everybody. Today we're debating evolution on trial and we are starting right now. With the evolution side, Mark Reed, thanks so much for being with us. The floor is all yours. Thank you very much, James, and I'll just share my screen here. And it's great to be here. Thank you. My name's Mark Reed. Today I'm debating for evolution on trial. Just one second, I'll get organized here. I want to thank James and Modern Day Debate for inviting me to debate, Atheist Jr. for being my debate partner, and of course Sal and Eric for agreeing to debate and presenting arguments against the proposition. I want to make clear that I'm not an evolutionary biologist or a geneticist or I don't really have any qualifications in the field at all. But I would like to go through a couple of the reasons why I believe that theory of evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life. So the definition of evolution first off, all evolution is the change of heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Basically, there isn't really an argument that evolution doesn't happen at all. We all agree that living things, biological organisms change over time. The main contention seems to be universal common ancestry and where evolution stops if at all. It's important to note, however, that science says that the process of evolution is the same, whether it's within a species level or whether it's from one species to another. Now there's a mountain of evidence for evolution. It says there's so much evidence that I couldn't put it all into a presentation. There's fossil record, embryology, phylogenetics. The list is absolutely huge. So today I'll be focusing on just two that I think are the strongest, chromosome 2 fusion and ERVs or androgynous retroviruses. The fascinating thing about these two evidences is that they fit neatly into the theory of evolution that was already posited before we even found genetics. The outcomes were predicted and support what we already knew about evolution. In the interest of brevity, I'll keep things simple and just give an overview. I want to give AJ all the time that I can. So chromosome 2 fusion. The chromosomes are a long DNA, modged molecule containing the DNA species. We differ from other great apes as they have 23 pairs or 46 chromosomes. We have 48. It was put forward that if we shared a common ancestor, as the theory of evolution said, us and chimpanzees, the most genetically similar, sort of being 95% to 98% similar, we should see that humans lost a pair of chromosomes somewhere, and that we do actually see. So these are the chromosomes of, and I'll just point these out, these are human, chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan. Now pay particular focus on chromosome 2 where the human chromosome as opposed to the chimp has fused. These are actually labeled 2A and 2B in other great apes. I want to show the similarity between the 2 and how striking the similarity is, and how genetically similar we actually are, except for that join at chromosome 2. Chromosomes that have a, where they join to one another, when two chromosomes join to one another, they have a centromere in the center here, and they have a telomere at either end that bounds them. Now what we should expect to see if two chromosomes fused was instead of having a telomere at either end, it should have a telomere at either end and two telomeres in the center. It should also have a second centromere where that second chromosome fused on, and that's exactly what we found. We found that we have a telomere in chromosome 2 at either end, fragments of telomeres in the center, and a second fragmented centromere in the lower half of chromosome 2. This is exactly what we'd see if they were fused, and not what we would expect to see if they were actually separate in others, and we only had one chromosome 2 from the very start. The second evidence is ERVs, I think this is the strongest evidence. Retroviruses are viruses that infect a host and then write themselves into the host DNA, becoming part of that host's DNA. If this happens in the germline, like a sperm or an egg, the origin point of an organism, the virus's DNA gets replicated into the entire genetic structure of the organism. That germline separates, multiplies, and becomes the entire organism, and then that virus is passed vertically down to its descendants, and that's called endogenization of the virus. These viral DNA elements have a particular structure. They have a long terminal repeat on either end, followed by a gag, pole, and ENV, and they're the structure of virus. Now only retroviruses have this structure, and those LTRs, long terminal repeats, they only arise when a virus, a retrovirus, makes a cut in the DNA of a host, and they're very, very unique. That's how we can tell that ERVs have inserted themselves into DNA. So we share 205 of the same ERVs with chimpanzees. The DNA sequence is exactly the same spot, and it's exactly the same virus. Apart from the unlikelihood this would happen between humans and apes, basically it means that out of 10 million possible locations of insertion, the same virus has inserted in the same place. That is astronomically unlikely that happened in two separate cases. The alternative is that it happened in a common ancestor, and that was passed through the lineage down to descendants, and it's simply we split off, but both of us kept that fragment of the retrovirus in our DNA. And the interesting thing about this is that the further you go away in the tree of life, the less of these viruses are shared between organisms. So what this tells us, the further back these organisms shared a common ancestor and then split off, that they see less and less of these ERVs shared between them. Now that's exactly what we would expect to see if organisms shared a common ancestor. It's not what we would expect to see from separate created lineages that are not related. And thank you very much. Those are my two strongest evidences that I want to present, but we can certainly discuss whatever they, you know, whatever my opponents want. Thank you. You got to get over to Atheist Jr. for his opening as well. And that to you, James. James, you're on mute. Thank you very much for that. Want to remind you folks, our guests are linked in the description. We're going to take it over to Atheist Jr. for his opening statement as well. Thanks so much for being with you. Atheist, or thank you very much for being with us, Atheist Jr. Let me just forgive me folks, just two seconds. Where is this? Mark, if you're able, for some reason, it usually gives me the option to stop your screen share, but I can't, there it is. Okay, I got it. And with that, we're going to get over to Atheist Jr. Thanks so much for being with us. Atheist Jr., the floor is all yours. Okay. So I, is my screen share up too? Yep. All right. That was a fantastic presentation by my partner Mark. So thank you so much for, for doing that intro. And thank you to James for having me on again. So I'm just going to add some additional pieces of evidence to what Mark said, because I think he gave a great definition of evolution and sort of laid out the foundation of what we're talking about here. So I just wanted to add some additional pieces of evidence that, that I think are pretty interesting. Now, creationists say a lot that evolution can't be true because we weren't there in the distant past to observe it. We don't have a time machine to go back and see these things. And even if we did, they happen on such a long time span that we wouldn't be able to see changes on a macro scale. But the thing is, is that we actually do see evolution happening today. So in the laboratory, scientists studied a form of unicellular algae that's called clamidomonas.   So the reason this is significant is because once they had this multicellular matrix, this extracellular matrix that made them much bigger, this filter feeding predator was no longer able to eat them because they were too big. So this is a true multicellular organism that used to be single-celled. And this experiment happened over 50 weeks. Now that's evolution that we've been able to observe. Now, as a counterpoint, my opponents might say that, well, it's still an algae, but normally this is a single-celled algae that only brings forth other single-celled algae. So this should be a new kind of algae, right? A multicellular kind with new genetic information. It got new traits like an extracellular matrix. So this is also not just a colony because in a colony, each cell could break off and live on its own. But in this organism, if a cell breaks off, it'll die. And again, this is a beneficial change, a beneficial mutation because it's now too big for the predator to eat. And what would constitute a multicellular organism? And what would constitute a macro-evolutionary change? So creationists either want these huge steps or you want a thousand transitions between each steps. And you're basically positing a God of the gaps argument because when it comes to transitionary forms, usually when we fill in one gap, they'll just say, well, now there's another gap that you have to fill in. So we have a transition from a one-cell to a two-celled organism. I think that should count as evolution right there. The next step would be four. And since both cells can replicate, you double the amount of cells during each generation, assuming there are no cell deaths. And these early colonies existed and lives as smaller colonies and larger colonies. And I would like to know, is this a different kind of algae? Because creationists can't seem to differentiate between a special creation event and something simply being a new kind. Now, either all these algae cells with mostly the same DNA and the same anatomy are not the same kind. And we witnessed evolution or these are all the same kind. And we witnessed diversity to the point where the same kind is both multicellular and unicellular. To me, that doesn't really make sense. So these are six different stages of the Clamidomonas algae. Now, I think a multicellular organism should be distinct from a unicellular one. And even if I don't use the term kind personally, and scientists don't either, I think it would qualify as a different one. But again, creationists can't distinguish between something being a unique creation made at the beginning of creation and a new kind coming to be. And here we can see a fish that basically is walking. And creationists, they might want to limit evolution to say, well, we only see evidence of microevolution, but we can still get pretty far with just microevolution with just small changes, the flexibility of existing parts to perform new functions through microevolution. So using structures that you already have in new and creative ways can help you adapt to your environment and beat the competition for resources and mating rights. So evolution is not just about massive visible changes. To me, I think it's just about being good enough and using the things that you have to live long enough to reproduce. Now, here we have another example of small changes. But I've heard creationist arguments about, well, how could you have a bird of all because you could never have half a wing? Well, flying squirrels, while they have no descendants with better wings are proof that the transitional half wing is completely functional and possible if under what should be considered creationism, this should be considered a creation because we know that these animals exist. So if it's not evolution, then it seems to me that the creationist argument is not a scientific one. It seems like it's more of a semantic one. So what happens if flying squirrels get better at flying? Are flying squirrels a new kind of animal? Or is it a squirrel bat or just a squirrel that can fly? So we already know that greater morphological distances are already admitted by creationists. Would this not count as microevolution? Totally new functions that evolve from preexisting traits in a squirrel lineage or just a microevolutionary change? So I'll end my presentation there. And thanks again, Mark and James for having me on. Thank you very much for that opening. And we're going to kick it over to the, you could say, skeptics of evolution side. Thanks so much for being with us, Sal. And thanks so much for being with us. Eric, the floor is all your Sal right now. Here's my screen up. Yep. All right. In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to the pseudoscience of phrenology than to physics. That wasn't a creationist saying that. That was Jerry Cohen, a coin who wrote why evolution is true. Let's accept for the sake of argument, there is universal common ancestry. At least that's the primary viewpoint. There's some deviations from that. At least the organismal level. Will there, where this falls apart? Oh, by the way, that's a squirrel munching on its cousin. Where this falls apart is at the parts that make up life. There's no universal common ancestor for the protein parts that make up life. And I will try to demonstrate that this is problematic for evolution. This is the correct viewpoint, orchard. And if that seems out in left field, I have video evidence of Dr. Dan Cardinale agreeing with me. He's an evolutionary biologist at Rutgers. And there are other papers to that effect. So I'm going to attack the problem of evolution at the protein level. So I'd say geometry is priority. Geometry is priority. So if we kind of like had a universal common ancestral design for a car, it seems reasonable through slight successive modifications. It can diversify to all these other cars. It starts with the car that Carl Benz of Mercedes Benz fame made in 1886. And you could see all the diversification of cars from there. That seems reasonable. That looks like a universal tree of life, at least on the conceptual level. The problem is this tree does not work if we were to take the parts of the car by way of analogy, the protein parts. But if you take the parts of the car, you can't name a part from which all the parts descended, like say a gas tank, a tire, a piston, a battery, a spark plug, and a radiator. And that will actually even play out at the protein level. So let's look at this tetrameric potassium ion channel. And you could see the geometry. That's another rendering of it, a Richardson ribbon diagram. And you could see there's like what I call the man made shape there on the left and the God made on the right. There's a problem of all or nothing functionality. If we add a radiator, all the basic features have to be there for it to work. That is problematic for the evolution of major protein families. It's similar to Michael Beehe's irreducible complexity, but some nuances there. I'm going to skip some slides here. Let me see how much time I have. Okay, so we could look at the topoisomerase protein. For example, that's one I published on with good scientists like Joe DeWise. We have published both in creationist literature and also in he published in Nature. He's both a creationist and a secular scientist of great degree. We don't have time to show this video, plus we may have technical problems to show the topoisomerase. Maybe in the discussion we'll show this. Unless we have all the parts here, it just doesn't evolve. So we're going to have all these independent protein families to make something like this. At some point, even if we accept universal common ancestry at the organismal level, we have to invoke miracles at the protein level, at least the major protein family level. Then at that point, it's not really very distinguishable from special creation. The topoisomerase cuts DNA. It looks like a pair of scissors, but it's even more interesting than that. It can cut DNA to untangle it, and then it untangles it after cutting it, and then it has to reconnect it together. If it cuts but doesn't reconnect, this is a disaster. Life is over. There's no further evolution. Furthermore, even within the topoisomerase family, we can't seem to find universal common ancestry. That's a diagram from the paper I'm happy to share. We can examine it. Let me just blast through another part here. Geometry is priority. Even with a bolt and a nut, you have to have very tight, precise fits to random variations in the geometry or fatal to the system. That is also true at the protein level, as can be evidenced by this diagram from Bruce Albert's Cellular Biology. Everything has to fit. That's why little changes to geometry are disastrous, and that's why most random mutations are deleterious and compromising a function. If people want to see a little bit more of this, we could talk about it later or even in an aftershow. This is a spelling of the collagen protein. There's a non-random pattern here. This is the amino acids, and this is a zinc finger. We can show also a non-random pattern here. The significance of that is it is brutally evident. If you take a collagen and a zinc finger or any other major protein family, there is no universal common ancestor consistent with what Dr. Dan said. If we invoke universal common ancestry at the organismal level, we're going to have to invoke miracles to make the proteins. At that point, it's indistinguishable from special creation. The creationist, like myself, would argue maybe it's just better to invoke the dump universal common ancestry all together, because if we're going to invoke special creation for the protein families, we can just as well invoke it for everything else. Thank you. Eric? Well, that's right. I want to remind you, folks, our guests are linked in the description. Got you. Loud and clear now, Eric. Ready for you. