Cool So what it did was just change like the temporal regulation Of those genes that already existed which ended up making them stick together in a body And they would communicate with each other as a body and tell some cells to turn off and not reproduce So that some cells would reproduce which is essentially tissue differentiation And a body. Yeah, and they did this to avoid a predator and while doing so it became they became mobiles So they couldn't move and it was only after it was only after the After the predator situation happened that they Split again and became a single cell again. So it was never a multiple cell or even multi cell evolution Yes, it was No, it wasn't because it was already there. They already had that ability It's just a defensive mechanism. No, because it was a mutation. Okay, so They didn't split apart again, that's not true I would pick being immobile over getting eaten by a predator any if you don't move you get no food Right, okay, so let's let's see my home. I'll just can just okay. So they have photosynthesis. They have photosynthesis In war Are there in the military? Are there different specialties of a squad or battalion or what would insert? Yeah, section. Okay, cool. So the Are all of them all the people all the soldiers are still human Yeah But they could have a specialty in a different area, but they're still still Yeah, see they they can break off from the squad and still be alive But the cells in the in the multicellular orgy cannot Organism yeah, they'll die they can if they break off they die That's what makes it not a colony and what makes it a multicellular organism. That's distinct. Oh, that's that's okay So the Are you now gonna try and argue that the uh genomes of all of these different signals of organisms were now Identical What did you ask are we arguing that they're not identical? I'm asking you. Yeah, you claim that they're becoming multicellular organisms, correct? Well, one of the key delineators of a multicellular organism. They're operating from the same genome with Different cell type differentiation, correct Mm-hmm. Okay. So are you now are you guys arguing and claiming that these single cell organisms all Have the identical genomes now Uh, probably not because every cell in your body does not have an identical genome either Uh, other than very very slight modifications and variables. Um, the genome is the same Well, if there's any slight differences, it's not identical then Okay Okay, this is really good. I could be up right now. Okay. This is how you cancer some all yourselves have a little tiny differences This is serious From all other multicellular organisms Um, do they start with the same genome and then develop out the variations from there? Yes or no What was the beginning of this? Do all other multicellular organisms that we observe do they start With the same genome and then cell type differentiation happens from there Yes Okay. So would that be a key delineator of what is a multicellular organism? It has a Identical genome that can can be modified. But that's a starting point Yeah, these are clonal from each other Oh, they're clonal from each other. No, they're not Yeah, they one of them splits off and starts cloning itself and makes itself a new body You're saying you're saying that the original Because they had a variety of different colonies or like groups, right? You're saying that they were all the same one just replicated and then formed or there was multiple to start with What they were all the same one. How can all be one? I'm asking you from a genetic perspective Where they're whether the parents all where they're multiple Yes, were they all from the same parents or where there are multiple parents each individual has the same Parents cell that butted off from its parent. That was a starting point for all the different groups Not every not all the different groups the individuals that were talking There are multiple different Versions of this experiment one they were subjected to predators when they were subjected to A centrifuge I think they have it where it's like each They each colony is in a different like petri dish thing and they start off with I don't know if they start off with a single algae cell or or or not. They bud. I'm actually not sure about that Okay, so I just want to clarify are you guys are yeah, I want to look it up Are you guys arguing that they all originated from a single cell? And then ultimately formed into this multicellular hypothetical colony or talking about No, only the eight celled individuals Started from the same cell So they had identical genomes and then differentiated into different portions Nearly identical, but clonal does not mean exactly identical Okay, so do they now have massively different genomes or is there an expression of pre-existing function that enabled these variations take place It's expressing pre-existing genes that are regulated in a different fashion Cool. So if it's already pre-existing information, how is that evolution? It's it's now being regulated in a way where it has new functional information So it already had the capacity and things got switched on and off It already had the preceding capability To have these variables expressed but you're claiming that is defense of evolution not so so there wasn't like Slow mutations over time and new formation of function in order to create these new regulatory networks and things of that nature They were already there and within 50 days, whatever you said In a very very even with bacteria. That's a very short timeline You're saying that they created all these new functions. It's 50 weeks It's like in code if you have a command That's functional and then you copy that command and you place it in other parts of your code And it now has a completely different function Yeah, that's new information. Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. You think copy and paste Creates a new function or just expresses this an existing function in a different spot Actually, I do are you sitting here trying to tell me I have a freaking I have a contact form plug-in and wordpress right and I say hey I want to have this module on the contact page and on a Interior page for a service offering. You're saying that because I I say yes insert code here and here That means it's a new function or the expression of a pre-existing function in a different spot. Which one? neither Neither So you're the you're okay. So please defend your position. What is it then? So what how it works in biology? This is too good. Go ahead. This is very simple. No, let me answer. Okay. Go ahead. So the way it worked in the algae Was no, no, no. We're on code right now. We have to give him a chance to respond John we're on code right now. John we have to give him a chance to respond Yeah, no, no dog question. We have to give him a chance to respond Yes, the way it works in the algae is that it turns on reproduction At certain points and it tells the other ones to turn off at certain points So in a code situation where you'd have I don't know what command that says Turn off a certain function or turn on a certain function and it just It does that but you you take that line of code and you add You add it in a different way that it does a completely different function Then yeah, that's new information. You just said on and off was the was the new was the new function, dude Okay, that's like saying I now have no that's not like saying I've logged in and said I don't want it on this page anymore I want to add it to five others that somehow again. This is not new functional information. This is No He copy-pays something. That's not new. No. Yes, it is. No if it does something else So so it's not doing something. It's not a new function. It's not a new function I'm responding to him. He just went. I'm responding to him right now This is how it works with binary you can make any different function based on a different combinations of a one or a zero Taylor if I steal the code from a Windows 10 