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. That was a great opening, and I want to thank my two atheist friends here for your opening. And if you don't mind, I know this might be a little bit unusual, but would it be okay if I just asked a yes or no question just to clarify your position on something? And then I can carry it on real quick. I was just wondering, and this is for both of you. Are you of the ilk that say evolution is a fact, or would you agree with me that evolution is not a fact? And do you believe every fossil is transitional, or would you agree with me that not every fossil is transitional? I would say that it seems based on current evidence that, yeah, evolution is factual, and that you could say that every fossil is transitional, but I think that that requires a little bit extra explanation, you know, other than just stating it outright. I would say that evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is the model describing the process in which evolution works. And I would have to agree with AHA saying that every fossil is transitional. It kind of, there's a lot of confusion about what transitional means, but I would, I would tentatively sort of say that could be applied to fossils, yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you guys for your answers. Now, here's what I would like to bring out. First of all, since we're speaking about evolution, just the fact that so many people believe in evolution, this does not mean that evolution is a fact. Okay. I wouldn't even consider evolution a science at this point because science has rules. There are pseudo-sciences on the other hand where you don't apply these rules. And that, my friend, is exactly where evolution fits. Now, what you bring up, for instance, I believe every fossil is transitional. Okay. That's fine. You're allowed to hold that hypothesis, but I think that you're forgetting scientific method. First of all, you make an observation and you're going to find out, what people are going to find out tonight is what evolution is built on is so flimsy. It's amazing that it's even still afloat. There's nothing to it. It's all imagination. It is pure imagination. For instance, people look at your planes, and that's what these are. These are empty planes of transitional fossils. Transitional fossils, transitional fossils everywhere. But how do you figure these are transitional fossils? Matt, Mark, I saw one of your debates with a fellow on dinosaurs, and you told him in three different specific spots, what you're doing is you're taking something out of the ground, you're taking a look at it, and you're making plane. You're making plane after plane after plane. You're stacking planes on top of each other, and when one plane gets proven wrong, you just make another plane. Well, that's what you're doing with transitional fossils. You did these, evolution stands on two things. One, transitional fossils. This is your biggest evidence for it, and two is DNA. This is your biggest evidence for it. So now we have to separate what is your observation, what is your hypothesis, and what have you done to test your hypothesis or to falsify it? Well, I submit nothing. First of all, let's take transitional fossils, for instance. Transitional fossils, archaeopteryx is a good example. You have the archaeopteryx, the archaeopteryx is said to be a transitional form in between a theropod dinosaur and a modern bird, somewhere in there, that's where you fit archaeopteryx. So no, you have your observation that this is based on what is your observation? Well, the archaeopteryx has similarities of a theropod dinosaur, and it has similarities with the bird. So we can assume, or hypothesize, that it is in fact related. It is a transitional form between the two. Now, falsify that, baby. There's no way to falsify that. It's a plane. It's an un-falsifiable plane. And if it's un-falsifiable, it's not even science, it's as good as science fiction. Dutch Colin Patterson was the lead alienatologist, the head billionatologist for the British Museum of Natural History, and he wrote books on evolution, toured for evolution. And he, when asked why he didn't include pictures of transitional fossils, he said, fossils can tell us many things, but they cannot tell us whether or not they were ancestor to or from anything else. They can't tell us that. You don't have to know. I'm going to use another example here. About 30 seconds left. Okay. So basically, let me just wrap it up by saying this. You don't have any proof, plus whoever, none, zero, zilch. The onus is on you to provide said proof that even one transitional fossil exists. Show me the tests. Show me the DNA where it was the DNA of this transitional fossil was tested against its child and its parent ancestry, relatives, and you prove your point, but you'll never prove your point. Because out of all these millions of transitional fossils, you don't have so much as points. And time. With that, we're going to jump into open conversation. But first, I want to say folks, in case this is your first time here at modern day 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 glad to have you here. And if you haven't yet, hit that subscribe button. We have many more juicy debates to come. For example, at the bottom right of your screen, Mark McQueen and King Crocoduck, legendary debater in the creation evolution world on YouTube. They will be colliding later this month, or I should say September. It's going to be a juicy one. You don't want to miss it. Hit that subscribe button. And with that, gentlemen, thanks so much. The floor is all yours. Are you sure it was Mark McQueen? I thought it was David McQueen. David, thanks so much. It's been a long way. David McQueen. No mark involved at all. But thank you so much for your introduction, Sal and Eric. And thank you so much, atheist junior. That was a wonderful presentation. I do appreciate it. First, I'd like to get into the sales start as sort of the evolution at protein level. Because as far as I understood it, we shouldn't expect to see evolution at a sort of protein level. The proteins evolve de novo as in new proteins evolve over time. So why would we, I guess what I'm saying is why would we expect to see the same proteins at the very start, the primitive life forms like prokaryotes and things, if they evolve over time? I don't understand that, Sal. Sal, I think you're muted, mate. I think you've got the mute on. Sorry about that, Ken. I didn't have a chance to be talking. We still can't hear you. I think that it might be that your other device is picking up on your mic, Sal. I'm not sure if that's it, but we know that I can't. It's very difficult to hear you. Can you hear me now? Yeah, that's perfect. Yeah, crystal clear. It might be that my microphone. So thank you all for bearing with me and Mark and Eric, James and AJ. Greetings, I didn't have a chance in my opening to extend my greetings. Thank you very much for being a part of this discussion. I'm going to try to understand your question, Mark. And if I misstated, please correct me. No problem. The fundamental problem is some of these major protein families, they just won't exist. It makes no sense for them to exist unless they are all there at once. And I gave the example of the two wise summaries. So yes, the question is really, in evolution on trial, it's not just common descent. That's not, you know, there are lots of people that accept common descent like Michael Beehe, but think they're problematic things. And that's what I'm trying to attack. But the thing is like something like topoisomerase, which looks like it would have to come fully formed for it to work. Or at least even if you co-op preexisting parts, the amount of miracles to put together preexisting parts to make a functioning topoisomerase seems astronomically remote to me, even at an intuitional level. And then as I've worked through some of the math, for like say the transition from prokaryote to eukaryote, and they have to do things, they have to reformat things and insert things like nuclear localization signals. Once we get into the cellular and molecular details, rather than just looking at shapes and fossils and, you know, speculating transitionals, when we get down to the actual molecular level, which with Michael Beehe did, it starts to become like, well, you know, at some point it looks indistinguishable from miracles. And that's where the discussion, I think, really needs to go. A lot of creationists focus on arguing the fossil record. I don't do that. My research has been at the cellular and molecular level. And so I ended up throwing a lot of terms and concepts that people usually don't hear in this discussion, but that's what I research. So my main claim is you look at the part, it's again kind of like looking at the parts of a car. So you look at the first car created by Carl Benz, and then you look at modern cars that have all these new parts and components. And some of these components are very, very, very sophisticated, like, say, fuel injection versus the carburetion. We lost you again, Sal. Volume wise.  I don't know if you're able to hear me. I can hear you. It's like you're under water. Like literally under, it's that, but it's really that. Can I switch to... That's better. That's better. That's better. I don't know what it is that you can hear me. I just, there seems to be an optimal position if I just kind of scream right into the screen of the smartphone. Sorry about that. Perfect right now. Okay, I'm going to try to scream away. Scream away. Scream away. So that's what I find problematic. At some point, these transitions, like, say, from a random set of DNA, coding a brand new polypeptide, when we actually examine it in detail, especially for what we call multi-meric proteins, that's astronomically improbable. And then also, I'm sorry. We're losing you for a second. That's not on me. Well, maybe I'll let someone else talk. I'll have an aftershow on my channel. And probably better there. Well, it sounds like your main concern is irreducible complexity here, Sal. That seems to be what it boils down to. I think the main concern is that there's just no proof of evolution whatsoever. But you point to DNA similarities, for instance. Okay. That's a tad bit. Now, that's DNA similarities compared to what portion of our DNA. Is that talking about the entire genome, or are we talking mainly about the coding part of the DNA? Oh, you compare the nucleotide sequences, and we look for the similarities in them. Right. So you're talking about the coding DNA. That's where you see your similarities, correct? Not specifically. Just in the sequence in general. Of course it is. That's exactly where you see your similarities. It's in the coding section.  This says one thing, 1% of our DNA is coding DNA. So when you're talking about chimp and human DNA is 99% similar. I want to give you a bit more time. Forgive me, pardon my interruption. But just because we haven't heard from Atheist Jr. or Mark so far in the open discussion, I just want to maybe speed it along for both you, Sal and Eric. Okay, that's fine. I'll just wrap that up by saying that you have 1% of the DNA that is 99% the same, 99% similar. But all these other claims of DNA proving this and that, that's just another claim. It's just another hypothesis based on your observation. And it's an untested, unclassifiable claim. You can't... It's not just the coding section. It's the entire genome. It's not just the coding section. I'm really sorry, but that's not how we compare DNA. And the thing is that we're using the same kind of technology to tell who's related, whether you're related to your father or mother or cousin or something like that. And nobody seems to have a problem using it like that. It's only when it shows the similarity and the nested hierarchy that when we go out further and further and further, the similarities get less and less and less. And what I would like you to do is then address the whole problem of ERVs for the creationists of why we have these endogenous retroviruses between us and chimpanzees. That is a 10 million to one for one of them. And we have that 205 of them there, making the likelihood of individual infection to be so close to zero, it's almost impossible. Can you talk on that? Explain that at all? Yeah. Yeah. Now, let's examine this. What is your observation? That we see ERVs, which insert themselves into a random point in the genome, inserted in exactly the same spot with exactly the same virus 205 times in both us and chimpanzees. Okay. Now, what do you hypothesize based on your observation? Well, we can hypothesize before it was found that if we are indeed related, we should see these ERV markers in us and close relations to us the further away the relations get to us, the less of those we should see. So in other words, you see, you note a similarity and you hypothesize a relationship because of that similarity. Is that true of us? Well, we hypothesize what we should find when analyzing the DNA of not only us and chimpanzees, but other animals like the great apes and other mammals and reptiles, etc. What we should find. And you don't hypothesize that that similarity means anything? Well, I think the hypothesis is that it's more likely if we have two possible outcomes, it's more likely that this is a result of evolution and not just a really, really specific coincidence. Bingo. So that is your hypothesis based on that observation. Now, I want to see the falsifiability. Well, it's not my hypothesis because I'm not a scientist. Okay. So Eric, Eric, the falsifiability is that if we look in a very distant animal and find more ERVs than, you know, us and chimpanzees, for instance, we know that's, well, no, don't shake your head. We know that to be false because we've made that testable prediction. And this is, I think this is what you're not understanding about testable predictions. No, no, no, no. All right, let me talk, mate. Let me talk. This is what you don't understand about testable predictions because you brought up archaeopteryx. And the fact that we found it and