And then just copy-paste certain codes in a different spot, but it still does the same execution And I got to get copyright strike and taken to jail For plagiarizing, but that's not what I'm talking about. But that's exactly what you're talking about. Nope No, okay. Don't lie. I said it has a Taylor Taylor. You want to go down to binary? Okay, so let's go zeros and ones so does Aski have a very specific Code mapping that's been done for a sequence sequence of zeros and ones that equals a bcd etc etc One two three four five six seven and ten. Yes or no I don't know So you're talking about binary and how this all these zeros and ones can make this new function But you don't know if aski has specific code mapping of sequences that equals zero It doesn't matter. Yes, it does. Is this Taylor's coding information on trial? Uh, well, we're okay. We want to go down to that rabbit hole. Are you suggesting that the genome is not code? I Irrelevant just like everything you've just been saying for no, it's a hundred percent relevant. It's not relevant I could give you the relevance when I say designed and it changes nothing about this No, no, we're talking about the necessities of the sequence of the uh codons to be equal to specific functions Are you denying that that is necessary? what That the codons must be in specific sequences in order to be it result in the specific function That's how it works Okay, so how is that any different than the combination of zeros and ones that are necessary to equal whether it be letters and numbers and From a string perspective equaling commands that are executed. Like how is it any different? So you're off on dna as a code now No, I I don't want to waste my time. I want to make I want to make sure you can talk about this on your channel Like we're not going to waste our time with this. So, so are you going to argue that? Evolution does not necessitate the formation of new code from a genetic perspective You can make new code by altering previous code Okay, isn't it tell you? Sure. I've done this games Are you are you an intelligent agent who had an understanding of the desired outcome? And that's irrelevant though. I'm drawing attention to Is that you modifications of existing things can be used to create different functions Did you have any game program itself? There was there was no new gene in this algae It was regulated in a way that it makes an eight celled body that has that some cells have reproductive function Okay, so that's new information. Do they all lose there's no there's no way around Taylor Did they all have the preceding? Replication function. Yes or no. Yeah Okay, so they turned off a pre-existing function, correct? No Dude, are you serious? They had the pre-existing function. You just admitted that and then Did they turn it on? Yes or no? Thank god on or off? Which one? They turned it on and off at different times. Okay. Cool. So was that with different stimuli? So so turning off so if I click Off, okay here. Does that mean that the pre-existing function already existed or came into be when I pressed on it off? It's like saying I turned the light on Oh, man. This is okay. Okay. So so here's a good coding example If I have the command execute function, but I change the The set the cause of the executable Then that's different information If you change yes, but what has to happen? Okay, we're done with that now. Let's move on to Right. No, no, no, no, no, no. We're done. How how that have to what has to happen in order for that change to take place It moves which can happen in jeans on no dude in relation to the code base What has to change in order for the cause for the if then else to be modified? What is necessary from a from a machine code perspective for that change to take place? Uh, someone types it in Is that what you're looking for? That's what that's exactly what I was thinking Okay, and what is necessary for that to take place? Uh, you press the keys on a keyboard. Are you looking for an intelligent agent? Did it intelligent agent do that equals god? No, no, no, no, no, no, no DNA can do this No, we've demonstrated with the algae. You're using the No, no, we've already established that the genomes or the algae weren't creating new function They were turning on an off free existing function. We've established that it does have new function You just said it was new function. Do you make an extra cellular matrix? Oh my god. Okay. You said yes to me This is ladies and gentlemen, this is ladies and gentlemen. This is hilarious. These guys are Doing such a hilarious dance and dodge. Okay, we only have a couple minutes left. So Notice that we haven't been I just wanted to say notice that me and taylor haven't been laughing in a mocking way at our opponents the whole debate I just wanted to point that out, but evolution can have mechanisms that are both Natural selection and artificial selection that has an intelligent agent in it That doesn't disprove it either way. It's an intelligent agent. You can't equivocate that to that's That means that god exists because I know that's what you're trying to do And if you won't admit it, but that doesn't work either No, no, this is This has everything to do with the fact that taylor and you have both been like Well, all you have to do to make this to change this cause in the in the function is type some stuff in Like and it happened now. It doesn't have to be in a hyperspecific experiment happened Does it over it? Dude was new coded information injected into the genome. We already established this. It wasn't injected. It was mutated Okay, the turning on and off of a pre-existing function is not mutation to a new information It's the deactivation of existing information. We've been over this Can we talk about your Because you said I wanted to avoid that let's go with uh, yeah, what have you got? Let's go uh taylor. What have you got? yeah, so um basically you kind of dodged the the whole being implausible numbers-wise and um Then you kind of went off into well it confers a function. Therefore It uh was designed or might be designed Which it's not because they are confirmed to be parts of viral elements We can observe this happening today. So we know that they are in fact viral elements Um koalas are undergoing this right now So we know what it looks like when arv is invade the system now And they could they actually confirmed that you can confer function in mice Uh with erv elements How can I answer this is a koala real quick one? Okay, the koala has two ervs erv b and erb a erba was already there in koala and and uh, it's necessary to the koala erb b is a mutation of er krb a And has become the disease one So are you providing evidence for creation? Because k or v a was already in the koala. It was only after you mutated into krb b that it became a disease No, because a god wouldn't make it look like it was all There would be no way for it to A Just to the exact same spot and a god who wanted us to know that wouldn't do that Disease happened that doesn't just prove gone Because that's not part of this debate. Yeah viruses cause disease, but um, they Hang on Taylor, are you arguing that all that the vast majority of viruses are pathogenic? The vast majority of viruses are pathogenic. Yeah Yeah, that's categorically false. It's the viruses are pathogenic. It's a reciprocal It's a very small number of viruses are pathogenic the vast majority of either benign ERVs or not Well, we're talking about viruses who cares. Okay. I'm time out Okay, so the human so the ERVs that have existed have documented function, which I kind of addressed in my opening The they're like essential for like development. Okay, so We've proven that organisms can co-opt your v elements Four functions that they already have Yes, it has Oh, whoa, whoa, the co-option the co-option ERV the co-option has been observed th e1b was inserted into mice and it started being expressed where Normally, uh, it helps, uh, cell to cell adhesion in apes placentas it's expressing in In the brain in mice and other mammals So they inserted this ERV into mice and it started Using the that ERV information to be expressed in its brain And it started regulating for the brain Viral functions, so did you just say that it has it already has a very very similar one? That's executing it. That's being like prior to this insertion. It has one very similar. So we said Yeah, that's the point. Okay. Cool. So in uh in code, right if I take a A chunk of code for let's go back to using something simple for the for the audience of a form, right? And I get the script for it from github and I freaking copy and paste it Into the source code for a freaking web app or a website, right? Um It came from this other one, but is the browser going to be able to read it? If it operates on the same system and it's the same code Uh, I'm guessing no, but that's not what happened. No, the answer is yes The answer is yes Okay, the answer is 100. Yes. So so that's what happened. The fact that chrome can read Code that was taken from over here and injected into this other website, but they're both operating on html css php whatever um languages that uh chrome can uh interpret Or like what is the relevance to the mouse having a very similar piece of code insert into its genome and then doing the same type of function It you you brought it up. It doesn't it has a I didn't bring it up a snake brought it up not me No, you brought up the mouse because we're talking about biological evolution. I didn't bring up the mouse I did not want to call aj. That was taylor brought the mouse. I think I said that Well, I give you that chance to respond then we got over the qna The mouse has this uh, uh regulatory hormone corticotropin a release of hormone which helps in uh cell division and adhesion It has a completely different system that does this for its brain and its hypothalamus as do mammals Humans use this in their placenta. They use the erv in their placenta They were able to make the mouse use the erv in their brains They were able This is proving All right, we've got to jump into these questions So human directed coach We're going to jump into the qna want to say thank you very much for your questions folks We're going to try to move fast all of our guests are linked in the description. You already have been exposed to them In the most part You can You guys are perverts But you can click on their links in the description box if you would like to Be exposed more to them this one from stupid horror energy says Viral mimicry and tumor suppression aren't really functions of erv's viral mimicry occurs due to erv endogenous retrovirus activation They don't function as tumor suppressors their activation can activate on kuh jones on kuh genes I think I feel like it's uh They work in there's in every instance that's not what's being argued That's a specific function of specific types And usually they're working in conjunction with other proteins and other genes i.e. like p53 in order for the activation of the immune system coming to destroy cancer cells and things of that nature So I'm not applying a blanket function to every single freaking erv I was using examples of different ones that do have these functions This is like saying every gene does the exact same creates the exact same protein or enzyme like that's just ridiculous You got it in this one coming from thank you very much allen brupri says your mic is tilted the wrong way Thank you for that allen. I appreciate it. I it oftentimes is but I appreciate the feedback mark reed says logical plausible probable Coopted functionality for erv's does not solve the problem of how they got into the same place in both chimp and human DNA, how do you explain that? Okay mark as usual you never pay attention by the way folks There will be an after show on my channel if people want to come we can have a greater conversation about this the if you're operating from a Free existing or a code base that's being used in uh unison for a variety of things Having code in the exact same spot Somehow not being evidenced in favor of that versus happening randomly. Um through undirected process is ridiculous That's like saying that because every freaking website if you right click and view source is going to have header title footer Um in the exact almost exact same spot at every freaking website every web page is going to have that Somehow that is not evidenced in favor of it being put there on purpose versus randomly I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand especially for you mark given the fact you claim to be a You know expert in networking and such this one coming in from do appreciate your question allen brupri says bgg and john what is your plan to influence the scientific consensus? Me uh, just make these uh Evolutions look silly What they already do I really don't have to do anything On the I mean what was the question? What am I going to do to influence the scientific consensus? Correct? Uh, well, I mean I think that there's already fractions happening or fact Things taking place inside of academia already. Um, I think that the ongoing Argument to the masses will ultimately be necessary because you know, they're going to operate from their dogmatic positions Well, the evidence is going against them and eventually they'll have to realize the emperor wears no clothes this one coming in From I was just going to say the answer is none Swifter says ERVs cannot be explained away by function. What you need to do is explain shared loci mutations and long terminal repeats discontinuity nested hierarchies Failure to do so makes uncommon ancestry of fantasy. Can you do that? Yeah If I could add why it's so important, um, I want to give you guys the chance to respond first but Okay, uh, yeah, it's because of how they're inserted they're inserted as infections And function does not really depend on necessarily their location Space on the false pre-sub This one coming in from stupid whore energy says mad ox or or fans genes encoding Proteins of unknown function are mostly found in viral and plasmid Genomes makes sense since they mutate madly some encode new families of dna polymerases and topos Well, a lot of that is assumption But the point I was making in relation to all of the orphan genes and The differentiation and more sequencing we're doing The whole point I was making is there's dramatic differences and they're You're claiming that all they all they all just magically happen to form themselves But wait, isn't it the similarity that's supposed to be the evidence in favor of evolution? But now we're finding all these massive amounts of differentiation So which one you can't have it both ways This one coming in from bitter truth says john slash skeptic Why all why are all living organisms genetically close to each other? Don't you think they have a common ancestor? Okay, so again the the more we decided the genomes the more we're realizing There's dramatic differences that we didn't realize were different because we were ignoring entire portions of the genome in the first place But in relation to The was the second part of the question One second Is there someone with a like a background speaking or like a tv on or something because it's just a little bit I can hear some crazy echo this one from bitter truth says john Why are all living organisms so genetically close to each other? Don't you think they have a common ancestor? Oh gotcha. Okay, so um from a dev standpoint if you're building multiple apps on Like web apps on like hp cake php, right? And let's say you're using bootstrap for your css. There's going to be dramatic amounts of similarities, but you can have like things that are just massively different from an end functional perspective all however if you Audit do a code audit and look at all the similarities like oh my god Look at all the similarities in this code But then for in any other context somebody's like, oh well, that just means that we're sort of all from the other one You'd be considered a moron. So