looked at it, isn't the big deal about archaeopteryx. And the other one I want to bring up is tectolic, the walking fish with lungs that we found. The important part about them is we predicted them beforehand. Darwin predicted a bird with teeth, and that's exactly what archaeopteryx is. We predicted to find a fish that could walk on land and have formation of lungs from its swim bladder. And that's exactly what we found. That is the testable false of five. Wait, wait, did you just have these things in a vacuum? Or are you saying that they are all related and go back to a last unified common ancestor? We were saying that Darwin himself predicted that a proto bird with unfused wing fingers would be found. And then two years later, they found archaeopteryx. So you misunderstand the question. The question I'm asking is this. Now I understand that. Are you hypothesizing all of this in a vacuum? In other words, or do they have something to do with one another? Are you saying that all of these things are related because of these observations? Eric, no hypothesis is in a vacuum. That's the point of hypotheses. You hypothesize something. In this case, Darwin says if evolution is true, we should find a bird with unfused fingers and a teeth. And then that's what we found. Okay, so let's say you find something like that. Does that mean just because you found that skeleton that is automatically related to the theropod dinosaur and the modern bird? What do you mean related? Well, not automatically, but it's very strong evidence. So in other words, it doesn't mean anything. You still have to test that thing. How do you get from very strong evidence to doesn't mean anything? That's sort of saying, well, if you find a guy with a knife and he's standing over a dead body with the knife in hand and blood dripping off of it, it's very strong evidence, but it doesn't mean anything. Very, very strong evidence for what that they're related. Yeah. Yeah, but you're not proving they're related. There's only one way you can prove whether or not they are related. And that is to test the DNA of the common ancestor to test the DNA of the archaeopteryx and we have the DNA of the modern bird. But that's the only way you're going to be able to falsify that hypothesis. Do you think that archaeopteryx has to be a direct ancestor to a modern bird for it to count as evidence? Did I say that at all? I said you implied it. No, I said that you have to follow the scientific procedure, scientific methodology. And just because you're an atheist who believes in evolution and most scientists believe in evolution or at least say they do because of that skin in the game, that doesn't prove anything. They're claims, they're empty claims. You're excusing yourself from falsifiability. You're just totally neglecting the point they should not even follow in scientific methodology. Well, that's not true. I mean, I brought up a couple of examples that could be falsified, especially if you don't mind, especially the chromosome 2 fusion, where if those chromosomes weren't fused and we didn't find a second centromere and the telomeres in the center, as I explained, that would have falsified evolution because it would have said, hey, our chromosomes didn't fuse at number 2, like the chimpanzee still has 2a and 2b. So you're basically making these statements that evolution is unfalsifiable. When that just isn't true, there's a lot of ways to falsify evolution and a lot of things that we expect to falsify it that didn't happen. And so that's why we think it is a, well, it's a real theory and it's a real scientific, has scientific basis. So you're just going to make more claims. It's not an empty claim if you predict to find a certain fossil and then you find it. That's not an empty claim. That's no proof that you found what you were looking for either. So I'm not sure what you mean by proof because proof doesn't work with proofs usually. That's a math. Now this, I love when atheists use this. You see, because here's the difference. Your science doesn't prove anything. Why doesn't your science prove anything? Because it's not science. It's pseudoscience that is unfalsifiable. Science proves things every single day. Medical science has proven they can control the heart rate with medication. I can take carbide and mix it with water and prove to you through science that it is possible to create a settling in such a way. I can take, we can take a signal. Science has proven that we can send signals through the atmosphere. Science has proven that we can launch rockets from the earth. Science has proven that we can put satellites into space. Science is a proof. Now proofs are something that's a mathematical concept. In science, you find the best current, most parsimonious explanation for things and the best model. Because we don't decide that things are true and that we're always going to think that this is true in science, it's the best current explanation. So when we send signals, we find the best method for sending them because they don't always work. We have things that can block signals and we make a model of how those signals are working. We don't just say, hey, it is proof. That's not how these things work. Just to ensure that cell isn't, just I think cell. So science has a proof that we can mass communicate. Cell, we can't hear you yet. I can see your lips moving, but we haven't been able to hear you. So is it your position that's- No, not you. I just want to give Sal a- Eric doesn't let a guy. I just want to, just in case Sal, I appreciate your passion, though, Eric. I just want to be sure that in case Sal had anything, we could hear him because I saw his lips moving. Do you have anything, Sal? Yeah. So if there's any sound, does it get muffled if someone else's microphone is not muted? So far, I haven't noticed that pattern yet because nobody- Yeah, you're talking fine. I think if it's your phone, you might just be covering the mic with your finger. That could be it. Oh, that could be it. It does have a muffled sound to it. I don't know where the mic is. Now I can go to the other mic on my other computer. It's loud and clear. If you keep going like this, I think we'll be good. Okay, if I'm talking in this direction. Okay, as far as the ERVs, if we postulate that they were independently positioned there, I have good evidence that they would be because I have, if you'll Google the Sternberg-Collins Paradox, you'll see I address this, we have independent transposons that don't have common ancestry that are put in the same position. So this is very problematic for evolution. We can just extrapolate that to the ERVs. Also, the ERVs are finding out like all of the allotted non-coding DNA is very important that when it transcribes, it's very important for creating a phase, these membraneless organelles. So it is not just random, it has purpose. The ERVs also are tied and connected to they are bound by zinc finger proteins that hook to the CAP1 complex. This is way more complicated than evolutionary biologists have been saying, and it's only coming out in the last few years, and they got that wrong. So that's an example of, the ERV thing is way more complicated than we're making it out to be, and it would also require what we would call co-evolution, where you'd have to modify the zinc finger protein simultaneously with the ERV to make it workable. So just the fact that it's in the same position doesn't mean it evolved, it could also be specially created. And so the creationist would say it is common design. You can still assume common ancestry if you want, but I pointed out the problems with that with the independent protein lineages. So I'm sorry, but it sounded like there that you're basically saying that you're sort of accounting for these ERVs through miracle, that they were created to look like they were from common descent. I respect that point, Mark, and that's a good point. But this is like saying, when you put a pencil in water and it looks bent, therefore God's being deceptive, or that when we look at the sky and it looks like the world is geocentric, it looks like God's deceiving us. The problem is when you have other data points that tell the idea that theory is false, then you reject it. So I would say that just like geocentrism, evolution has a lot of testable predictions that actually succeed. Just like geocentrism would predict that the sun rises and sets every day, it doesn't make the theory correct. You have to look at the anomalies. And I pointed out one of the anomalies in the transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes in the nuclear localization signals. You'd have to reformat all the proteins to be able to do this. This would be indistinguishable from a miracle. So granted, you've probably not heard these arguments a lot because creationists don't talk about them, and that's why I'm glad I could be here. The problem there is that a lot of the evolutionary biologists and geneticists don't agree with you, like Francis Collins, who ran the human genome project, basically says evolution happened. He doesn't like it, but he has to admit it. And he's a very devout Christian. And the problem is that you're sort of expecting these structures to sort of evolve into their optimal function instantly, whereas that isn't really the case. I mean, I read about a lactase metabolism promoter lack operon in E. coli. And there's a hundred base sequence you can replace with just random strands of DNA. It still works. Sometimes it doesn't work as well. Sometimes it works just as well with these random elements in it. So the whole idea seems to boil down to two things from what I'm hearing. One's a irreducible complexity and one's sort of just an appeal to impregnality that you don't think that these things could have evolved over time. I think we should discuss the irreducible complexity because, as you mentioned, Bayh, he was the main promoter of that. And we saw during the Kitsmela versus Dover, his bacterial flagellum, where it was demonstrated that that flagellum, which he said was irreducibly complex, actually, it worked as a pump in other bacteria. So we know that these structures can start out as another thing and proteins can have different functions. And then as they evolve, change functionality. Do you know what the second chromosome is used for? Can we say on this topic I wanted to add something to the Bayh thing? Sure. Sorry. So yeah, like he said, so we know in the Kitsmela versus Dover trial, Michael Bayh, he was testifying and he was cross-examined. And he conceded that there was no peer-reviewed papers that supported his claims about complex molecular systems like the bacterial flagellum, but also the blood clotting cascade and the immune system that they were intelligently designed. And also that there were no peer-reviewed articles supporting his arguments that molecular structures were irreducibly complex. So he admitted this on stand. I didn't use the word irreducible complexity for a reason because there are some weaknesses to it. The other thing is all those claims of co-option of other parts is still very problematic because it's just like taking, you know, one set of parts and assembling it to be another function. It's not as trivial as they're making it out. That would be a necessary but not sufficient condition. It's not argument by incredulity. It's argument, it's proved by contradiction or argument by contradiction. If I said I don't believe a tornado can go through a junkyard and assemble a 747, that sounds like argument from incredulity, but actually the better way to say it is we would not expect a tornado passing through a junkyard to create a 747. So random mutation and also natural selection should not be expected to make these complex structures. We can prove that experimentally. And most natural selection or shall we say a differential reproductive abundance results in loss and compromise function. And as far as, yes, you can mutate some parts but you can't mutate all of them. There are critical parts like in the topoisomrace protein and zinc finger proteins and collagen, et cetera, et cetera. I could point to so many examples. There are, as I said, geometry is priority. Geometry is priority. And there's some things going to fail. If you don't have the minimal functionality, even making a multi-meric protein where all the parts have to connect, because a lot of these complexes, like say a homohexameric helicase has six parts that have to be there all at once. We need all the connecting parts, just like you would say the parts of a car. It's far more complex than that. To assume that it can assemble in gradual pieces just doesn't work. It's not argument from incredulity. We have good evidence that it's not going to work in gradual steps. You may take some examples where something slowly optimized with little changes, but you can't generalize that to everything. This is like going to a casino and saying, I won once and then I can say, every time I go, I'm going to win. It's just not going to work. So what happens in evolutionary biology, they'll cherry pick some examples and pretend that that can be extrapolated to things like the things I was describing. No, we're not using the gambler's fallacy in saying because we've won once. What we're saying is you saying that you would not expect complex structures to be formed over these processes, but unfortunately, most evolutionary biologists and geneticists just do not agree with you their cell. And what we're saying is this argument has been brought up before by Bayhee and demonstrated that complex structures can form over these processes. So what we're saying is that you just starting out with the clear distinction that this cannot happen, any instance of it happening shows you wrong. What structures? I'm sorry. No, I did not see all complex structures specifically pointing out the structures such as the nuclear localization signal that has to be reformatted going from the prokaryotic to eukaryotic. You don't see that transition happening and agreement observations agree with predictions. And so I didn't say all complex structures. I specifically pointed out I can go through a laundry list of which ones that you can try to falsify. So I don't make the claim that other creationists do that you can't form all complex structures. I'm saying specific ones and those specific ones falsify evolutionary theory. Also, yes, most evolutionary biologists don't agree with me, but in science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom far closer to the pseudoscience of phrenology than the physics. There's a reason the major they're the reason that the major research teams that are trying to understand cellular biology, molecular biology, they have engineers, scientists, computational biologists, the last people that they need on their research team are evolutionary biologists because they're disrespected. They don't make any contributions to the advancement of knowledge. Yeah, I don't think that's true, but Mark, do you know who Craig Venture is? No, you don't know who Craig Venture is. Craig Venture is probably the world's foremost geneticist. Craig Venture was putting together the human genome before teams of government and corporate scientists could. Craig Venture is the only man in the entire world who has designed DNA on his computer, extracted the DNA from an E. coli bacteria cell and then injected that bacteria cell with the DNA that he created, and it began to reproduce. He's the only man in the world to have ever done this. And because of this, one school followed suit and tried to edit the genes of another E. coli bacteria cell. But he says, Craig Venture says, and I've got the link right here for anybody who wants to see it, that the tree of life of common descent is an artifact of old science that hasn't held up, period. Yeah, so the problem with the tree of life and what we're currently doing is we're trying... I'm not done. Okay, well, I mean... So I'm saying that to lead up to this. You're talking about similarities of DNA. For instance, the second chromosome, similarities that prove, according to the evolutionists, that we have a common ancestor with the gene. Okay. Now, first of all, all we have is the similarity, and I could pull this up too, where it does such as... I don't know if anybody can see this, but this is a paper that it was put out. Let me see. This is peer reviewed. Junk DNA defines differences between humans and chimps from 2011. That's how old the science is, dude. Is that a good thing? Pretty old safer, but sure. Right. That's how far behind evolutionists are. No, that's the paper from like 10, 15... I can't count. 11 years ago. You can't twist your source being really old is a good thing. I'm sorry. That's not a good thing. Plus, it's not like we stopped in 2011, where we're still putting out papers and stuff. Well, I don't blame you for wanting to hide from this point. The point is, this paper right here hasn't been disproven or corrected by anybody. You can't correct this paper. And this paper states that the genetic differences lie in the uncoated DNA, which is 98% of the DNA. There's only 1% of the DNA that's coding DNA, and that's where the similarities lie between humans and chimps. This paper shows us specifically that we differ, vastly differ in the uncoated part, which is the largest part of the DNA, the junk DNA, as it's called. This paper that we can't see. So that's okay. I mean, if you give me the name of it, I can certainly look it up and have a look at it. But I mean, these are the same tests that we used to trace ancestry, whether you came from Europe or came from... Regardless of how it's done, everybody accepts them as a way to trace ancestry. So I don't know what you're getting at here. And I'd like to address cells whole... Hang on a second. I'd like to address... Come on, Eric. Come on, mate. I want to get Mark a chance. I promise we'll come back to you, Eric. Yeah, come on, Eric. So it sounds like you keep comparing biological mechanisms to cars and engineering. And I think that's a big mistake. I think that biological organisms function in a very dissimilar way to engineered parts from humans. And I really dislike the whole car analogy because cars don't reproduce. They don't do cell multiplication. They don't act like biological mechanisms. They just don't. I'm not sure where this line of reasoning is going with you, Eric. I'm not 100% sure. So you've got a paper that says... Here's where it is in a nutshell. First of all, true to what I said in the very beginning, you can name a few observances, a few things you observe. You can name a couple of hypotheses based on these observations. But you can't prove a thing you're saying. You have not one single test to prove a common ancestor out there. What about the common ancestor between dogs and wolves? No, no, the DNA test is the proof. No, no, no. That's your hypothesis. You don't even understand the difference between your observation, your hypothesis and a test. Okay, what is your observation? Well, I mean, it would be that creatures appear to be related due to physiological and differences. Okay, yeah, like morphological similarities. That was our first... So like I said in the very beginning, you look at morphological similarities and you look at the similarities in DNA and you automatically hypothesize that we all have common ancestors. What do you think a hypothesis is? That's what your hypothesis is. That's what you are. Yeah, can you give us a definition of hypothesis? If you want, no, play that game if you like. No, okay. If you want to hold to that hypothesis, that's fine. Hold to it, feel free.  Because you have a hypothesis that you cannot test. You cannot test, for instance, whether or not I have a common ancestor with the channel because you can't point to that common ancestor. You don't have the DNA of the common ancestor to test to see if it is in fact a common ancestor or it's just a claim. What about your cousin? Could we test that to see if you're related to your cousin? We're the same species. But could we test it? Why does that matter? We're the same species. Why does that matter? DNA is the same structure, it's the same proteins through all of same base pairs. Why does it matter? That doesn't mean it's evolution, dude. That could become a creator. How do you know you're the same species? How do I know? Yeah, define species. Well, what is the biological definition of species? So usually it's... Sorry, AJ, go ahead. No, no, that's fine. You go. Well, usually it's defined as a population that can interbreed with each other, and they tend to have morphological similarities, but not always. Well, species is sort of... It's when a mutation sort of vector is removed from populations that are removed from one another. So there is a differing genetic vector between two different populations is a species. So you guys don't know how to put this simply as... Well, it's not a simple thing. A species, it has been simple for over 300 years. A species is a group of common organisms that are capable of interbreeding and producing for the offspring, period. It has nothing to do with DNA. It has nothing to do with genetics. That is the entire definition of the word species when you're talking about biological species.  Well, let me put it to you this way. I am a homo sapiens, according to our current classifications. Now, what is Neanderthal? How is Neanderthal defined, classified, but then what are they in reality? Is that a different species? You tell me. I mean, we answered your question, you could answer ours. It's okay. Well, if you don't know the answer, I will tell you. Neanderthal is classified as homo neanderthalus. Homo sapiens are classified as homo sapiens, two different species. And yet, we have absolute proof. There's that word proof that we interbreed homo sapiens and Neanderthal interbreed and produced for the offspring. So do you think they're the same species? I don't think they're the same species. According to the definition of a biological species, we are the same species, but we're being represented as two different species. Yeah. So that is a scientific definition. In order to give the appearance of evolution where there is no evolution. So yeah. Okay. So I think we're getting way off topic into you can't give me an alternate definition of a biological I gave you a definition. I don't know if you accepted it, but I did give it. So why can two species breed yet produce infertile offspring? Why does that happen? I don't know. And that has nothing to do with the subject. That has nothing to do with it. Well, I mean, horses and donkeys can interbreed and produce offspring. Why are they infertile? Well, I don't know. Well, I'll tell you why it's because their vectors of DNA have diverged. That has nothing to do with the biological definition of species. And it does. That's the definition I gave. And the reason why is because once they have diverged a certain amount, what happens is that those animals can no longer produce fertile offspring. They produce infertile offspring, which is why they're different species. They can still interbreed and they can still produce offspring.  And it is infertile. And there's a ton of them. There's tigers and lions produced ligars. Your explanation of offspring of species doesn't address that. Well, apparently, your short-sightedness in this field doesn't want to help you either because not all mules are infertile, number one. Lions and tigers interbreed and they have fertile offspring. That happens all the time. Dogs, coyotes, and wolves are called separate species. And yet we have poor dogs. We have poor wolves. They're all the same species according to the biological definition. But in every one of these cases, you have them classified differently to give the appearance of evolution, where there is no evolution. So wolves and dogs aren't the same species. Of course they are. Canons, lupus, and ones canon familiaris. So you don't even know that. The dog, that is a subspecies of the gray wolf. They're both canus lupus. Okay. Well, I mean, you do know that we sort of domesticated wolves and bred them through artificial selection into what dogs are. Excuse me, Eric, please, please. We've bred them into what dogs are today from wolves. How does that excuse you from the biological definition of species? Well, you can't just say dogs. You have to differentiate domesticated dogs. Why? And because there's a difference. Why? Because of the classification of species and subspecies. They're the same species. Well, species is an arbitrary concept. No, it's not. It's not arbitrary. It is. It's no more arbitrary than mammals and reptiles. Yeah, exactly. That's the whole point. So the problem is we're trying to fit the sort of modern understanding of genetics into the Linnaean system. That's what the problem is. And there's a lot of issues with things being really undefined and not able to be easily categorized. Because when you're talking about biological entities, when you're talking about biological entities, they're really hard to classify. And the problem isn't that we have the wrong theory and we have no idea what's going on. The problem is trying to fit these things into a sort of domain kingdom phylum, this Linnaean system that we're sort of stuck with. It would be better if we could trace the Linnaean. I would like to remind everybody. Just to hear the last sentence or let's let Mark finish that sentence. Yeah, I think I think Erica has got a bit of a self-control problem. The problem is trying to fit them in and it would be better if we could trace the individual genetic lines for each creature and how they diverged. But our classification system at the moment is imperfect. And that's why, as you said about the tree of life, the tree of life isn't a perfect representation because it is based upon this ordering system that isn't the best thing for seeing how these animals work with one another. So I'm sorry if I got things wrong, but the problem is the system of ordering, not that we've got the wrong theory. Sorry, go ahead. Okay, okay. I just want to remind everybody that comes from somebody that did not know that dogs and gray wolves were the same species and said that exactly the other, that the opposite is true. Now, I do respect your position. I do respect your right to hold any position you want to. I really did. And I would have a beer with either one of you guys. I believe you both would be fine with just to settle down with and have a beer. And I mean that sincerely. But I want to say this, where I differ with you and where I'm going to call you out is by making certain statements as though they are true and proven and you have no problems. You've got so many problems with evolution. I could lay them out all night long and you wouldn't be able to keep up. You've got so many problems. And just like from the very beginning, I told everybody, you'll make lots of claims, but you have no proof for any of it. No. And you don't. It seems to be you who's doing that. You're the one who's doing that though. And I have a question to ask you. Are horses and donkeys the same species? I would say they are. You would say they are. But scientists don't say they are. Tigers and lions the same species.  I care about the definition that we have before us. It's 300-year-old definition. Are tigers and lions the same species? This definition is only a problem for evolutionists. Are lions and tigers the same species? Yes, according to the biological definition. Okay, so you think tigers and lions are the same species. Can I just focus on, okay, maybe I got something wrong, but you actually think and will try and defend that lions and tigers are the same species? If you're going to say that they're not like creatures that have the ability to interbreed and produce their offspring, fine, believe that. But the definition of species, biological definition of species, that's exactly what it is. So if you want to differ on definitions, that's fine. If you want to differ on classification, differ. But I'm just pointing out you have to make adjustments because you're trying to you're trying to defend evolution. We don't have to make it. I thought we agreed on the species definition though. I thought we agreed on the definition. We don't have to. I thought you did.  And then we definitely have to see if Sal is still. Yeah, I'm so sorry, Sal. I don't want to be a two-on-one debate. Yeah, yeah. That's a bit. If you want to wrap up that point here. Sure. Let me just point out that just like I said in the beginning, it's the onus is on them to prove that evolution is true.  They're full of claims. And I have something here I want to put into chat. While you do that, we'll kick it over to Mark and Atheist Jr. Yeah, I think that sort of saying, well, you require absolute proof. And there's these kind of things that are, you've got to go back and DNA test archaeopteryx, but can't be DNA tested. And things like this is just, it's kind of just a tap dancing. All we can do is present strong evidence for evolution. And why? And of course, we're not geneticists or evolutionary biologists. They can certainly present it in much greater detail and much stronger than we can. But we can just present the strong evidence we have from multiple different lines, why we think that evolution is true, which I think we have done. Now, it sounds to me, and I may be incorrect, that for religious and sort of I touched on miracles earlier to get the ERVs into different genomes, they don't want to believe the evidence that's in front of them. And that's their decision. But all we can do is prevent, present the incredibly strong evidence that's out there. AJ. Yeah, I mean, if I can just list really quickly, if it's on us to provide evidence for evolution, then we have different fields that not only confirm evolution, but also cross confirm evolution, like anatomy, molecular biology, biogeography, like where we find different animals living on earth and where their fossils are and the fossils themselves. And I gave an example of what I think is direct observation of evolution with the single celled algae going to multicellular. Yeah. And the thing is that all of these lines of evidence converge on one answer. It isn't just we take one by itself and say, hey, that's the smoking gun or the big thing kind of thing. There's strong evidence. And yeah, there's weaker evidence, but they all converge on one answer. And that's the strength of the evolutionary theory that it has multiple lines that all give the same answer. And you're sort of just saying, well, it's got nothing to do with one another. And I don't believe it. Well, that's fine. But the evidence is out there. No, I'm not saying that it on the front. What I'm saying is you have an observation. You have a hypothesis, but it's untested. You cannot test any of your hypotheses. And then you go around calling them facts. That's where I have a problem with your side. You're not being, you're not being intellectually honest. You're calling your hypothesis. You're saying, because I developed this hypothesis or somebody else developed it and I'm holding to it, because we hold to this hypothesis, that is, that is a test as to whether or not this is true. Well, that's not what a test is. That's, that's the, that's the hypothesis you have built on an observation. And it's untested. Is my mic working? Yeah, yeah. Regarding the transition, supposedly from single cell to multi cell, that could be a transgenerational plasticity. I'll give you an example of a multicellular organism becoming a single celled organism. That is the canine transmissible venereal tumor. We had a full dog express a