in relation to why would there be similarities? Well, um, if it's all organized architected and has architecture from a logic And a functional information perspective I mean that would be more indicative that it was created by an intelligent agent not formed for undirected process, but that's That's just me How big a difference is relevant is my question? Yeah, you're not arguing for god at all The person asked me a question directly And I have avoided this that whole point the entire debate So don't sit here and try and now because I'm answering a question from the audience That now act like this is just an argument for god. That's not what's going on. Go ahead Fair enough this one coming in from John Mathers says why are all of the deities in every religion invisible every single religion? not part of the debate But uh, it's because they Or For example, we wouldn't we wouldn't say god exists because then we would say he's an object And we would just anthropomorphize god. So god, it isn't a thing So he doesn't exist But he is true you could say There are pantheistic pantheistic religions that believe that all of nature is representative of god So that wouldn't be invisible in that example I mean from the From a general revelation perspective I would argue that kind of sort of in line with what AJ said, but not quite the same that the Things were observing in the universe would be evidence in favor of God in relation to I mean there's so many other things. This is argued argued for millennia in relation to what the evidence is for or against god showing a physical presence Like on a ongoing basis I mean, I guess you could do that and from the christian perspective that will happen in the future, but there's A preceding timeline leading up to that You got it this one coming in from Mr. Monster Says, how do you guys dispute radioactive dating which is empirically checked over and over to be fact? Hasn't been remotely discussed tonight and has zero to do with the debate This one coming in from Big bad mama says maddox. Why is standing for truths? erv manual which you accept not taught in the science curriculum in any university uh So I'm pretty sure that what she's referring to was just published like a month ago So how it already have made it into academic curriculum given the fact that those things are like Take years to be modified in the traditional sense. I'm not really sure how that question is relevant In regards to my knowledge of it. I actually haven't I've read a couple chapters of it, but I have not read the entire thing Uh, I actually haven't watched his uh, I've been super busy with work I haven't watched any of his lectures on the topic. So I don't really know what the point of the question is Yeah, give it some time. It'll make it there Definitely well-formatted This one from pineapple platypotomous says for both sides, why do women shave their legs? to appeal to um expectations of gender roles based on western society To appear meotinous, I would think Because of hygiene John this one coming in from I'll do that I know right this one appreciate your question as well bitter truth It says skeptic of evolution. May I know both of your guys's educational background? If you don't mind For them or us or everyone? I think they're saying well, they said skeptics of evolution I mean, I'm a layman personally. I mean, so I don't really think that's important in these debates, but that's just me Well, you don't think it's important Didn't you guys specifically talk about in your opening statements? How if you don't have the education in these topics that you can't really have a challenge to the conventional paradigm I didn't say that I did because if you're challenging a Widely held consensus from the experts then You're gonna probably need some expertise because otherwise you're gonna have very high danger at Dunning Kruger Right. So, so is it your position that there's no people that do have the supposedly requisite Degrees who are also making very similar arguments. Do they they not exist? No, there's people Are they all those are they're the only ones? Yeah, and they're they're better qualified to challenge the consensus Okay, so If let's just hypothetically if they make the exact same argument as I do Does that negate the the validity and soundness of the argument? Based on who delivers it Uh, no, it would be just as bad. So what the hell's no no no we're talking about from a logical perspective Does the qualifications of the individual making an argument have any relevance to whether or not the argument is sound and valid No, but it does have relevance for uh, what for us being able to have a conversation about it Us knowing that each other knows what they're talking about. That's why these people are hired Because they're better qualified Okay, so the So it doesn't have anything to do with whether I sound or valid Correct this one coming in from want to say folks. So sorry youtube is glitching Someone sent in a really generous super chat of $50 super chat at the start and I'm sorry I can't I tried to put all of them in a little post-it note as I was going and that one I think unless I already read it Just whoever did put that super chat in if you could at me just in the live chat with just a normal at Modern a debate and let me know what that question is so I can for sure read it in case I didn't because as I've been going through I've been deleting questions. I just want to be sure that I didn't miss that one better truth Huh, I was going to say there's a way in your youtube settings that you can look at all the super chats that you've gotten previously I was just going to say that. Oh, yeah, that's where I'm looking but it's glitching. So I don't know why it started doing this last night, but it's still doing it to where I've tried to copy and paste them into a doc really fast, but I just wanted to be sure that I didn't miss that one because I was like, did I for sure get that one? But anyway, this one coming in from bitter truth says skeptic Or skeptics of evolution. Can you answer? What is the folding code for denatured proteins? And can we predict the native structure of a protein from its amino acid sequence precisely just checking? Thank you So Yes and no our knowledge is growing dramatically the AI systems that have been being developed have become better and better at being able to predict the end Fold of a sequence still not a hundred percent, but it's getting dramatically better as time goes by Those AIs are based on evolutionary principles But just a little tidbit No, those No, it's based on knowledge of what Sequences result in which three-dimensional fold That's pre-progress. That's pre-program information and it's based on analysis John Mathers says Thank you very much for your generous super chat John Mathers says buy or download a copy of John Day's Quote Yahweh and the gods and goddesses of kanan unquote if you aren't scared of it burning Your hands if you are religious zealots fear archaeology and linguistics Abrahamic monotheism evolved from kananite polytheism How do you like them apples theists? No Personally me. I like it Maybe my maybe my partner not so much, but that's a relevant to this conversation That's right. You're up polytheist aren't you? I hope when we have creationism on trial that it will come up because I'm sure that debate will happen John no thoughts on this one I thought it was directed at the atheists. I'm not really sure what the point is No, I think they're saying that Monotheism evolved from earlier kananite polytheism in particular Abrahamic monotheism has Yeah, well, it's it's ironic that people talk about that It's not going far enough down the rabbit hole if you keep going down the rabbit hole You'll find that that stuff derived from and it's almost on a global level A monotheistic perspective that morphed into polytheistic and then in some cases came back into monotheistic, so it's just Anyway, keep going down the rabbit hole buddy This one's coming in from every fingers