cancerous tumor and now it's a single celled parasite that transmits between dog. We do not expect that to ever evolve back into fully functional dog. There are plenty of examples where evolution is reductive, where it's locked to function. And that's a good example right there. And to cite that algae thing as macro evolution, we actually may not have surveyed, have a large enough sample size to see if it had these transgenerational plasticities are probably better terms that people use. That's the problem. Regarding independent origins, if the earth is young, if the fossil record is young, and that would be young earth creationism, just on scientific evidence alone, I've asked evolutionary biologists, will there be enough time for universal common ancestry? They'll say no. So therefore, the similarity has to be because a common design, not common descent. Young earth creationism, and I've said this, it's still hard. We have a lot way to go to make a scientific case for that. The alternative would be something like progressive or old earth creationism. So that does raise the question if it's young earth, why are we so similar to other creatures? It is, I have posited these other creatures are model organisms. They help us, we help understand human biology by having a progression of creatures all the way from bacteria to chimpanzees. That's why we do medical research, you think bacteria to understand our own genome, we use yeast to understand chromatin, we use nematodes and other creatures to understand our nervous system, etc, etc. So I would just say it's common design and it can be with the testable prediction. Young earth creationism has some testable predictions like the decaying magnetic field, if that is vindicated, maybe not in my lifetime, but in certainly civilization's lifetime, that would lend credence that these are independent origins. So just because evolution succeeds in some predictions doesn't mean it can't be falsified by all these other ones. That's how geocentrism failed as a hypothesis. Geocentric models correctly predicted eclipses and lots of other things in seasons, but it was fundamentally wrong because of the anomalous things. I've tried to provide some evidences of what are anomalous in evolutionary theory. Want to give a chance to Atheist Junior? Maybe a two to five minute warning before we go into the Q&A, but go ahead, Mark and Atheist Junior. Yeah, the problem there, Sal is just sort of saying evolution wouldn't expect multicellular single cell and that's not the case. Evolution expects whatever is fit as per its environment. It doesn't say that the aim of life is to get to multicellularity. It doesn't say that that's the best for the environment. That may well be the case, but that's not necessarily so. So yes, multicellular two single cell is an example of evolution. It has evolved to gain some benefit. Now, it might have lost functionality in some ways, but if that is beneficial for the organism, it will be selected for. So when you do sort of say these things, you've got to not misrepresent what evolution actually posits as its hypothesis. Now, you touched on the waiting time problem. There isn't enough time for things to evolve over time. You touched upon that, but the problem here is creationists want to see mutations happen in series, one after another, after another, after another, and then they say, oh, they can't possibly be enough time. The problem with that is that mutations don't happen that neatly in a serial pattern, one after the other, after the other. They happen in parallel in populations. So some of the population might have some mutation, some part of the population might have other mutations, and then recombination sort of makes them work in parallel as it goes down. So nobody except creationists say that there's a problem with the amount of time. And I'm not sure what the decaying magnetic field has to do with this. I think that's completely off the topic, and I'm not that familiar with the decay of the magnetic field. I think that in order to show that a decaying magnetic field has some sort of impact on mutation and population, then you would certainly have to show, do more than make the claim that is so. And granted, you did say that might be later on, but I would love to see something sort of experimented on about that. Do you have anything to add, Ajay? Yeah, you'll notice that when I brought up my algae example, they didn't go from single to multi-cellular just for no reason. There's something called a selection pressure, which was the introduction of a predator into their environment. And the example you brought up with the parasite is interesting. I don't know if going single cellular made it easier for it to transmit to another host or not, but that is an interesting sort of parallel. But these type of changes, they're not going to happen unless there's a selection pressure, unless there's some sort of advantage to be gained. You're not going to see changes like this, so they're not going to just happen for an arbitrary reason, which I think a lot of creationists ask, like, why doesn't a turtle grow wings or something like that instead of getting a longer neck to reach vegetation? Well, it's because it already has a neck, so it's easier for it to just change the structure it already has rather than completely grow a new structure like this. And I'm not really familiar either with the decaying magnetic field, but we might actually see the magnetic field flip in our lifetime, so that's interesting, but I'm done. Opportunity, we are going to jump into the Q&A, folks. Want to say thanks so much for your questions and want to remind you our guests are linked in the description. That includes at the podcast. You can find their links down below. If you didn't know, folks, our debates end up on the Modern Day Debate podcast available at Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and Find Podcasts Everywhere. And we put our guest links in the description box there in case you'd like to learn more about their views. What are you waiting for? Click those links with this first question coming in from, do appreciate it. Durpinheimer says, what could someone do to falsify evolution? I'll take that. It depends on how you define it. If you define it by common ancestry, the way to falsify common ancestry is, if we find evidence, the earth is young. And even evolutionary biologists will say there's just simply not enough time. The patterns of similarity would then be attributable to access special creation. And that's how it could be falsified. I refer to the magnetic field decay, there are other evidences for young earth. That is one of them. That's a very complex topic. And I'll be the first to admit that even though I will make the case for young earth, I think we have a long way to go to prove it. I personally believe it is young. Got it. Thanks very much. Your question, do appreciate it. Joe Short says, what will the next stage of human evolution look like, and why aren't we there yet? Well, the humans sort of have interrupted and a lot of papers sort of say have interrupted the evolutionary process because detrimental mutations that come up, they're not being weeded out like they would in nature due to medicine and our changes of environment. So I think the next stage in human evolution will maybe be a theoretical one, sort of a manipulating DNA directly. But it's sort of impossible to tell. It supposes a whole lot and supposes a whole massive stuff of the way that humanity goes. But I personally think that direct genetic manipulation will be the next evolution of humans, intentional evolution. Yeah, I think this is a fascinating topic. So evolution and so organisms are sort of plastic to their environment. So I've always wondered, I don't think this is something that I could see the changes in my lifetime, but how the invention of the internet and how it's become so critical to people's lives might actually affect human evolution because it's changed our environment, our lifestyle so much to where people are a lot more insular, sedentary. And I also have to wonder about the sort of meta-affective. Once you become aware of evolution, does that also have some sort of effect on it? Like Mark said, directly changing DNA and then it raises all type of moral questions about is it right to alter the genome of your baby before it's born, stuff like that, taking out possibly genetic disorders and stuff like that, which I'm all for. But I think it's a very interesting topic, but I would have to say that I don't know personally. You got it. And thank you very much for this question. Coming in from Sunflower says, Mark, on ERVs, which can you remind me, I remember it's retroviruses. Indogenous retroviruses. Mark, on ERVs, you're not allowed to invoke quote-unquote likelihood or probability. When confronted with the fine-tuning argument and the entailed improbability, you and your ilk just hand-wave it, be consistent. Well, the fine-tuning problem is sort of addressed because we have there's theories or hypothesis rather to get around it, like multiverse theory, for instance. And the problem here is that we know there's only one way that retrovirus can get into every cell in the organism's body. We know that there's millions of target sites it could choose, and yet it's the same target site through every single instance in those organisms. For, as I said, between humans and chimps, for instance, 205 of them. And you have to say probability when you're talking about a virus inserting itself somewhere in the DNA. I'm not sure how you would get around that. How you would say, hey, it chooses the site. It doesn't. We know that it doesn't because we are familiar with retroviruses. HIV is a retrovirus, and it doesn't choose. And this is just not how they work. So, unfortunately, you're sort of comparing apples and oranges here. And nobody says that you can't address the probability in fine-tuning. It just says that there are defeaters for the probability question in fine-tuning. You don't think DNA is designed to store certain things in certain areas? I don't think it's designed at all. Yeah, I don't think it's designed at all. But I agree with AJ. I don't think it's designed. And I don't think it's designed to store viruses. You certainly have a lot of scientists disagree with you. Okay, let me ask you something. Just to stick with the audience's questions, I do want to give Mark a chance to give any sort of response. I don't know what scientists say that DNA is designed to store viruses. I would like to see that citation. This one from O'Flamia says, what is your definition of time? I suppose all speakers could, this could be for all of you. Thank you for your question. I would say time is undefined. In mathematics and physics, we have entities that are undefined. That means you don't define it consistently. It's really understood by running the whole system. Thank you for the question. Well, I would say that when it comes to you don't really separate time and space, you combine them in a mathematical model that combines the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a four-dimensional manifold. And time itself, I guess it would just be a linear sequence of events that we can only experience going one way. But that's our own interpretation of it. So that could be wrong. Yeah, I agree with A.J. on the spacetime. And I think that it is poorly defined. And our understanding of spacetime is really just getting off the ground floor at the moment. But yeah, that's good enough for me. You got it. Anybody else? This one coming in from Cameron Hall says, creationists, since homo sapiens are great apes, how did we speciate in 6,000 years? In the first place, I'm an older creationist.  Never makes any such statement. And besides, that question has nothing to do with proving that evolution is true at all. As a matter of fact, I would go so far as to say that there's no time for evolution. And science has proven this. Modern accepted scientific experimentation, and I can put it right in front of you right now, that shows you beyond any shadow of any doubt, but there's no time for the Pachacitas to evolve into a well. There's no time for a common ancestor to evolve into a monkey and a chimp. It's simply not possible. Sal, any thoughts? I think they were specially created. I used to see a theistic evolutionist then became an older earth creationist and a young earth creationist. I worked for a top genetic engineer, retired Cornell research professor, John C. Sanford, and I think the evidence is consistent that the human genome is deteriorating very fast. Even an evolutionary biologist by the name of Kondrashov said, rhetorically asked, why aren't we dead 100 times over? So I don't think the human species could have been here very long. Therefore, we were specially created by a miraculous act that is the testable prediction as far as genetic deterioration. Some evolutionary biologists think that we're not going to last long and we can also test within like the next few generations, whether we're gutting, dumb or in sick, or which also seems to be the case. Any thoughts? Okay, this one coming in from do appreciate it. Bitter truth says question to believers. Why living organisms, why are living organisms genetically close to each other? Don't you think they all have a common ancestor? If not, explain why not. Dr. Craig Venter, the foremost geneticist in the world, says there is no tree of life in the common descent. It's an artifact of old science that hasn't worked out. And if Dr. Craig Venter, the world's foremost geneticist in the world that has actually written on his own computer DNA and injected it into a E. coli bacteria cell and watched it come to life and replicate it, if he says it, I'm not going to argue it. It doesn't exist. I don't think there's one specific person who's like the best geneticist in the world. Science doesn't really have authority figures like that that are just the one best person at genetics. So well, he's the one that so many people would love to have.  And Francis Collins absolutely says that evolution is real. So I'm not sure what his stance on it, but his colleagues seem to disagree with him. Yeah, and if Richard Dawkins disagreed with him too, but he didn't argue with him. Yeah, that's what I wanted to mention is that him and Richard Dawkins have disagreed on the tree of life. But I would bet you that both of them agree that evolution itself happened and is continuing to happen. So there are disagreements about the specifics in the field of evolutionary biology, but that doesn't mean that scientists think that it's not true. I'll tell you why I believe that there are patterns of similarity and diversity. And this is actually in some of my published work on protein biology. It's very complicated stuff. But fundamentally, if we didn't have other creatures, we would not be able to research ourselves. Marshall Nirenberg, who won the Nobel Prize, was able to figure out the genetic code by studying bacteria. It would have been brutal to try to start off with something as complex as a human being. So this progression of forms enables the scientific method. It's great that we don't have to dissect baby human fetuses. We can do this with pigs. So I think these are provided by the designer to help us. So we can either look at this as the similarities as due to common ancestry or as a gift to common design that helps us do science. I prefer the latter. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Summer, good to see you, says Sal. The idea that biology is maximized towards efficiency is a false concept, even in theory. Look at the structure of the kidney, for example. It needs to filter water through it multiple times. And even then, there is still waste. Thank you very much for that comment. Evolutionary biologists have just a habit of just sticking their foot in their mouth, like Jerry Coyne in talking about bad design. It's the biophysicist that are saying biology is optimized. It's more perfect than you imagine. You can go on my channel. I have a recording of William Bileck, either Princeton or Yale, and he gave the Hans Bader lecture. And he said, the way biology is optimized, it's so good, we can't even match it. It's at the edge of physics. So it just depends on what you mean, what the criteria you apply for good or bad. But in terms of some things like sensory organs and energy efficiency and et cetera and timing, it is at the maximum. Just look at that and have a different perception. And I will point out, Jerry Coyne said the retina was poorly wired. He used this bad design argument until the physicist said these things are great waveguides. It is exceptional. Anyone who's worked with waveguides and electrical engineering and electromagnetic theory, their jaw drops at this. So it depends on who you ask, who will say it's good or bad. But I'll tell you the technology in biology on many levels exceeds anything we can do, such as the ability of sharks to sense electric fields. Thank you very much for the question. You got it. This one coming in from Superdore Energy. She's back. She says, didn't Toppo 2 likely begin as DNA cleaver that evolved the ability to do strand passage? Type IB is an example. They are related to recombination proteins. You get a working Toppo from a nucleus by a single amino acid change. I have to dispute that. By the way, Ms. Energy, nice to see you. One of my favorite people. The problem with using endonucleases is you can invoke that, but then how do you stitch things back together? So an endonuclease can cut. It doesn't untangle and it doesn't reconnect. So just assuming that you have, you can evolve a Toppo or something that's just the cutter. Where's the ligation happening? Where is the untangling happening? Where's the sensing of the knot? So one mutation, it's like, well, which one? Because I can identify several that if it's not there, the Toppo doesn't work. You got it, Anne. Thank you very much for your question. This one coming in from Thanks for your super sticker in Davenport and Bitter Truth says green anoles evolved in 15 years. Look, whale, pelvis, hip joint, testes, hair, long fingers, under wings. Isn't this evolution? How can you decline fact, Eric or Sal? Okay, I have to repeat that. I'm sorry. They said green anoles evolved in 15 years. Look, whale. I don't even know what anoles. Have you guys ever heard of this word? They're like lizards. Oh, thank you. Said they evolved in 15 years. Look, whale has a pelvis. I think they're saying like, if you look at alleged whale, transitionary fossils, try to stay as neutral as possible. They say whale, pelvis. No, modern ones, they have sort of that reminence of a pelvic bone. Okay, they say whale, pelvis slash hip joint slash testes, hair slash long fingers, under wings. Isn't this evolution? How can you decline fact? And I've seen it evolved in 15 years. Oh, they're saying anoles did. Appreciate the reference. I've never heard of anything like that. And then the other thing is you can't count out transgenerational plasticity. So characterizing transgeneral plasticity is the result of random mutation in natural selection. That's not right. And we need to study this more because a lot of things that were claimed to be natural selection and random mutation ended up to be environmentally sensed plasticity. So this is a more complex topic and evolutionary biology is to have a way of just watching up the data and attributing it to something. And then it gets overturned by future information. This one from bitter truth says evolution is giving us model a model. If you reject, then what is your model? How universe was created, including living organisms? Miracle of God. Yeah, miracle of God. You know, there's something to be said for this too. Mark brought up the second chromosome as evidence for evolution. And they keep saying, well, this is evidence of fusion. This is and because it was fused, this has to be evolution. Well, I disagree with that. It's not proof of evolution. It's proof that a chromosome fused, which happens all the time. Now, what gets me what I find interesting for the creationist is that this is the second chromosome. And what my opponents may not be aware of is what the second chromosome actually represents and controls. It controls higher intelligence and coordination. Now, why is this important? Because when you look at the Bible and God created mankind, just because I we got to forgive me, but just because I can't remember how it was related to the, let's see. It wasn't. I'll give you a little bit to finish up, but then I do want to also because you addressed one of Mark's points earlier. Once you finish up, I do want to give Mark a chance to actually respond. When you get to this, when you get to this point, and you look at the second chromosome and what it actually does, when God created man in his own image and created him specifically to subdue the world, to take charge of everything around him, make the world his. He was going to be in charge. He was going to overtake the entire planet, be in charge of all the animals. And that's exactly what the second chromosome would have controlled. It gives him the ability to do this. And I'm telling you, I think that this right here is more evidence for special creation than it is for anything else. Because that's exactly what we've got. We are in a total class of our own. We're not like other animals. We are gods on this earth compared to the other animals. You got it. We'll give Mark a chance to respond because you addressed his point earlier. Yeah. And so this whole thing is sort of a bit weird. Okay, so chromosome to infusion, I pointed out why we believe that they are fused. It's very strange for someone to sort of go, oh, well, it was an act of God after going on and on and on about unfalsifiable claims and then provides the most unfalsifiable claim you could ever make in your entire lifetime, which is a supernatural being use some sort of magic to make it happen so that humans could rule the earth. How exactly would one go about falsifying that? It's ironic, I think, and quite sort of hypocritical to be so bold to say to make a claim like that after going on and on and on about unfalsifiable claims. Yeah, so I mean, we presented the evidence that they did fused, we've presented the evidence that we, you know, the telomeres and the centromeres. But for somebody to just go back and say, well, it was God, I don't think that's a very good answer. And I think that it doesn't address the question at all, which is what model do we have? Because just saying God has no explanatory power. It doesn't explain anything. It's not okay for you. I hate to do this, but just because we have so many questions, I do have to, you have to keep moving guy with a hair says Eric says, quote, it's an unfalsifiable claim. It's science fiction. By Eric's logic, the alternative claim of a creator or God is science fiction, as it's also unfalsifiable. Well, I'm glad that he brought that up. You see, here's the point. You see, do you see the double standard here? It's okay for my opponents to do this. It's okay for the atheist side to do this. It's okay for the evolutionists to do this, when that's all they have to offer. The only thing they have to offer are claims that they cannot prove. Just blatant claims. And they'll sit here and admit they can't prove it. And then they'll say science doesn't prove anything. In fact, in spite of the fact that science proves things every single day, it just does their science doesn't prove anything. Yeah, that's not what I said. I would like to just take this opportunity to add something on the last question. I wasn't aware that chromosomes allow us to have higher functions. I thought that was the neocortex of our brain. I thought chromosomes just assist in any replication. You don't know what the second chromosome is responsible for. Only the second one? I would suspect googling it. I would advise you to google. I'd just like to add just very quickly that evolution isn't an atheist thing. There's plenty of evolutionary biologists, geneticists, all people working in the evolutionary field, which are theists. They believe in a God. So the difference is, as a creationist, I choose to believe in creation because of the study of evolution. As an atheist, you are forced to accept that evolution is true. Otherwise, I don't have to accept evolution. Of course you do. No, I don't. You have to eat from it. I do have so many questions. I do want to get to as many questions as we come before we run out of time. This one from Sandyford. We got that one. Bitter truth says evolution based on empirical evidence. What about religion, just belief without any evidence? How can we believe in fake ideology and blindly follow it? Sal, if you have any thoughts? I'm going to break with my creationist and ID fellows. I would say the idea of God is outside of testable science. We can use scientific arguments in favor of creation. That means evidence against evolution, evidence against abiogenesis is evidence in favor of creation. Even Ernst Teckl said, at least as far as what he called spontaneous generation, is if we don't have it, then we have to, our only recourse is supernatural creation. So the thing about evolution is I've just shown all these things where you guys have to, where evolutionary biologists have to accept it, that it happens naturally. That is according to ordinary laws of physics and chemistry and that is not supported empirically. So it's like there's plenty of faith as far as believing in evolutionary biology and its major claims that this happens naturally and well within ordinary laws of physics and chemistry. And one of those where it fails is in the transition from peru karyot to eukaryot. And this is a very complex thing. Most people don't study this. It's why I'm trying to bring attention to it. You'll see that you'll need miracles of special creation if you invoke universal common ancestry. And at what point do statistical miracles, if we can infer it, when will that, how improbable does it have to be before you'll accept that it's a miracle of God? Sorry, go ahead, James. Sorry. I'll give you just because there haven't been a lot of questions for you. I'll give you a chance really quick, Mark. Well, I disagree with just the dichotomy. I understand what you're saying, Sal, that this proven evolution would point towards a miracle. I get what you're saying, but that's a false dichotomy. The reason why is because there can be other things postulated like aliens coming down and building these things at certain times. That isn't a God. So the problem here is that you're raising a false dichotomy, evolution or God, where the options are evolution or not evolution. And that's your problem. You're trying to insert a God into a dichotomy that is not there. And I don't believe in that explanation, Ethan. I sincerely believe in evolution, but that's your problem. You can't just assume God because not evolution. Well, there's something else that Joe are assuming that you can't assume. And that is, there's more to God than just that. There is also the fact that we know God, some of us do anyway. We have actual experience with that. I could ask you, do you know your parents? How do you know you had parents? Well, you have experience with your parents. You have conversations with your parents. You may have eaten with your parents. I have experienced with God. I've had experience with God all my life. I've seen God. I've heard God. I've talked to God. God has spoken to me. Now, some people might ridicule that and that's okay. They're entitled not to believe me if they don't want to. But that's the difference between us. Some of us do in fact know God, but none of you in fact know evolution occurred. And you sure can't prove it. Any thoughts, A.D.S. Jr., before we go to the question? We haven't heard much from you either. Well, I do. I'm not even going to touch that one, but I think there might be a nugget of truth to what Sal was saying that with evolutionary biology, specifically paleontology, there are large gaps where we kind of have to sort of fill in our own explanations that may or may not be right, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we should go to a fallacy like God of the gaps instead. Now, I think the foundations of the field like of paleontology are based in science to where we can make these assumptions and guesses, they're educated guesses, but filling in those blanks with a God did it, I don't think is a better method than just making these educated guesses. I hate to do this, but just because I'm trying to get Mark and Atheist Jr. in because there aren't a lot of questions for them, so that's why I've got to run to the next one. This one, appreciate your question. This one from Stupid Horror Energy says, isn't the fact that ERVs are solo LTRs and the result of recombination and deletion events of full-length pro-viral genomes support common ancestry? Long-term repeats. Thank you for your question, Ms. Energy, and I always do shows that collect her questions because she asked good ones. The fact that ERVs are seeming to be positioned in just the right locations to be able to do what we call gene regulation through the 4D-nucleome suggests that these are not random insertions. There may be some, but the majority would have to be for coordinated function, and then again I refer to the Google Sternberg-Collins paradox. You'll see my description of this. You'll also see what happens that you have things like the zinc finger cap1 complex that docks on these things and does gene regulation sometimes possibly even transchromosomally. I reject the idea that these are random insertions. We're finding more function for these the more that we study, so the very least is premature, and whenever air pollution biologists say it says it's a mistake, history has proven them wrong, and I'm not going to bet that they're going to be right. They'll be wrong again on that, but thank you for the question. The fact of the genome itself, the fact that it was mapped is proof that specific parts of the DNA are made specifically to perform specific functions, and that would be including storing of retroviruses. Give a chance to Atheist Jr. Mark, if you had anything to add before we go to the next one. No, not really, although I think I'm not familiar with this paradox or certainly read up on it, but I don't think Sternberg is well regarded after he did put this out as far as I'm aware, maybe self and enlightenment on that one. Yeah, we could just move on. You got it, and thank you very much for your question or your support, I should say. Standing for Truth says, keep up the great work, James, my man, appreciate your support, as well as Alyosha. Thanks for your huge support, says thanks for hosting this. Thank you, and thank you to our guests, as well as everybody for your questions. That makes the Q&A, but also our guests are linked in the description. They are the lifeblood of the channel. We highly encourage you to check out their links. If you haven't, what are you waiting for? Their links are basically waiting for you right now, including if you're at the podcast. Pirasi Gold says, just to embarrass me, two tickets to the gun show on Tag Team Tuesday, amazing! Thanks for your support. And this one coming in from Bitter Truth says, why human and chimpanzee chromosomes are similar question to believers? Why we have genetic similarity with chimpanzees? The answer is to optimize scientific discoverability, and by the way, I'm going to have an after show just so I could be a little, you know, I could address some of the audience questions a little bit more in detail. So it's on my channel. That's a lot of self-promotion there, but I do want to honor that question. I will address it in my after show. But the fact that we have model organisms, we don't have to sacrifice human fetuses. Instead, we could do this, these terrible cruel experiments to mice, etc. That's a gift of God. And every Christian that is a theistic evolutionist, I just tell you, you ought to be thinking about maybe that it was specially created for your sake, that we don't have to do things like embryonic stem cell research on human fetuses. You got it. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Sunflower says, for what it's worth, I have a bachelor's in biochem. I am far more qualified and educated on this topic than aging and Mark combined. I don't know who you're going to win over with that. Neither of those were questions. So that's true. That's okay. That's all right. But thanks for your pointing out my lack of credentials sunflower. I think I did bring that up at the start, but thanks for reinforcing that. I think cell is the only one, unless Eric does have some kind of degree in biochem. I think I knew a bio-mechanical engineer cell. I do apologize. I can't remember your credentials. I don't even know where that came from. Sunflower, I get it. Sunflower is just a bit angry. I think I'm not sure. I love your sunflower. I really do. Slightly pedantic, but this one coming in from Durpinheimer says, this one bitter truth says, why chimpanzee chromosome 2a and 2b similar to human chromosome? I think you basically addressed the cell. Do you feel like you have? Just my previous answer and thank you very much for the super chat and the question. These are great questions. Thank you. Well, can I, I wanted to comment on the on a previous question. This one's really similar, but the reason that humans and chimps have genetic similarities is because humans, chimps and bonobos descended from a common ancestor like six or seven million years ago. So it's one closely related. One, which common ancestry? An ape. That's the claim. Which common ancestor? I don't know the specific one, but it doesn't really matter. It's just a claim that you can't even point to one and say that's it. Much less have something testable. You just make a claim and throw it out there as fact. In other words, that's scientifically irresponsible. Okay. In fairness, this isn't a scientific paper. This is just a debate. In fairness, Mark, this is exactly what you used with the fellow that you and he discussed dinosaurs. And I'm actually, I thought you had a good point there. Three different times. I could point them out. I've got the timestamps from the video on your site where you were debating the data. And you simply said that you can't look at these things and just make a claim and call that scientific. You said that three different times. Yes. So you mean I can point to articles and papers that sort of say what the common ancestor is. It's Cleobartes. But they're what we're pointing to. We're not just making the claim in a vacuum with nothing to point to. This is the problem. Show it to us. Okay. I'll go get it on my backyard. I'm not sure what you're expecting here. I hate to do this. We've got to move forward. Snake was right. Friend of the channel. Friend of, I think you guys, yeah, I was going to say a lot of you guys have crossed swords with Snake was right before. So Sal, if tornadoes actually you guys are perverts says if tornadoes actually selected junk for functional structure, then shouldn't we expect them to make cars? Well, I that's exactly the, you know, the point is that they wouldn't. So the premise is false. There's no reason the point is no reason to pursue it further. So the thing is, as far as evolution goes, there's a lot of randomizing there if we talk about random mutations. And I was trying to point to the diagrams. You know, I know that some people don't like that thing where I said cars. You could the point is geometry. You have to have connecting parts. Biology works because you have connecting parts. They're much more precise than anything you would do with cars. As far as geometry in the connectivity, you need to have charge distribution so that they match where the positive matches the negative on the corresponding part. This is very difficult to put together. So tornadoes a figure of speech for the randomizing actions of whatever goes on in the in the process of reproduction is just not going to make coordinated structures, particularly multi mirrored proteins. You got it. And thank you very much for this question coming in from stupid or energy says in endo symbiosis, there is going to be an intermediate stage where the gene will be in both genomes. The cell has a chance to evolve to control a copy from the nucleus without losing the function in the mitochondria. The problem with the endosymbiotic hypothesis and I covered it in one debate before is that 85% of the mitochondrial genome is in the nuclear is in the nucleus. So you have all these transport issues. Oh, that's the other thing. The membrane bound nucleus is very problematic. And endosymbiosis does not solve that. So again, you know, one of the problems is I mentioned it was nuclear localization. So endosymbiosis, even if you assume it as contributing to eukaryotic evolution, it really doesn't explain the fundamental salient features of eukaryotic components such as membrane bound organelles, and then other things like spliceosomes, et cetera, et cetera. This one from appreciate it better truth says Bible says the earth is flat with the sun orbiting earth. And that God made this world in six days and God made plants first and then the sun. Do you believe in this question to the believers? That's not what the Bible says. I don't believe in a flat earth. I do believe in a relative in a young earth, maybe less than 10,000 years. Thank you. Thank you for the question, everybody. You've got it. And this one coming in from do appreciate your question. Contrary in four to zero says evolution requires quote an initial replicators. No. Yeah, I mean, it does. And but that a biogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory. That doesn't mean it's not important. It's a very important field of science. But according to that's not so just like I finish, agree. No, I mean, I'm pretty much done. But that's all I wanted to say. Yeah, I would agree with AJ. And I just want to mention that a biogenesis isn't as well fleshed out as evolution. We know some of the steps to a biogenesis. It's not a biogenesis theory because we haven't got that level of evidence that evolution has. So we're a bit fuzzier on a biogenesis. And that's perfectly fine. There's a number of hypothesis about how it came forward. And they're much disagreement about it. But it's fascinating, nonetheless. And hopefully we can shed more light on it as tests go on in labs. Thank you. This one from bubble gum gun says snake was right wants to debate me. Set it up. Well, maybe email me. Better truth says God made isn't God made it isn't a good explanation and only a story, but not a model. Is this because God failed? I do agree with the idea that it's not a model because I think it's more of an ad hoc explanation after the fact rather than trying to use hypotheses based on phenomena and observations and then making predictions and doing experiments and seeing if those predictions come true versus just explaining things after the fact by saying God did it. Is God failed? He's referencing the flood, maybe. I don't know. It's not my question. Sorry. I'll let the others answer. The creationist model does lead to some testable predictions such as decaying genomes. This is verifiable. If the genomes, not just the humans, but of other creatures are losing complexity, this would indicate that evolution really never worked in the first place. If you just Google reductive evolution and there's even a paper by Eugene Coonan that the major mode of evolution, the dominant mode is reductive evolution and then they have these unexplained bursts of complexity. That's indistinguishable from miracles. This does lead to testable predictions depending on which creationist model you have. We'll see this play out. Right now, the empirical evidence is not favoring evolution. I just saw a paper in 2017 by Lensky as a co-author, lead author, Kochi, that the genome decays despite fitness gains, and this was an E. coli bacteria. We may be seeing the biosphere slowly losing complexity. This would be inconsistent with naturalistic evolution. I think it is, depending, God did it, it's not a specific model, but we could say miraculous actions plus genomic decay is a testable model. Thank you for the question. We don't see that genomic decay. We don't see that in the Mayfly experiments that have been going on 100 years. We don't see that in the product of Lensky labs. We see some loss in function, but not the decay that you're talking about. I want to jump to this next one because we have a number of yet bitter truth says evidence against evolution, but where is that evidence? In other words, what types of evidence is there against evolution, Sal and Eric? There is no evidence for that evolution is a thing anyway, at least nothing provable. The only thing that evolution has been able to, the evolution of this site has been able to show tonight is that they have observations, they have built hypotheses and then they claim that that is proof their hypothesis. I think they're asking like, is there evidence against it rather than just a lack of evidence for it? I provided some examples. I even quoted Dr. Stan's turn card now that talked about independent protein origins. Where do these independent major protein families come from? I pointed out that this would be indistinguishable from miracles for some of the major ones, particularly multi-meric proteins. This from Bill Huger says, could Eric or Sal explain why males have nipples? I can't explain that. I don't study. I'm not that fascinated by male nipples. This one, Eric? They're so fascinating. What are you talking about? Come on, Sal. Admit it to the world. Come on. This one from bitter truth says, did you meet God? Can I get his address or can you show us God, Eric? Not only can I show you that belief in God is less absurd than belief in a biogenesis and evolution. I think that would be doxing. I think that might count as doxing. I can prove that. Let's look at this. First of all, a biogenesis. You have a biogenesis and then you have biogenesis. Now, evolutionists don't want to claim a biogenesis as part of evolution. But in order for life to evolve into the myriad forms we have today, life had to evolve into life in the first place. And if you go to Berkeley, I can put this on the screen share. I'm looking at it right now. Berkeley University from their Evolution 101 course from soup to cells, the origin of life. So they talk about a biogenesis being the beginning of evolution. Now, think about what we observe. What do we observe? Do we observe life randomly forming? No. Have we observed it in nature? No. Have we observed it in the lab? No. What have we observed? What we actually observe? Every living organism that you can point to, through time to now, every single one, the trillions upon trillions upon trillions have been brought about through another life that existed before them. Never before have we witnessed in the lab or in nature anything randomly forming and popping into life. It just doesn't happen. So you believe in the absurd when you believe in a biogenesis. Biogenesis is the observation that life only comes from life. Intelligence only comes from intelligence. Consciousness only comes from consciousness. And that is all we observe.  Now, when you go then to quantum physics, okay, the double-sword experiment to move forward. Yeah, I think we're getting off topic. This is not off topic. Let me go back to the question just to be sure. Can you show us God? Or can you give us God's address? I don't even know if that was a sincere question. But this one, we've got to jump into the next one.  Go figure. How do you like them, apples? Eric and Sal. There was a Nobel Prize winner by the name of Richard Spauley that rejected evolution, and I expect they're going to be more. Yeah. Yeah, that's Eric. All right, this is coming up, bro. I'm just teasing you, Eric. We appreciate, want to remind you folks, catch the link to the description. Eric and Sal and Mark and Atheist Jr. What are you waiting for? This one coming in from BitterTrue says retroviruses use viral enzymes to copy their own genome, which is stored in an RNA transcript into DNA. Was that a question? I don't know if that was a question. Some of these are, this is definitely intended for Sal, and it's more of an objection towards Sal. They're not always in the form of a question, but nonetheless, it is for Sal, and they said retroviruses use viral enzymes to copy their own genome, which is stored in an RNA transcript into DNA, or I should say Sal or Eric, either of you. It's going to count for some, so there could, there's definitely some, there's some insertions for sure, definitely, but it doesn't account for all of them, and so this is just the general problem with, we just see it emerge one, and we get a mistake, and we just assume all of these were kind of mistakes or insertions, but I was pointing out the problem of coordinating this to do things like where we had the 4D-nucleome and the St. Fink or Cap 1 complex, and just a whole bunch of other things like phase transitions. This cannot be random, so just the fact that you find some examples of random insertions doesn't mean it explains it all. Not to mention, we don't actually know the origin of viruses. We think some virus, there is a theory that all viruses came from cellular life, now that's very problematic, because then the origin of viruses would then be from cellular life, and the cellular life is created, that's where the viruses came from the beginning. Thank you for the question. This one coming in from Bitter Truth says, evolution based upon observation and DNA, what is against it? I think there's kind of the same question they had earlier, what evidence against evolution. This one from Bitter Truth says, can you show us Adam and Eve fossils so I can reject evolution finally? No, I can't show you Adam and Eve fossils. You got it, Anne. Thank you for the super chat. Might be the last one. We can't show you Malachite man though in the same 110 million year old strata as the blaster raptor and T-rest of them. You got it. Anne, in case I miss anybody's question, please do let me know if you fired it in there and I didn't read it, but otherwise I'm going to jump into the standard question from Diamond S says, Craig Venter found a minimal genome. There were like 200 minimal proteins for a functioning cell, any less and it wouldn't work. For Mark, how can you get 200 proteins at once? Well, the whole assumption is that it sort of evolved into what modern does, that they didn't have any intermediate sort of stages and any other functionality beforehand and we've covered this, that there are not only proteins that had different functions, but they also had proteins and DNA sequences you could take out and they formed exactly the operated exactly the same, maybe not on an optimum level. The problem here that you're sort of making, the error that you're making is saying this protein must form fully fleshed out, operating an optimum level and with every other protein interlinked and that's not how they evaluate how these proteins developed. They develop over time doing multiple different functions and then they're co-opted into what they are today and we have examples of that. You got it? AJ, do you have anything to add? Yeah, I agree with Mark. DNA is redundant, you can take out or change multiple