haven't burned. You can turn the tape. We keep turning the pages Keep going a little further bitter truth says what In order to refute evolution you guys must know biology Question for you. What is the cause of homosexuality especially in the human species? What I think we're going to answer if we answer that question Well, there is a there is a genetic component to it. Maybe it's not one specific gene But they did do studies that show that identical twins had a higher percentage if one is gay of the other being gay But I would say that your your sexual orientation has it's more of nurtured versus nature relationship where the things that you the way that you grow up And the things you grow up around and your things that influence you also are going to have an effect on that I think obviously I'm I'm still trying to wrap my head around that question In order to debunk evolution you need to understand biology. What is the cost of homosexuality? I don't know. I go ahead I think they're saying the shared amount of knowledge that two experts Need to engage in uh to have a more expedient conversation at least This one could have left the second half off that question. Sorry stupid horror energy strikes again question for creationists a to i RNA editing can mechanistically increase the a to g mutation rate in the corresponding positions Isn't this a rich source one of many of evolutionary novelty? Uh, can you I was trying to keep track of your letters and words there, um The likelihood of different swaps I don't think that actually leans in that favor, especially when you factor in the uh endonucleases and the editase for and all the different error correction mechanisms, which account for the vast majority of those types of modifications and Given the fact also there's ones that are specifically in place to address those kinds of modifications. I would say that Wouldn't actually go in favor of it for a macro view Dot you have this one coming in from Joe Schwartz says dumb question. Will we ever see another? animal evolve to have intelligence of a human I think this is a genuine question Raccoons maybe one day they have the the hands the with the Opposable thumbs like humans do if they had the brains of dolphins who knows what they could do Maybe the French will evolve one day, but I'm not sure Um, that is offensive. I like to dig on the French for some reason Uh, I couldn't think of anyone else right right now. I yeah not in our lifetimes probably Right now. I would argue that the To extrapolate on Taylor's point. No, but none of the european countries have a chance They're uh, they're toast now that the gas got shut off yesterday Hmm this one coming in from do appreciate your question John Mathers says there are examples of transitional fossils and vestigial organs that they teach in basic biology classes from wales to Archaeopteryx I think that might be aimed at me I think so Okay. Uh, yeah, you can't DNA test any of those for example Uh, evolutionists will say with 100 accuracy that this I think uh, I forget what's the name of the fish ancestor, but they'll say with 100 accuracy That's that's our ancestor despite not having any genetic data, but they can't give a single degree of separation between a wolf and a Dalmatian That's that's all You got it. This one coming in from do appreciate your question Stupid or energy says maddox and bgg look that they are leaning on each other This one from bitter truth. Thanks very much and Again, was it swifter? Was it you that asked that super chat question that I mentioned earlier the the $50 one that like came in Really early was that you swifter but bitter truth says dramatic similarity or they've Or there's common ancestry due to the shared DNA Why do you ignore it by saying that god made it? We don't even have adam and eve fossils And there's no single evidence For this so why this interpretation john namely the idea that it's evidence of a common creator or designer Uh, good lord. I've addressed this multiple times go back rewind to the portion I was talking about something like cake cake php and bootstrap and Analyze that whole point Makes do some googling to understand the the macro view of the point that was being made and then come back You got it and this one coming in from Made by jim bob says snake slash atheist junior if beliefs are expressions of evolution If theism is a belief that is evolutionarily advantageous should we all be theists? then I would say no because the point of evolution is usually to Live long enough to reproduce and being religious has resulted in a whole lot of violence I'll say yes No, go ahead. Go ahead sign. Yeah, I would say it depends on the environment. So there are I don't think it's the theism itself. I think it's more that theism serves as a community bonding Um mechanism and yeah, that can be advantageous There are a lot of delusional type thoughts that can be advantageous for survival because It's safer to believe that the wind is a tiger than the tiger is the wind sort of thing But I think that in more modern times it's not advantageous You got it depends on the environment Say yes, um, you know because it doesn't really matter of the the under under what flag you fall for religion It's it's mostly the solitary when when an ideology becomes toxic even atheism can become a commonest nightmare so but You need a structure. You need some amount of order he just can't have a Pure disorder That's all You got this one from do appreciate your question. Alyosha says the monotheism argument is historically illiterate too much of difference in the systems That was from one earlier that native atheist says Don't know who the other guy is but maddox needs to look up quote god of the gaps fallacy unquote Jeremy Sorry, I had to step away for a second there to explain to police what I was doing here The uh Okay, so god of the gaps fallacy is based on just what you don't know versus what you do know Okay, I get so tired of The standard. Oh, it's just god of the gaps versus naturalism the gaps place kind of things like, okay There's number one in regards to this The trial portion of this debate um I was not going down the rabbit hole of id or creationism so Atheist try to pay attention to the bait And then in regards to your oh, you're going down the god of the gaps fallacy route The point being made is the contradictions to the naturalistic explanation Not just saying. Oh god must have done it. Which is Not really the position that was being taken This one coming in from do appreciate your question beams. He says Do lpp and bgg? Realize that chihuahuas are extinct and the modern ones are just dogs that are bred to look the same But are not actually chihuahuas Yeah, we can mix dogs surprise Mark reed says bgg Are you aware there are four breeds of dog that have evolved in modern times? viewer carrier hold on the barbat the belgian Like and noise i'm gonna I screwed that one up and the doggo argentino Yeah, those are all mixed dogs again new dogs by mixing dogs surprise You got it and Cameron hall says did you get my question? Cameron i'm i'm virtually certain we read yours. Let me just double check I'm gonna go back and try to edit undo and just be sure that we covered All of the questions as I mentioned folks There was a there was a generous $50 super chat that came in earlier like at the very start of the debate and i'm like Like I want to be sure that I read it because I thought that I Copy and pasted it because youtube's glitching so I don't have the list in my creator studio But forgive me if I don't have that this one coming in from do appreciate it Bitter truth strikes again. Where do our memories get stored and how are they retrieved again? How can learning be improved? What is the difference between explicit and implicit memories? What molecule is responsible for synaptic tagging? john Well, one of the latest theories, which I actually interviewed the phd researcher behind it Ben galt from the uk The position he's taking is the mesh code theory and specifically looking at the talent protein and a couple of the ones that interacts with operating as 13-bit binary switches that are dynamically storing information and looks like the Um, the code bait or the code that it's utilizing to store information would potentially expand the data storage capacity exponentially they have quantified it and delineated the whole code And are now working to interpret all this but it sends signals into the into the nucleus For expression of specific genes. Um, it's it's quite fascinating stuff but I would say that the Mesh code theory and the different tech opponents that are working under that hospice would be a starting point for the answer to your question Memories are stored in the hippo campus this one coming in from Maybe sure that I've got every last question If it was you who put in that super chat and it did not get read shoot me an email at modern day debate And we'll make it right. I'm at modern day debate modern day debate at gmail.com And want to say I'm searching for any last questions. Oh, yeah Cameron. You asked if I got yours Let me just double check just to be absolutely sure that I did get yours because I thought I remembered copying and pasting it And yeah, I did reach out to youtube support today to let them know that I've had this problem and they Apparently haven't fixed it, but we can talk about dogs while we wait I did it on the uh It was in the uh creator studio. There's like a lot like a live chat that I opened up If you tweet if you tweet at youtube creators, they usually respond on twitter. I've noticed that they did respond They they recommended me uh for that link that I went to but Unfortunately, they're just surprisingly Having done a great job of actually fixing it. So let me know if that question was from you though I like nobody claimed it which is I'm surprised like Could they they're not watching a quick someone claimed the 50 dollars Could they have really put in a 50 dollar if I put in a 50 dollar super chat, I would be like staying I would be like glued to the screen, but It might have been Jeff Bezos But want to say our guests are linked in the description Want to encourage you if you have not already you can check out their links right now and you can learn more About their views. Oh Cameron. I did not Cameron hall. I did not get your question if you can at me with it really quick in the live chat I'll read it I want to mention folks in the meantime if you are listening via the podcast Our guests are linked in the description as well. So if you are listening there and you're like, oh, okay Who is this person? I'll check out their youtube channel This is the first time I heard about snake or bgg or maddox or athias junior You certainly can by clicking on those links right now Whether you be listening via the podcast or via here on youtube Not me and stay away from my channel. I don't want athias versus creations to be on my channel It's up to me instead. Did we just did we just lose john? Oh my god Did john get arrested? Well, yeah, let me switch over here snake scared him off because I think there were police that came out And they were like, what are you doing out here in front of the building and john was like, hey, man Want some drugs? Let me check. Hold on. There's another question This one came in the spirits got him. Alyosha says bigger question is how visual data is rasterized sound synced then digitized stored then recalled in our consciousness Uh, well, I guess our brains are able to process all that data because they are our visual cortex has to flip an upside down image That gets in our from our eyes and we get data from both our left and right ears It's slightly different and you know, the human brain is just an amazing thing, isn't it? Uh, no, there is no hard drive that stores what what your actions are in the brain what life is is the The the combination of spirit and body So your choices are coming from the spirit through the body It's no different than the radio and the signal the signal the broadcast is the consciousness The signal going through the radio is the spirit You got it and This one from Cameron Hall says can the skeptics provide an alternative working model to explain biological diversity of life I think that was for john and bgg They're saying if evolution if you're not willing to accept evolution. Do you have something that would be better than it? Well, I would say creation. I don't know about lpp, but it's it's not the topic of this debate You got it and angry canuck Says hey, can you ask bgg my questions together? You didn't get mine. I sent two chats angry canuck was it let's see said Did you have a question? Sorry about that if you were If you did actually put in that 50 super chat, especially we've been looking for that one Let me know Even if it's not the 50 super chat if I missed it as youtube has been glitching tonight Please do shoot it in right now and I'll ask it pardon that uh Kind of I'm curious. Is anybody else having that issue with uh, or any of the you guys have got youtube channels At least two of you do if you uh, if you have any If you have super chats turned on Do you have it where you're having the issue of where it doesn't? Show them when you click on the see all button Well, um, I have have you tried um Going backwards in the timeline of the video because on mine like it was super chats will pop up But they eventually disappear after a certain amount of time, you know, based on how much money they are You know the the correct? Yeah, but I don't know. Yeah, I'm trying to when I look at it I basically I can't go back any farther than about 859 Yeah, and I wish I could go back further. I'm trying to think is there does anybody else know of a way to like see an old question well, um You said that you you tried going like to your youtube dashboard and then like click on like settings and in there like There's uh, one of the tabs can shows me like every super chat. I've gotten recently Yeah, I don't have it. I guess that one didn't work. I mentioned already If anybody If anybody has lpp's number, you probably call them. It's chickens. Okay not arrested That's true. Let me call john just to see that. He's not arrested I have let me see if I can turn off Super chats and then turn them back on and let me see if that actually does the trick so Don't make for his bail fund angry connect said one of my questions that I sent in was why can wolves breed with dogs? They can Breed but they're all straight or infertile Well, that's no different than saying why are the lugs on the car compatible with uh, why two why are the lugs of two sedans compatible? But yeah, there's gonna be some compatibility, but you're not you're not gonna be able to Put the entire engine There's some compatibility, but the compatibility is at least so infertility So that I'm really is it does not in that specific example. It doesn't uh What the greatest infertility it's it's more prominent for example on lion and tiger Uh wolf dogs are fertile They're degraded fertility A mule is usually infertile This one yeah, go ahead No, I was gonna say the the greats infertility. What why you can't get much uh general Fitness goes down. You can't demonstrate that so yes This one from also the angry canuck. Thanks very much said If you look at google the Dalmatian comes from bloodhounds I think they're saying that it's not Well, thank you for that. Thank you. It doesn't let me know If I'm interpreting right I I was under the impression. Are they saying that? Do you guys understand the point behind that was it that they're saying that it's not a new species? Or are they saying something different? They're saying that the the intermediate between the wolf ancestor and the Dalmatian is a bloodhound, but that's not true We'll accept that that's what they said Whether or not it's true. That's what they said Nobody's saying that Well, the commenter said that The comment but like that's not true You do know that certain breed certain purebred breeds today