letters in a nucleotide sequence and instead of killing your organism or having some really horrible effect, a lot of times it doesn't change anything. So I think in these type of questions we usually assume that if any change is made to these type of proteins that it's going to have some huge impact, but a lot of time it doesn't. This one from the craw daddy, sassy says I like how the affirmative side, although let's see, I don't know if, yeah okay they say I like how the affirmative side is sitting quiet since all the defense has to come from the negative side. Maybe you'll actually learn evolution. I think that's for you Sal and Eric. It's almost as sassy as, what was his name? Well thank you very much. Thank you very much for the question. I studied under a top evolutionary biologist who's a staff member of Eugene Cummins and he made some good points but I think basically you know they might be able to make good arguments for common ancestry but it fails in the evolution of complexity. By the way I've published in Springer Nature a criticism of natural selection and the problem of the definition of fitness. It retails for $1,500 but you can get it at your local university library shelves and so there are a lot of both theoretical and empirical problems with evolutionary theory. I'm pleased to say that I'm one of the few creationists that's actually published in Secular Peer Review. Thank you. You got it and I think that's it for the questions. Just let me double check but want to say folks if you enjoy juicy debates like this highly encourage you. You probably have friends who enjoy them as well. You can share this debate by clicking on that share button down below and that's a way that more people can hear this debate especially hey if you thought your side was more persuasive I mean you might as well share it. So I want to say though we appreciate our guests they're linked in the description. You can click on those links right now including if you're listening at the podcast in addition to YouTube so I want to say one last thank you. We appreciate it. It's been a true pleasure. Atheist Junior, Mark Reed, Eric and Sal thanks so much for being with us tonight. Thank you. Thank you. And it's good meeting you everybody here. Yeah it was great to meet you Sal and Eric. Fantastic. I'm going to be back with a post credit scene and a big announcement in just a moment folks. So stick around for the post credit scene and we'll let you know about some upcoming debates as well as some other mumbo jumbo juicy stuff. So thanks stick around and I'll be right back. My dear friends I am pumped to be with you. Let me just unscramble the old screen here in the old OBS. Want to say thanks so much for being here. It is always fun. Want to say hello to you in the old live chat as well as as I mentioned just some juicy updates. My dear friends I have got news. I am very excited to be here. Let me it's like it's weird. It's never seen that before. Let me just pull this in just expand a little bit and oh there I am. Okay. Well thanks for your patience. My dear friends I am pumped you guys to be with you. Want to say thanks so much for your support as modern day debate. We are pumped that it has been growing growing growing. Thank you guys for your support. You guys really it does make a difference. All of the ways that you support modern day debate hitting like hitting share that third person you could say like kind of that that genuine credibility as people share. Hey this is modern day debate. Check out this link. I think you might like it. You like controversial topics like me. That really does help so we appreciate all of your guys support seriously. You make this channel fun and John Mathers. I don't know if that we I think it was your super chat came in just as we were going off air. It says a book dealing with the evolution of Abrahamic religions Judaism Islam and Christianity is Yahweh and the gods and goddesses of Canaan by John Day. Thanks for letting us know about that John Mathers and thanks for your support of the channel and got to tell you folks we are pumped. So let me tell you a couple of well first let me say hello to you there in the old chat. I killed Earl. Thanks for coming by. I see you there in the old live chat as well as Mirion Gran Bruheim. Thanks for coming by and Master Optics glad to have you. Sandy Pigeon good to see you again. Jake Green glad to have you with us. Perfect one thanks for coming by says there is still time to hit the like button. That's true. We're at 152 with eight more likes. We will be at 150 likes. That is a big goal for a live stream that's been spectacular as well as pie sorrow. Thanks for being with us. I see you there in the old live chat. Jeremy Nolan good to have you back. Jake Green happy you're here rigged election 2020. I should not have just by saying those words is probably going to get it's going to ping the video but glad you're here. Tuck from thanks for coming by Richard S. happy to have you. D Ross pumped you're with us. Kid Joel thanks for coming by Richard S. happy you're here. It's a Rubix. Thanks for dropping in King 101. Happy you're here. TG FKA trickter thanks for coming by.  Thanks for being with us as pump up the guns. I can't I told you it's an all in optical illusion. I believe me although I can tell you guys we are at 252 likes if we can get to 200 likes which is 50 that's a lot because we did we just hit that goal of 150. Thank you so much for those eight people that hit like we have enough easily to get to 200 likes if we can get to 200 likes I will take off my shirt and show you my subway tattoo. If you have not seen this tattoo yet I don't know if you saw on the news several weeks ago you probably didn't because it's not a big story but it was actually like I was on Fox News and I was on Yahoo Finance and like so it was kind of a story basically if I got a 12 by 12 subway tattoo on my back they would give me subway for life and I saw it and I said I'm doing it so I flew to Las Vegas to this subway promotion event and I went to the tattoo shop at that time I actually got there two days early and waited out in the heat and it was brutal but long story short I got there I waited for two days and then the likes are going up fast is that 157 already I will I'm dead serious I will take my shirt I'll show you this I have a 12 by 12 it takes up basically my whole back so it's huge it is a gigantic tattoo and if you haven't seen it before believe me it it's I looked at it this morning I looked at it I didn't like and I saw it and I was like oh gosh like that yeah that's that's there that's huge I forgot that was there for a second but Air Church good to see you Mardale thanks for coming by we are glad you're here evidence and reasons thanks for coming by as well as King 101 and Richard S we are glad to have you and Rebel Nazarene thanks for dropping in praise I am thanks for coming by says his T jump James's son he's I always say he's my twin brother remember Brooke Sparrow says smash that like button thanks for that that was a long but long before the tattoo announcements the how long says James has the best fake condensing snark voice thank you I appreciate that and this one this one from Sapir Adi thanks for dropping in it says yeah Sal but did you study under Craig Venter ooh Sal excellus Thibodeaux thanks for coming by as well as Jackie in Baptist happy to have you Solverix thanks for coming by seriously thanks for being a channel symbol supporter we do have channel memberships did you guys know that I'm totally serious we really do we also have a patreon if you didn't know we do have a patreon in the description box and it has small perks you can check it out if you'd like if you didn't know yeah we do have a patreon that link is down below and flooded area three two six one good to see you again King Klebold glad that you are with us as do you realize this is the captain that you're talking with that is funny I'm so glad you said that in fact I have something to say to you oh wait let me make sure this is right two seconds okay I have something to say to you hi what's up we hope you're doing well King Klebold I too enjoy the soundboard pranks nobody enjoys soundboard pranks more than me I don't know I'm like I'm a pretty big fan but thanks for kind words Elijah McMahon says James is awesome been watching you a while thanks Elijah seriously that really does mean a lot oh and and yes thanks for coming by we are glad you were here if you are new folks you may be wondering what's this modern day debate channel like what's what exactly is it what's your goal or what do you want from me well here's what we want from you my dear friends we want you to join us as we fulfill this vision in particular of striving to provide a neutral platform so that everybody can have their chance to make their case on a level playing field that's important to us and we care about our values and here are values in particular one as you can tell from our tagline we want everybody to have a fair shot we want things to be truly equal so whether you be Christian atheist politically left politically right Trump supporter Biden backer Bernie bro you name it we are glad you are here and we want to give you a fair shot that's why we only host debates we don't have any sort of aftershows where we blast one side and say oh that was so bad when they said this wasn't that stupid no no no we don't do that for us we want to give everybody a fair shot and we let you the audience in the comments decide who you thought was more persuasive and that goes into our second major value that we hold dearly in particular we care that people have the ability to say what they want and you might be thinking oh I don't know James I mean something's it can be that can be dangerous or harmful and my thought is this that's why our third value is so important we do value competition we believe in the you could say natural selection of ideas the arena of arguments that the best ideas are going to win out and there's empirical data for this really I can make a good empirical case for that being the case because some people say well yeah but I know that you know for example let's say we have someone who a lot of people will say hey I don't like these alt right guys and I gotta be honest I'm not an alt right person myself I'm a pretty vanilla bland guy I'm a pretty moderate like middle of the road type of guy so yeah I wouldn't identify as like a Bernie bro or like a alt right or whatever it is I'm like kind of like I'm undecided on a lot but I gotta tell you there's some people would say oh you can't let the alt right types you can't let them on it's dangerous James and I say well I don't know I mean do you think that their arguments are better they go no of course not and I say well but if you don't think their arguments are better like and you think the arguments against them are actually the best arguments then why is it so bad and wouldn't they just lose I mean wouldn't that be a good thing that are you know kind of arguments or ideas or kind of exposed you could say and they say well and I say because you know the empirical data it really does I'm not joking about this the empirical data does suggest no joke I'm not just saying this that indeed the best arguments will win out and some people might say well yeah but what if their speaker is of whatever controversial position that they don't like because sometimes they maybe people even say we don't want those flatterthers to be allowed on here or whatever and they might say but it might be that they're more persuasive because you know maybe they have like kind of a socially suave speaker speaking on their behalf and you know we don't like that because they might be you know especially suave or persuasive and you know just because they're good looking or have a sense of humor whatever it is and so they might say you know that's why you shouldn't host and say well the empirical data suggests that the best arguments are going to win out even while you could say controlling for or factoring in you know those people who might be suave or good looking or have a great sense of humor whatever it is all that all things consider the best arguments do tend to win out and so that's why we value those things namely we want to give everybody a fair shot we believe in true tolerance which is yeah we're gonna platform people that we don't even agree with in the slightest like in fact if you think about it you really can't agree with everyone when the questions are oftentimes contradictory so or and I should say you could say the answers to the the question are actually contradictory so like you know if you say is there a god it's like well there is or there isn't like there's really no you might be a middle grounder yourself or you're like well I'm on the fence but in terms of reality like there is or there isn't like one of us is wrong right so want to say Melania good to see you there thanks for your channel membership support seriously means a lot says hey James sorry I missed the live show we'll watch tomorrow well we're glad you made it Melania thanks for saying hi and Rob Simpson good to see you as well as Joe Schwartz says do you think the world will look like what do you think the world will look like in 10 years I don't know normally I'd say things are going to be about the same they've always been and because I've thought about this a lot but at the same time man you know what ever since maybe 2016 I've wondered if we've been on some sort of alternate timeline because obviously it was like whoa like nobody whether you like him or hate him nobody predicted well some people predicted most people didn't predict Trump was going to win and then he did but then also like the pandemic we've never seen anything like that another one that I never thought would happen in my lifetime we saw rovers's Wade get overturned another one is and this is still it's not as big as like rovers's Wade overturning but it is pretty big is that like 10 000 in college relief that's another big thing like the world is oh and then yeah you know like the war in Ukraine gosh I can't I feel like I'm worried about saying these words because I feel like you know blank tube is gonna like crack down on me and they're gonna put those little like you know those little like disclaimers that they put at the bottom of a video that's like you know uh regarding this topic you know blah blah blah blah and you know well we want to make sure that you so Sapir Audi I see you there in the old live chat Largo Stefanius thanks for coming by as well as you to have a cue good to see you again perfect one says my question is what can you get if you get an amazon tramp stamp oh baby if I could get amazon free amazon for life you know I get an amazon tattoo Cameron Hall says do you have to show the subway employee that tattoo whenever you shop no they gave me gift cards and let's see but let's see King Cleveland says I can't believe you watch Kimble I do King Kleebold were you watching Kimble before you like you you didn't hear about them for me right because I've like tweeted their stuff like were you just all were you already just watching Kimble and then you just one day were in the live chat and you're like is that modern day debate the channel I also watch because yeah I'm like that's so funny uh that what a small world but Jake Green says more mark read I think that'd be fun you know we enjoy Mark Mark's been a huge supporter of the channel and then I killed Earl says let's hope we don't turn into an authoritarian dystopian hellscape fair enough new Amy Newman thanks for coming by says pure Aussie Sal is having an aftershow I'll pin that I've got that pinned at the top of the chat we used to link aftershows for people no matter what view they you know had uh people don't do aftershows