are derived from breeds that Existed already right Uh, the problem is you can't demonstrate any of those We can't demonstrate there are new breeds within like a lifetime There are dorgies. They're a mix between a doxon and a corgi. Yeah, you can mix dogs. That's not that's not the problem. I'm presenting I don't see the distinction. You can't make a new breed though Mixing dogs and getting purebred dogs from like this nebulae's hypothetical There's a difference there New breeds are hypothetical Mixing dogs. Yeah, that's real That's how all breeds are purebred No, that's the thing you haven't demonstrated any of this. Where is the intermediate between the wolf and the Dalmatian? You just said it's an abstraction. It's a number. It doesn't exist On the diagrams Yeah, it exists on paper. It exists lines on paper, but not in actuality No, we were saying that the diagrams are in if they have to extract it That doesn't mean it doesn't exist that that animal or population of animals didn't exist. That doesn't mean It exists in people's minds don't exist in like fossils or a living ancestor of those okay This one coming in from do appreciate it. What I'm going to try to do is first Let me try to make sure that john didn't get arrested If he was like, man, I got arrested I don't think he did. I think it's probably his battery went out but Mr. Monster says you missed my super chat Mr. Monster, I know I for sure read one of yours, but if I didn't read let me uh check and see if I can pull up If there's any that I missed Sorry folks, it's the youtube thing that's making it really difficult right now Yeah, so I'm seeing That Dalmatians came from spotted great Danes. Is that uh, yeah, that's been debunked I can present you the source for that I do want So but what's the problem conceptually that certain dogs can come from other breeds? I think the problem is just conceptions. It's just abstraction. That's a problem. So where did they come from? They were created according to me, but that's not part of that's another point of this debate, is it? So poodles were created by gods Uh, my position but not part of this debate. Is it we can debate that I just curious to ask so it's hard. It's hard for us to know what without knowing what your position is It's hard for us to really argue back and forth Oh, I would say whether I believe in God. It's kind of your own to this debate You know what? I I wanted to debate that topic We'll do it. Let's do it Do it on snakes channel. Yeah Now let's go ahead and play for my debate channel debate cafe No, let's do it on a debate coach and uh, yeah Let's do it on mbd. I mean this was fun. Sure. I like people want I like to collect niche like real niche topics though for our channel I think jade might find that interesting. Yeah, that might be the case One is mr. Monster. I think you asked you said that we didn't read your super chat on Radiometric dating that one actually we did read so we got that one and then bitter truth I know that you had said that we missed two of yours. Let me know which ones they were because I I'm not positive. I might have missed yours, but I I'm I'm pretty sure I got all yours, but let me know if I missed anything Bear with me gents. Sorry about this so if anybody Wants to debate whether avatar the last airbender is an anime we're gonna host that debate What about kora? Yep, same. Yeah same concept. I don't know how you defined anime Exactly well, I mean, I guess it's uh the animation style, but uh, was it was uh avatar animated By a western animation company? Save it for the debate age. Okay I thought you're gonna talk about james camron's avatar for a second this one from bitter Bitter truth says so this bgg In cell theory, what is the exact transport mechanism by which proteins travel through the golgi apparatus? uh, come again In cell theory, what is the exact transport mechanism by which proteins travel through the golgi apparatus? I have no clue Gotcha I thought you said incel theory like yeah, that's what I heard first like incel theory. That's tomorrow night But let's I know there's I forget the exact details, but there's vesicles involved. It's been a while For my golgi days I studied that like holy dang In cell theory It sounds like something that exists. Oh, you know, take uh, andrew tate would probably fit that king of incels I'm calling john. Look at him. He's like a chat in so which shouldn't be possible. Yeah, there it is Maddox I'm calling maddox right now John did an answer. I think he's in jail But want to say thank you very much for your faux or your questions folks I just want to make sure that I got this last one But it looks like they may have last left but The debate the jail john maddox Hopefully john's not in jail, but With that, thank you very much to our guests. It's been a fantastic time I'll be back in just a moment with a post credit scene So stick around folks about upcoming updates about upcoming debates and bgg Atheist junior and snake aka taylor. Thanks so much for being with us and we hope you have a great rest of your How that was fun Ladies and gentlemen thrilled to have you here. Thank you so much for being with us tonight Kiwi and springfield. I see you there in the old live chat. You pervert as well as jake green Thanks for coming by says you're going to bail them out. You know, you could sit for a little bit. It'll be good for him keg Lanak. Thanks for coming by Mike glad you're here jungle jargon. Good to see you. It's jason Stay them happy to have you back. Jake green. Thanks for dropping in as well as on ton the wall Thanks for coming by And bitter truth did I get the last one? Let me see here My pleasure bitter truth. Thanks to your patience on that Sorry folks ever again, if you're the person who I I'm like, ah, man I wait, you know what? Let me check the super chat see if if it works now if I If I enable it and then I try to open it still doesn't load. That's crazy This is I'm going to destroy youtube but want to say thank you guys for your support Jake green. Thanks for coming by as well as sunflower. Thanks for your channel membership support And thank you very much for your channel membership support bitter truth. Thank you very much for your channel membership. Mr. Monster Seriously, it means more than you know, you guys and folks if you didn't know we do indeed have channel memberships Do you not for real we do and you can use these amazing emojis for example amazing and soy boy To insult your fellow associates in chat Well, I want to say thank you guys so much for all your support And hey, if you haven't yet hit that like button as that helps the stream And it really does help if you thought your side was most persuasive in the debate tonight And you want youtube to recommend the video more to more people that is Hitting like really does help because youtube factors that into the algorithm And the video is then recommended to more people when people do that. So we do appreciate that Let me see here. I got to figure out. There's got to be a way We're gonna figure this out. We're gonna figure this out together. There's got to be a way to see super chats during The debate Let's see here two seconds. I'm gonna find this. I'm gonna find this if it's the last thing I do I'm serious. You think I'm joking Because I feel terrible Oh, man, I just unless I read it. Maybe I did read it, but I just erased it really fast or something But I don't think I did that's why I feel like such a I found out that I'm I think I don't know you guys remember that one night that I told I said that we're gonna take the word Cuck back and we're gonna make it so that it's not a slur and we're just gonna use it as a fun insult um YouTube was not fond of that So I can't say that word anymore counterintuitive says hey james. What's the deal with all the soy stuff? Just wondering it's just being ironic. It just for laughs Counterintuitive says james. What's your max bench? Man? I don't know what it is anymore. I'm kind of getting old Let's see. I did what did I do? I think I did 285 twice yesterday That was like toward the end of my workout, so it's definitely warmed up Maybe a little tired, so I think I could maybe still do three bills, but Probably like maybe like one rep max crimson air. Thanks for coming by says will nephilim freed be debating here again I don't know. He's invited to but I don't think he's uh into debating anymore at least for a while He's taking time off or something Claire thanks for your like Claire said thumbs up. I liked thank you very much for that Claire seriously your support means more than you know and Dylan moats good to see you. Joe the toe says can you tell if I hit like or not james? Yes, I can. No, I can't crimson air Thanks for your question though. Yeah, it would be juicy and then pure rossy gold. Thanks for coming Can you tell a little bit tired? I I worked really really hard today on like a research thing and it was like It was intense Kiwi in springfield says james is a monster the subway tattoo gives him the power of That's funny. You're a character. You know that kiwi in springfield. Let me uh do something fun since you're here kiwi Because I appreciate your sense of humor. Oh, I just got a message no joke. I'm totally serious I just got a message from youtube support Says this is jen the support specialist you chatted with earlier as I promise I'll be sending you an email to make sure that your concern Is completely addressed. I've escalated the issue to the internal team and they're currently investigating the issue It might take some time before I can respond, but I'll follow up as soon as I have info Geez jen. Oh man. That's all right. What are you gonna do? But yeah, I want to say my dear friends. Let me load this up I'm gonna load this up Oh, it doesn't have an h in it Here we go This is amazing. Do you like fun? I like fun. So let's get it started I have to go to the bathroom. I said be right back Don't bullshit me My dear friends Nobody listens to more arnold soundboard pranks than me All day every day. Amazing joelotosis james ass native atheist if he's afraid of mg mb jb Devatably And dj does all good to see you dillon moats glad you were here Stupid or energy amazing Robert summers. Thanks for coming by. We are glad that you were with us. It's driving me crazy I just I'm like I feel terrible because someone sent in the super chat and then I it's just been I'm like pooped I didn't do a good job of putting it in the list right away Which I'm surprised because I like feel like I remember Copy and pasting it in here. Did I maybe Did I get it big bad mama? Let me see here Did I put it up in the top of my notes? Uh, nope, it's not there But yes, it is true. My dear friends We also have a patreon in case you didn't know for real. Did you know that? It is amazing So highly encourage you you can check that out if you are excited about division that we have here on our day debate In particular our goal is to provide a neutral platform so that everybody Has the chance to make their case on a level playing field Because youtube deserves a better class a debate channel and we're going to give it to them So we want to say thank you guys for all of your support You guys make this fun and bubble gum gun. Thanks for your super chat says shout out to pure aussie gold and james wolf And thanks for your support poker man. Appreciate it seriously. It means a lot man I'm especially when I'm tired today and I felt like I screwed up Counterintuitive. Thanks for coming by says. Hey james. How long do you think it'll be before you're able to hit? 315 pounds I it's I don't know. It's going to be a while But I got to get back into it like consistently hitting the heavy bench, which I haven't for a while But I I think it'd be pretty soon to be honest but Jeremy Nolan says james. Thank you for this channel. Thank you. Jeremy. Seriously. That means more than you know I love you man. Thank you very much. Mike for coming by always supportive Jungle jargon says can you do pull-ups not too many maybe like I don't know Like if I'm fresh and I'm like going for as many as like I possibly tend to failure like probably like uh Probably like Could I do 10? Yeah, it's not that great But I don't even know if I could do 10 But this one coming in from pure rossie gold. Thanks for coming by. I see you there as well as Restor optics good to see you It says because james is in master soy boy mode Amen to that Joe Schwartz says james. Do you have a policy on off topic questions? Uh, it's cool if they're on the topic. We'll usually humor them if they're not too off topic I don't blame the guests though because if I was a debater and there was a top something that I was kind of like I don't I don't think it's on topic I would probably be like You know, I really can't comment on it right now because I haven't read about that stuff recently So it's something that you know depending on how close to the topic is I might push for a response from or may not Bastard That was not for you, but california But yeah, I am I want to ask you a bunch of questions And I want to have them answered immediately Is that soy that soy guzzler stupid horror energy. Are you still in chat? Mike says this is my favorite channel. Thanks Mike. Seriously. That means a lot. I appreciate that, brother We're excited about where it's going. It's growing. It's getting bigger And pogerman said I should say dr. James is the best. That's kind of you not yet almost I just have to wrap up the dissertation And then my hope is to go full-time with modern day debate. Seriously. That'd be based and redpilled So I am excited though. I do love what I'm doing for the doctorate But the truth is I would be so pumped to have like youtube as a full time like to just run and try to see this Thing grow as as fast as possible. Joe Schwartz says james. How did you get interested in debates? I used to debate all the time and sometimes I would go on other channels and to be honest Sometimes I thought the moderators were taking sides And that's what made me want to create modern day debate because I was like, hey, we want something to be as fair as possible Like we want it to be the case where it's like, hey, that's a neutral channel and where people would be like, yep Like there's no like systematic bias there But yes, thank you guys for your support. I gotta go. It's getting kind of late here But want to say thank you guys for your support. I love you. Thanks for making this fun And counter-intuitive says get down. That's that's good. I like that and kiwi and springfield says james come to california So we can walk both walk around la until everyone we're doctors handing out soylent Well, you you bastards I don't know if i'm gonna do that I'll call you back. I'll let you know Are you crazy? This one from brandon burrow. Thanks for coming by. We are glad you were Here with us Says the rest of the world discussing geopolitical diversity and american hegemony mdd is like evolution cap or no That's right And we're just getting started Aliyusha says get to the choppa and lago stafania says great channel. Thank you lago appreciate that Screwy scudda gara. See there. I see there in the old live chat. We hope you're doing well As well as aliyusha and mr Kreenin thanks for coming by says good show. Thanks mdd. Thank you for your support. Seriously I love you guys. I hope you have a great rest of your night and i'm excited to see you tomorrow As we will have a debate tomorrow. We have a panel going it's going to be a good one and we look forward to seeing you Cookies So stick around you guys at 180 debate because this is just the beginning of our story We have big things coming up in the future. Thanks for all of your support If you haven't yet hit that subscribe button and we're excited about the future stick around We'll see you in it tomorrow night Who is your daddy and what does he do? Dinosaur's Just do it do it now Just do what I tell you Don't worry Who told you you can eat my cookies Game over and kiss your mother's behind Last level still